Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Notices 12113 

pipe, from Korea covering the period of 

review (POR) of August 1, 2003 through 

July 31, 2004 to reflect the Final 

Remand Results. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This matter arose from a challenge to 

Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than 

Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 13091 (March 14, 2006) 

(Final Results), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

covering the POR of August 1, 2003 

through July 31, 2004. In the Final 

Results, the Department found that the 

use of third country sales to a non– 

market economy, the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) in this case, were 

inappropriate for determining normal 

value, because these sales were not 

representative. Id. As such, in 

calculating normal value for SeAH Steel 

Corp. Ltd. (SeAH), the Department used 

SeAH’s third country sales to Canada, 

and in calculating normal value for 

Husteel Co. Ltd. (Husteel), the 

Department used constructed value. 

Therefore, SeAH was assigned a rate of 

6.84 percent, and Husteel was assigned 

a rate of 12.30 percent. Id. 

In Husteel Co., Ltd. and SeAH Steel 

Corporation Ltd. v. United States, 

Consol. Ct. No. 06–00075, Slip Op. 06– 

2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), the CIT remanded 

the Department’s Final Results holding 

that Department did not adequately 

explain its basis for finding that the 

prices of HuSteel’s and SeAH’s 

(collectively plaintiffs) sales to the PRC 

were not representative pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Specifically, the CIT found that the 

Department failed to explain: (1) why 

plaintiffs’ sales should be treated as 

sales into a non–market economy 

(NME); and (2) why the Department 

treated plaintiffs’ price data differently 

than it treats price data for sales from 

market economy suppliers to NME 

respondents in its NME dumping cases. 

On October 30, 2007, the Department 

issued its Results of Redetermination on 

Remand Pursuant to Husteel Co., Ltd. 

and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v. 

United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06–00075, 

Slip Op. 06–2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), 

(Remand Results I). In Remand Results 

I, the Department continued to find 

Plaintiffs’ sales into the PRC were not 

representative of section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act and 

provided additional support for this 

determination. 

In Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH 

Corp., Ltd., v. United States, Consol. Ct. 

No. 06–00075, Slip Op. 08–62 (CIT June 

2, 2008) (HuSteel vs United States II), 

the CIT remanded the Department’s 

Remand Results I, holding that the 

Department’s finding, that sales into an 

NME are not representative, was not 

supported by substantial record 

evidence. The CIT directed the 

Department to either present persuasive 

record evidence that plaintiffs’ sales 

into the PRC were not representative 

within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), or find the sales 

into the PRC to be representative, and 

then recalculate and assign the plaintiffs 

new antidumping duty assessment rates. 

On August 29, 2008, the Department 

issued its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to Husteel vs 

United States II. See Results of 

Redetermination on Remand Pursuant 

to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH 

Corp., Ltd., v. United States (August 29, 

2008) (Remand Results II). The remand 

redetermination explained that, in 

accordance with the CIT’s instructions, 

after finding sales to the PRC to be 

representative, the Department 

recalculated the assessment rate for 

SeAH and Husteel. Specifically, the 

Department determined SeAH’s new 

weighted–average margin to be 0.59 

percent, and Husteel’s new weighted– 

average margin to be 0.62 percent. 

However, in the Remand Results II for 

Husteel, the Department inadvertently 

treated certain Korean inventory 

carrying costs as if they were 

denominated in U.S. dollars when they, 

in fact, had been denominated in 

Korean won. Therefore, in Husteel 

Company Ltd. and SeAH Corp. Ltd., v. 

United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06– 

000075, Slip Op. 08–127 (CIT November 

21, 2008), the CIT upheld the 

Department’s Remand Results II, with 

the exception of the calculation of 

certain inventory carrying costs. The 

CIT ordered the Department to correct 

its calculation of Husteel’s Korean 

inventory carrying costs. In accordance 

with the CIT’s order, the Department 

corrected its calculation with regard to 

Husteel’s Korean inventory carrying 

costs. See Final Remand Results. As a 

result, Husteel’s new dumping margin is 

now de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 

percent) and SeAH’s margin remains 

0.59 percent. 

On January 29, 2009, consistent with 

the decision in Timken Co. v. United 

States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the 

Department notified the public that the 

CIT’s decision was not in harmony with 

Department’s final results. See Oil 

Country Tubular Goods, Other Than 

Drill Pipe, From Korea: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony with Final 

Results of Administrative Review, 74 FR 

5147 (January 29, 2009). There was no 

appeal of the CIT’s decision to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

filed within the appeal period. 

Therefore, the CIT’s decision is now 

final and conclusive. 

Amended Final Results of the Review 

As the litigation in this case has 

concluded, the Department is amending 

the Final Results to reflect the results of 

our remand redetermination. The 

revised dumping margin in the 

amended final results is as follows: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Husteel Company, Ltd .. de minimis 

SeAH Corp., Ltd. .......... 0.59 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

liquidate entries of OCTG from Korea 

during the review period at the 

assessment rate the Department 

calculated for the final results of review, 

as amended. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. We 

intend to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these amended final 

results of review. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March March 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–6326 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XN80 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Alaska; Application for an 

Exempted Fishing Permit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
12114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

exempted fishing permit. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application from the Best Use 

Cooperative (BUC). If granted, this 

permit would allow three BUC vessels 

to remove halibut from a codend on the 

deck, and release those fish back to the 

water after determining the physical 

condition of the halibut with the 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission method for predicting 

halibut mortality. The EFP would allow 

operators of BUC non–pelagic trawl 

vessels to study methods for reducing 

halibut mortality in trawl fisheries by 

evaluating various fishing and handling 

practices. This activity has the potential 

to promote the objectives of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act by 

assessing techniques for reducing 

halibut discard mortality in non–pelagic 

trawl fisheries. Comments will be 

accepted at the April 1 to April 7, 2009, 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) meeting in 

Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: Interested persons may comment 

on the EFP application during the 

Council’s April 1 to April 7, 2009, 

meeting in Anchorage, AK. 

ADDRESSES: The Council meeting will be 

held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third 

Avenue, Anchorage, AK. 

Copies of the EFP application and the 

basis for a categorical exclusion under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

are available by writing to the Alaska 

Region, NMFS, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, 

AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. The 

application also is available from the 

Alaska Region, NMFS website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hartman, 907–586–7442 or 

jeff.hartman@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the domestic groundfish 

fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area (BSAI) under 

the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the BSAI (FMP), which 

the Council prepared under the 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Regulations governing the groundfish 

fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR 

parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the 

implementing regulations at 

§ 600.745(b) and § 679.6 allow the 

NMFS Regional Administrator to 

authorize, for limited experimental 

purposes, fishing that would otherwise 

be prohibited. Procedures for issuing 

EFPs are contained in the implementing 

regulations. 

The International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage 

fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis) through regulations 

established under the authority of the 

Convention between the United States 

and Canada for the Preservation of the 

Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific 

Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention) and 

the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates 

regulations pursuant to the Convention. 

The IPHC’s regulations are subject to 

approval by the Secretary of State with 

concurrence from the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary). 

NMFS has received an application 

from the Best Use Cooperative (BUC) for 

an EFP that would allow them to 

evaluate methods to improve discard 

survival of incidentally caught halibut. 

This study could assist that sector in 

reducing halibut mortality in the non– 

pelagic trawl gear fishery. 

Background 

Regulations implemented by the IPHC 

allow Pacific halibut to be commercially 

harvested by the directed North Pacific 

longline fishery only. Halibut caught 

incidentally in other fisheries, such as 

non–pelagic trawl fisheries, must be 

sampled by observers, and returned to 

the ocean as soon as possible. 

Regulations implementing the FMP 

establish annual halibut bycatch 

mortality limits, also referred to as 

halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) 

limit, for the groundfish fisheries. 

Fisheries close when they reach their 

seasonal or annual halibut PSC limit 

even if the allowable catch of 

groundfish is not yet caught. In the case 

of the Bering Sea flatfish fishery, 

seasons have been closed before the 

fishery quotas have been reached to 

prevent the fishery from reaching the 

halibut PSC limit. Reducing halibut 

mortality and assuring that each halibut 

returned to the sea has the highest 

possible chance of survival are therefore 

high priorities for the IPHC’s, the 

Council’s, and NMFS’s management 

goals for both halibut and groundfish. 

Before halibut are returned to the sea, 

the catch of halibut as well as other 

groundfish must first be estimated by 

at–sea observers. A number of 

regulations assure that observer 

estimates of halibut and groundfish 

catch are credible, accurate, and without 

bias. For example, NMFS requires that 

all catch be made available for sampling 

by an observer; prohibits tampering 

with observer samples; prohibits 

removal of halibut from a cod end, bin, 

or conveyance system prior to being 

observed and counted by an at–sea 

observer; and prohibits fish (including 

halibut) from remaining on deck unless 

an observer is present. 

With the implementation of 

Amendment 80 to the FMP on 

September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), 

allocation of halibut PSC amounts was 

modified for vessels in the Amendment 

80 sector, but halibut mortality 

continued to limit fishing in some 

fisheries. The Amendment 80 sector 

received an initial allocation of 2,525 

metric tons (mt) of halibut PSC in 2008, 

but that allocation will decrease by 50 

mt per year until it reaches 2,325 mt in 

2012 and subsequent years. This 

amount is further allocated between the 

BUC and the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. In certain years, this 

amount of halibut PSC allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector is less than the 

sector’s historic catch; therefore, finding 

ways to continue to improve halibut 

survival is important for this sector. 

The EFP applicant proposes to assess 

various fishing practices and their effect 

on halibut survival. It would allow 

researchers onboard the three catcher 

processor vessels to sort halibut 

removed from a codend on the deck of 

the vessel, and release those fish back to 

the water after determining the physical 

condition of the halibut using standard 

IPHC viability methods for predicting 

mortality of individual fish. Fishing 

under the EFP would occur in two 

phases during 2009. In May and June, 

Phase I fishing would allow sorting of 

halibut on deck to determine practices 

for reducing halibut mortality. Later in 

the year, Phase II would apply the 

halibut mortality saved in Phase I to 

allow additional EFP catch of 

groundfish and halibut within the 

BUC’s allocation. 

This proposed action would exempt 

the participating vessels from: 

1. the prohibition to conduct any 

fishing when the fishery is closed due 

to reaching the limit for halibut 

Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) under 

§ 679.7(a)(2); 

2. the prohibition to bias the sampling 

procedure employed by an observer 

through sorting of catch before 

sampling, at § 679.7(g)(2); 

3. the prohibition to exceed an 

amount of halibut cooperative quota 

(CQ) assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative at § 679.7(o)(4)(v); 

4. a requirement to weigh all catch by 

an Amendment 80 vessel on a NMFS– 

approved scale at § 679.27(j)(5)(ii); 

5. the requirement for all catch to be 

made available for sampling at 

§ 679.93(c)(1); and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Notices 12115 

6. the requirement for halibut to not 

be allowed on deck without an observer 

present at § 679.93(c)(5). 

The exemptions to § 679.7(a)(2) and 

(o)(4) would be needed only if the BUC 

were to reach the 2009 Amendment 80 

cooperative apportionment of halibut 

mortality (1,793 mt). In the event that 

BUC reaches this amount, the BUC’s 

directed fishery for groundfish would 

close. If the amount of halibut mortality 

savings estimated under this EFP shows 

less mortality than the amount 

estimated using standard 2009 halibut 

discard mortality rates established for 

the Bering Sea trawl fisheries (February 

17, 2009, 74 FR 7333), BUC may be 

allowed to continue fishing for 

groundfish species later in the year, 

with some limitations. The BUC would 

be required to submit a report to NMFS 

and the IPHC of the estimated halibut 

mortality saved during the Phase I 

agency review and determination of 

halibut savings. After review and 

approval by NMFS, the BUC may be 

allowed to do subsequent EFP fishing at 

the end of the year as Phase II fishing 

under the EFP. The BUC would be 

limited to no more than the BUC’s 

Amendment 80 groundfish allocation. 

The additional amount of halibut caught 

would not exceed the amount of the 

halibut mortality savings under the EFP, 

or BUC’s 2009 allocation of halibut PSC. 

This EFP would apply for the period 

of time required to complete the 

experiment in Phase I and potentially in 

subsequent fishing in Phase II, during 

2009, in areas of the BSAI open to 

directed fishing by the BUC. The EFP 

activities would be of limited scope and 

duration and would not be expected to 

change the nature or duration of the 

groundfish fishery, fishing practices or 

gear used, or the amount or species of 

fish caught by the BUC. 

The activities that would be 

conducted under this EFP are not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

the human environment as detailed in 

the categorical exclusion issued for this 

action (see ADDRESSES). 

In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has 

determined that the proposal warrants 

further consideration and has forwarded 

the application to the Council to initiate 

consultation. The Council will consider 

the EFP application during its April 

2009 meeting, which will be held at the 

Hilton Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska. The 

applicant has been invited to appear in 

support of the application. 

Public Comments 

Interested persons may comment on 

the application at the April 2009 

Council meeting during public 

testimony. Information regarding the 

meeting is available at the Council’s 

website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/ 

council.htm. Copies of the application 

and categorical exclusion are available 

for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 17, 2009. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6350 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO19 

Permits; Foreign Fishing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign 

fishing application; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public 

review and comment information 

regarding a permit application for 

transshipment of Atlantic herring by 

Canadian vessels, submitted under 

provisions of the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson–Stevens Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 6, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments or requests 

for a copy of the application to Mi Ae 

Kim, Trade and Marine Stewardship 

Division, Office of International Affairs, 

NMFS, 1315 East–West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD. Comments on this notice 

may also be submitted by e–mail to 

nmfs.foreignfishing@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line the following 

document identifier: RIN 0648–XO19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mi 

Ae Kim, Office of International Affairs, 

(301) 713–9090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 204(d) of the Magnuson– 

Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to issue a transshipment 

permit authorizing a vessel other than a 

vessel of the United States to engage in 

fishing consisting solely of transporting 

fish or fish products at sea from a point 

within the United States Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the 

concurrence of a state, within the 

boundaries of that state to a point 

outside the United States. In addition, 

Public Law 104–297, section 105(e) 

directs the Secretary to issue section 

204(d) permits for up to 14 Canadian 

transport vessels to receive Atlantic 

herring harvested by United States 

fishermen and to be used in sardine 

processing. Transshipment must occur 

from within the boundaries of the State 

of Maine or within the portion of the 

EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 

minutes west and within 12 nautical 

miles from the seaward boundary of that 

State. 

Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act provides that an 

application may not be approved until 

the Secretary determines that ‘‘no owner 

or operator of a vessel of the United 

States which has adequate capacity to 

perform the transportation for which the 

application is submitted has indicated 

... an interest in performing the 

transportation at fair and reasonable 

rates.’’ NMFS is publishing this notice 

as part of its effort to make such a 

determination with respect to the 

application described below. 

Section 204(d)(3)(B) of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act provides that an 

application may not be approved until 

the Secretary determines that ‘‘the 

applicant will comply with the 

requirements described in section 

201(c)(2) with respect to activities 

authorized by any permit issued 

pursuant to the application.’’ Section 

201(c)(2) identifies multiple 

requirements related to monitoring, 

compliance, and enforcement, such as 

allowing authorized officers to board 

and inspect vessels, installation and use 

of position–fixing and identification 

equipment, and stationing of observers. 

Summary of Application 

NMFS received an application 

requesting authorization for 10 

Canadian transport vessels to receive 

transfers of herring from United States 

purse seine vessels, stop seines, and 

weirs for the purpose of transporting the 

herring to Canada for processing. The 

transshipment operations will occur 

within the boundaries of the State of 

Maine or within the portion of the EEZ 

east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes 

west and within 12 nautical miles from 

the seaward boundary of that State. 

Interested U.S. vessel owners and 

operators may obtain a copy of the 

complete application from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES