Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 19197 

1The frontseating service valve differs from a 

backseating service valve in that a backseating 

service valve has two sealing surfaces on the valve 

stem. This difference typically incorporates a valve 

stem on a backseating service valve to be machined 

of steel, where a frontseating service valve has a 

brass stem. The backseating service valve dual stem 

seal (on the back side of the stem), creates a metal 

to metal seal when the valve is in the open position, 

thus, sealing the stem from the atmosphere. 

conditioning or refrigeration unit is 

being serviced. Frontseating service 

valves rely on an elastomer seal when 

the stem cap is removed for servicing 

and the stem cap metal to metal seat to 

create this seal to the atmosphere during 

normal operation.1

For purposes of the scope, the term 

‘‘unassembled’’ frontseating service 

valve means a brazed subassembly 

requiring any one or more of the 

following processes: the insertion of a 

valve core pin, the insertion of a valve 

stem and/or O ring, the application or 

installation of a stem cap, charge port 

cap or tube dust cap. The term 

‘‘complete’’ frontseating service valve 

means a product sold ready for 

installation into an air conditioning or 

refrigeration unit. The term 

‘‘incomplete’’ frontseating service valve 

means a product that when sold is in 

multiple pieces, sections, subassemblies 

or components and is incapable of being 

installed into an air conditioning or 

refrigeration unit as a single, unified 

valve without further assembly. 

The major parts or components of 

frontseating service valves intended to 

be covered by the scope under the term 

‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are any brazed 

subassembly consisting of any two or 

more of the following components: a 

valve body, field connection tube, 

factory connection tube or valve charge 

port. The valve body is a rectangular 

block, or brass forging, machined to be 

hollow in the interior, with a generally 

square shaped seat (bottom of body). 

The field connection tube and factory 

connection tube consist of copper or 

other metallic tubing, cut to length, 

shaped and brazed to the valve body in 

order to create two ports, the factory 

connection tube and the field 

connection tube, each on opposite sides 

of the valve assembly body. The valve 

charge port is a service port via which 

a hose connection can be used to charge 

or evacuate the refrigerant medium or to 

monitor the system pressure for 

diagnostic purposes. 

The scope includes frontseating 

service valves of any size, configuration, 

material composition or connection 

type. Frontseating service valves are 

classified under subheading 

8481.80.1095, and also have been 

classified under subheading 

8415.90.80.85, of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). It is possible for 

frontseating service valves to be 

manufactured out of primary materials 

other than copper and brass, in which 

case they would be classified under 

HTSUS subheadings 8481.80.3040, 

8481.80.3090, or 8481.80.5090. In 

addition, if unassembled or incomplete 

frontseating service valves are imported, 

the various parts or components would 

be classified under HTSUS subheadings 

8481.90.1000, 8481.90.3000, or 

8481.90.5000. The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, but the written 

description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Antidumping Duty Order 

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) 

of the Act, the Department will direct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess, upon further 

information from the Department, 

antidumping duties equal to the amount 

by which the normal value of the 

merchandise exceeds the export price 

(or the constructed export price) of the 

merchandise for all relevant entries of 

FSVs from the PRC. These antidumping 

duties will be assessed on all entries of 

FSVs entered, or withdrawn from the 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

October 22, 2008, the date on which the 

Department published its notice of 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. See Frontseating 

Service Valves from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Preliminary Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 73 FR 62952 

(October 22, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

Cash Deposits 

On and after the date of publication 

of the ITC’s notice of final 

determination in the Federal Register, 

CBP will require, at the same time as 

importers would normally deposit 

estimated duties on this merchandise, 

cash deposits for the subject 

merchandise equal to the estimated 

weighted–average antidumping margins 

listed below. 

Exporter/Producer Combination Percent Margin 

Exporter: Zhejiang 

Sanhua Co., Ltd..

Producer: Zhejiang 

Sanhua Co., Ltd. ....... 28.44 

Exporter: Zhejiang 

DunAn Hetian Metal 

Co., Ltd..

Exporter/Producer Combination Percent Margin 

Producer: Zhejiang 

DunAn Hetian Metal 

Co., Ltd. .................... 12.95 

PRC–Wide Entity .......... 55.62 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

FSVs from the PRC, pursuant to section 

736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may 

contact the Department’s Central 

Records Unit, Room 1117 of the Main 

Commerce Building, for copies of an 

updated list of antidumping duty orders 

currently in effect. This order is issued 

and published in accordance with 

section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.211(b). 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9660 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–847, A–570–934] 

1–Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1– 

Diphosphonic Acid from India and the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) and the 

International Trade Commission (the 

Commission), the Department is issuing 

antidumping duty orders on 1– 

Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1–Diphosphonic 

Acid (HEDP) from India and the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC). On 

April 17, 2009, the Commission notified 

the Department of its affirmative 

determination of threat of material 

injury to a U.S. industry. See 1– 

Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1–Diphosphonic 

Acid from China and India 

(Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1146 and 

731–TA–1147 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4072, April 2009). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian C. Smith (India) or Shawn Higgins 

(PRC), AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 

and 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
19198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 

1C2H8O7P2 or C(CH3)(OH)(PO3H2)2

482–1766 or (202) 482–0679, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 11, 2009, the Department 

published its affirmative final 

determinations of sales at less–thanfair–value in the antidumping duty 

investigations of HEDP from India and 

the PRC. See 1–Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1– 

Diphosphonic Acid from India: Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10543 (March 

11, 2009); and 1–Hydroxyethylidene–1, 

1–Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 

2009). 

On April 17, 2009, the Commission 

notified the Department of its final 

determination pursuant to section 

735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), that an industry in 

the United States is threatened with 

material injury by reason of less–thanfair–value imports of HEDP from India 

and the PRC. See section 735(b)(1)(A)(ii) 

of the Act. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise subject to these 

orders includes all grades of aqueous, 

acidic (non–neutralized) concentrations 

of 1–hydroxyethylidene–1, 1– 

diphosphonic acid,1 also referred to as 

hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid, 

hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 

acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic 

acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract 

Service) registry number for HEDP is 

2809–21–4. The merchandise subject to 

these orders is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheading 

2931.00.9043. It may also enter under 

HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes 

only, the written description of the 

scope of these orders is dispositive. 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

On April 17, 2009, in accordance with 

section 735(d) of the Act, the 

Commission notified the Department of 

its final determination that an industry 

in the United States is threatened with 

material injury within the meaning of 

section 735(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act by 

reason of less–than-fair–value imports 

of HEDP from India and the PRC. 

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) 

of the Act, the Department will direct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess, upon further advice by 

the Department, antidumping duties 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value of the merchandise 

exceeds the export price (or constructed 

export price) of the merchandise for all 

relevant entries of HEDP from India and 

the PRC. 

Pursuant to section 736(b)(2) of the 

Act, duties shall be assessed on subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the 

Commission’s notice of final 

determination if that determination is 

based on the threat of material injury, 

other than threat of material injury 

described in section 736(b)(1) of the Act. 

Section 736(b)(1) states that ‘‘{i}f the 

Commission, in its final determination 

under section 735(b), finds material 

injury or threat of material injury which, 

but for the suspension of liquidation 

under section 733(d)(2) would have led 

to a finding of material injury, then 

entries of the subject merchandise, the 

liquidation of which has been 

suspended under section 733(d)(2), 

shall be subject to the imposition of 

antidumping duties under section 731.’’ 

In addition, section 736(b)(2) of the Act 

requires CBP to release any bond or 

other security, and refund any cash 

deposit made of estimated antidumping 

duties posted since the Department’s 

preliminary antidumping duty 

determinations. 

Because the Commission’s final 

determination is based on the threat of 

material injury and is not accompanied 

by a finding that injury would have 

resulted but for the imposition of 

suspension of liquidation of entries 

since the Department’s preliminary 

determinations, section 736(b)(c) of the 

Act is applicable. According to section 

736(b)(2) of the Act, duties shall only be 

assessed on subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of final determination. In addition, 

section 736(b)(2) of the Act requires CBP 

to refund any cash deposits or bonds of 

estimated antidumping duties posted 

since the preliminary antidumping 

determinations and prior to the 

Commission’s notice of final 

determination. 

Therefore, with the exception of 

HEDP manufactured and exported by 

Nanjing University of Chemical 

Technology Changzhou Wujin Water 

Quality Stabilizer Factory Ltd. (a 

company excluded from the PRC order), 

these antidumping duties will be 

assessed on all unliquidated entries of 

HEDP from India and the PRC entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 23, 2009, 

the date of publication of the 

Commission’s notice of final 

determination of threat of material 

injury in the Federal Register, in 

accordance with the following dumping 

margins. 

Country Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average Margin (percent) 

India ....................................................... Aquapharm Chemicals Private Limited 3.10 

................................................................ All–Others 3.10 

PRC ....................................................... Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.2 36.21 

................................................................ Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.3 36.21 

................................................................ PRC–Wide Rate4 72.42 

2 Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 

3 Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 

4The PRC-wide entity includes Changzhou Kewei Fine Chemical Factory. 

On or after the date of publication of 

the Commission’s notice of final 

determination in the Federal Register, 

CBP must require, pursuant to section 

736(a)(3) of the Act, at the same time as 

importers would normally deposit 

estimated duties on this merchandise, a 

cash deposit equal to the estimated 

dumping margins listed above. The 

PRC–wide rate applies to all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise not 

specifically listed. 

The Department will also instruct 

CBP to terminate the suspension of 

liquidation for entries of HEDP from 

India and the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption prior to April 23, 2009, 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 19199 

5See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from India: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination,73 FR 62465 

(October 21, 2008); and 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 62470 (October 21, 2008). 

and refund any cash deposits made and 

release any bonds posted between the 

publication of the Department’s 

preliminary determinations5 on October 

18, 2008, and the publication of the 

Commission’s final determination on 

April 23, 2009. 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty orders with respect to 

HEDP from India and the PRC, pursuant 

to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested 

parties may contact the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

Main Commerce Building, for copies of 

an updated list of antidumping duty 

orders currently in effect. 

These orders are issued and published 

in accordance with section 736(a) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9679 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–580–816 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Amended Final 

Results of the Fourteenth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its final results 

of the fourteenth administrative review 

for certain corrosion–resistant carbon 

steel flat products (CORE) from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period 

from August 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2007. We are amending our final results 

to correct ministerial errors made in the 

calculation of the dumping margins for 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu), 

Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Pohang 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO), pursuant to 

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

as amended (the Act). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 16, 2009, the Department 

published its final results of the 

fourteenth administrative review for 

CORE from Korea for the period from 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Notice of Final Results of the 

Fourteenth Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082 (March 

16, 2009) (Final Results). 

On March 17, 2009, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.224(c), United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), POSCO, and 

HYSCO submitted comments alleging 

ministerial errors, and requested that 

the Department correct these alleged 

ministerial errors. On March 23, 2009, 

U.S. Steel and Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor) submitted responses to the 

ministerial error allegations made by 

HYSCO and POSCO. 

On March 17, 2009, U.S. Steel alleged 

that, with respect to Dongbu, the 

Department inadvertently used the 

difference between the payment date 

and the date of sale as the credit period 

for the calculation of credit expense in 

the home market instead of using 

Dongbu’s submitted customer–specific 

credit period. Further, U.S. Steel alleged 

that, with respect to HYSCO, the 

Department used the incorrect 

beginning and ending day for the period 

reviewed for calculation of the 

comparison market and margin 

programs. 

On March 17, 2009, POSCO alleged 

that: 1) the Department did not use the 

whole month for the beginning and 

ending window period of the 

comparison market and margin 

programs; 2) the Department 

inadvertently included the variable for 

indirect selling expenses incurred in 

Korea on export sales (‘‘DINDIRSU’’) to 

be converted from Korean Won to U.S. 

Dollars, when DINDIRSU was reported 

in U.S. Dollars and did not need to be 

converted; and 3) the Department 

should have included negative dumping 

margins in the calculation of the 

weighted–average dumping margin, 

instead of applying the methodology 

which denies offsets for non–dumped 

sales. 

On March 17, 2009, HYSCO alleged 

that the Department incorrectly applied 

an interest expense ratio based on the 

2006 consolidated financial statement 

for calculation of the 2007 interest 

expense. HYSCO argued that there is 

information on the record that would 

allow the Department to calculate the 

actual interest expenses for fiscal year 

2007. HYSCO also alleged that the 

Department did not make the full 

deductions of transportation expenses 

and ‘‘other expenses’’ in its calculation 

of the general and administrative (G&A) 

expense ratio for 2007. 

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Steel and 

Nucor responded to POSCO’s 

ministerial error allegations arguing: 1) 

that the Department intended to apply 

the zeroing methodology to POSCO’s 

margin calculations, and that it is not a 

ministerial error, and 2) that the change 

of the window period in the comparison 

market and margin programs, and the 

change to the treatment of DINDIRSU 

will have no appreciable difference on 

the margin. Thus, the Department 

should not publish an amended Final 

Results. 

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Steel also 

responded to HYSCO’s ministerial error 

allegations. U.S. Steel argued that: 1) the 

Department intended to make changes 

to the G&A expense ratio by applying 

the 2006 movement expense ratio to 

total selling expenses, and to exclude 

the ‘‘others’’ category from the non– 

operating income, and thus, the changes 

are not ministerial errors; 2) the 

Department intended to apply the 

calculated ratio of long–term to short– 

term interest rates using 2006 data to the 

2007 calculation of interest expenses, 

and thus, the changes are not ministerial 

errors; and 3) HYSCO’s proposed 

changes are based on new factual 

information, not previously on the 

record of this proceeding. 

On March 25, 2009, Union Steel 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. filed a 

summons and complaint with the Court 

of International Trade (CIT) challenging 

various aspects of the Final Results. 

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(e), due 

to the number of ministerial error 

allegations, and the number of 

submissions regarding the ministerial 

error allegations, the Department has 

not found it practicable to analyze 

comments received and correct any 

potential errors within 30 days of the 

publication of the Final Results. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers cold–rolled (cold– 

reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES