Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55769 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224, 48225 

(September 22, 2009) (Initiation Notice). 

outside the Seoul Metropolitan area). 

The loans are not tied to particular 

export transactions. However, a 

company, along with the financing 

application, must provide its export 

performance periodically for review by 

KEXIM. Further, any loan agreement 

may only cover an amount ranging from 

50 to 90 percent of the company’s 

export performance up to 30 billion 

won. 

Hynix carried a balance on a loan 

under this program during the POR and 

provided documentation (e.g. loan 

application, approval document, and 

loan agreement), as well as data 

regarding the loan amount and interest 

paid during the POR. See Hynix’s 

February 25, 2010 questionnaire 

response at Exhibits 10, 12, and 18. 

Based on Hynix’s submitted interest 

payment information for this loan, we 

preliminarily determine that the interest 

Hynix paid was greater than the interest 

Hynix would have paid under the 

benchmark interest rate. Thus, we 

preliminarily determine that Hynix 

received no benefit from these loans 

during the POR. 

B. Export Insurance 

At pages 22–25 of its February 25, 

2010, questionnaire response, Hynix 

reported that it purchased short-term 

export insurance from the Korea Export 

Insurance Corporation (‘‘KEIC’’) during 

the POR. On page 1 of its supplemental 

questionnaire response dated June 3, 

2010, Hynix stated that it received no 

insurance payouts from the KEIC during 

the POR and otherwise made no claims 

on KEIC insurance. 

Under 19 CFR 351.520(a)(2), the 

Department will normally calculate the 

benefit from an export insurance 

program as the difference between the 

amount of premiums paid by the firm 

and the amount received by the firm 

under the insurance program. Because 

Hynix stated that it did not receive any 

payouts from the KEIC during the POR, 

we preliminarily determine that Hynix 

received no benefit from this program 

during the POR. 

IV. Programs Previously Found Not To 

Have Been Used or Provided No Benefits 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following programs were not used 

during the POR: 

A. Reserve for Research and Human 

Resources Development (formerly 

Technological Development Reserve) 

(Article 9 of the Restriction of Special 

Taxation Act (‘‘RSTA’’)/formerly, Article 

8 of Tax Reduction and Exemption 

Control Act (‘‘TERCL’’)) 

B. Tax Credit for Investment in 

Facilities for Productivity Enhancement 

(Article 24 of RSTA/Article 25 of 

TERCL) 

C. Tax Credit for Investment in 

Facilities for Special Purposes (Article 

25 of RSTA) 

D. Reserve for Overseas Market 

Development (formerly, Article 17 of 

TERCL) 

E. Reserve for Export Loss (formerly, 

Article 16 of TERCL) 

F. Tax Exemption for Foreign 

Technicians (Article 18 of RSTA) 

G. Reduction of Tax Regarding the 

Movement of a Factory That Has Been 

Operated for More Than Five Years 

(Article 71 of RSTA) 

H. Tax Reductions or Exemption on 

Foreign Investments under Article 9 of 

the Foreign Investment Promotion Act 

(‘‘FIPA’’)/FIPA (Formerly Foreign 

Capital Inducement Law) 

I. Duty Drawback on Non-Physically 

Incorporated Items and Excessive Loss 

Rates 

J. Electricity Discounts Under the 

Requested Load Adjustment (‘‘RLA’’) 

Program 

K. Import Duty Reduction for Cutting 

Edge Products 

L. System IC 2010 Project 

M. Operation G–7/HAN Program 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Hynix, the 

producer/exporter covered by this 

administrative review. We preliminarily 

determine that the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rate for Hynix 

for the POR is 2.94 percent ad valorem. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate shipments of DRAMS by 

Hynix entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 1, 2008, through August 10, 

2008, at 2.94 percent ad valorem of the 

entered value. 

On October 3, 2008, the Department 

published a Federal Register notice 

that, inter alia, revoked this order, 

effective August 11, 2008. See Dynamic 

Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Sunset Review 

and Revocation of Order, 73 FR 57594 

(October 3, 2008). As a result, CBP is no 

longer suspending liquidation for 

entries of subject merchandise occurring 

after the revocation. Therefore, there is 

no need to issue new cash deposit 

instructions in the final results of this 

administrative review. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit written 

arguments in case briefs within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in case briefs, may be filed not later than 

five days after the date of filing the case 

briefs. Parties who submit briefs in this 

proceeding should provide a summary 

of the arguments not to exceed five 

pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. Copies of 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be 

served on interested parties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Interested parties may request a 

hearing within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Unless 

otherwise specified, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will publish a notice 

of the final results of this administrative 

review within 120 days from the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22889 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–816] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

of the Sixteenth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting the 

sixteenth administrative review of the 

antidumping order on corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products 

(CORE) from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea).1 This review covers eight 

manufacturers and/or exporters 

(collectively, the respondents) of the 

subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. 

(LG Chem); Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55770 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

2Petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel 

USA). 

3See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (CORE 15 

Final Results); 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) (CORE 14 Final Results). 

4Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise; Section B: Comparison 

Market Sales; Section C: Sales to the United States; 

Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing. 

5See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

25841 (May 10, 2010). 

(Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); 

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

and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. 

(POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); 

Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk); 

LG Hausys, Ltd. (Hausys); and Union 

Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). 

The period of review (POR) is August 1, 

2008, through July 31, 2009. We 

preliminarily determine that Union and 

Dongbu made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(NV). We preliminarily determine that 

HYSCO and POSCO have not made 

sales below NV. 

In addition, based on the preliminary 

results for the respondents selected for 

individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a margin for 

those companies that were not selected 

for individual review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska (HYSCO), Victoria Cho 

(POSCO), Dennis McClure (Union) or 

Christopher Hargett (Dongbu), 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) 482–8362, (202) 482– 

5075, (202) 482–5973, and (202) 482– 

4161, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 19, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping order on 

CORE from Korea. See Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 

(August 19, 1993) (Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea). On August 3, 2009, 

we published in the Federal Register 

the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 38397 

(August 3, 2009). On August 31, 2009, 

respondents and petitioners 2 requested 

a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, 

Union, Dongkuk, Haewon, Hausys, and 

LG Chem. The Department initiated a 

review of each of the companies for 

which a review was requested. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 48225. 

On December 7, 2008, the Department 

selected Dongbu, POSCO, HYSCO and 

Union as mandatory respondents in this 

review. See Memorandum from Dennis 

McClure, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager, to Melissa 

Skinner, Director, Office 3, entitled 

‘‘2008–2009 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated December 7, 2009. The 

Department indicated that it would 

calculate a weighted-average of the 

mandatory respondents’ margins to 

apply to those companies not selected 

for individual examination. 

During the most recently completed 

segments of the proceeding in which 

HYSCO, Dongbu, POSCO and Union 

participated,3 the Department 

disregarded sales below the cost of 

production (COP) for each of these 

companies. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales by these companies of the 

foreign like product under consideration 

for the determination of NV in this 

review were made at prices below the 

COP. We instructed HYSCO, Dongbu, 

POSCO and Union to respond to 

sections A through E of the initial 

questionnaire,4 which we issued on 

December 7, 2009. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorms,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. As a result of this 

tolling, the revised deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review 

became May 10, 2010. 

On May 10, 2010, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of the sixteenth administrative 

review to September 7, 2010.5

HYSCO 

On January 27, 2010, HYSCO 

submitted its section A response to the 

Department’s initial questionnaire. On 

February 12, 2010, HYSCO submitted its 

sections B through D response to the 

Department’s initial questionnaire. 

HYSCO submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires for sections A through C 

on June 23, 2010, and August 11, 2010. 

HYSCO submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires for section D on June 23, 

2010, June 25, 2010, August 4, 2010, 

August 11, 2010, August 18, 2010, and 

August 23, 2010. 

Union 

On January 21, 2010, Union submitted 

its section A response to the initial 

questionnaire. On February 4, 2010, 

Union submitted its response to sections 

B and C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. On May 28, 2010, and 

July 15, 2010, Union submitted its 

responses to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaires for 

sections A through C. On June 7, 2010, 

Union submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire for section D regarding 

the purchase of major inputs from 

POSCO. On June 11, 2010, Union 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire for sections A and D. On 

July 20, 2010, Union submitted its 

response to an additional supplemental 

questionnaire for section D. On August 

18, 2010, Union submitted a response to 

an additional supplemental 

questionnaire for section D. 

POSCO 

On January 20, 2010, POSCO 

submitted its sections A through D 

response to the Department’s initial 

questionnaire. On June 14, 2010, 

POSCO submitted its response to the 

Department’s first supplemental 

questionnaire for sections A through D. 

On August 10, 2010, POSCO submitted 

its response to the Department’s second 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55771 

6See Memorandum from Jolanta Lawska through 

James Terpstra, Program Manager Office 3, to the 

File, entitled ‘‘Preliminary Results in the 16th 

Administrative Review on Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Calculation 

Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ dated 

September 7, 2010 (HYSCO Calc Memo); 

Memorandum from Victoria Cho through James 

Terpstra, Program Manager Office 3, to the File, 

entitled ‘‘Preliminary Results in the 16th 

Administrative Review on Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Calculation 

Memorandum for Calculation Memorandum for 

Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO Group),’’ dated September 

7, 2010 (POSCO Calc Memo); Memorandum from 

Dennis McClure through James Terpstra, Program 

Manager Office 3, to the File, entitled ‘‘Preliminary 

Results in the 16th Administrative Review on 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Korea: Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel 

Manufacturing Inc.,’’ dated September 7, 2010 

(Union Calc Memo); and Memorandum from 

Christopher Hargett through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager Office 3, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Results in the 16th Administrative 

Review on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea: Calculation Memorandum for 

Dongbu Steel,’’ dated September 7, 2010 (Dongbu 

Calc Memo) (collectively ‘‘Calculation Memos for 

the 16th Review’’), the public versions of which are 

on file in the Central Record Unit, Room 7046, of 

the main Department building. 

supplemental questionnaire for section 

D. On August 25, 2010, POSCO 

submitted a voluntary correction to 

exhibit 25 of its June 14, 2010, first 

supplemental section D response. 

Dongbu 

On January 13, 2010, and February 3, 

2010, Dongbu submitted its section A 

and sections B through D responses to 

the Department’s initial questionnaire. 

Dongbu submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires for sections A through D 

on May 18, 2010, and July 16, 2009, and 

August 3, 2010. Dongbu submitted a 

reconciliation of its home market and 

U.S. sales databases on August 17, 2010. 

Period of Review 

The POR covered by this review is 

August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers 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 

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, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 

7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

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, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. 

Included in the order are flat-rolled 

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process including products which have 

been beveled or rounded at the edges 

(i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked 

after rolling’’). Excluded from this order 

are flat-rolled steel products either 

plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. Also 

excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all CORE 

products produced by the respondents, 

covered by the scope of the order, and 

sold in the home market during the POR 

to be foreign like products for the 

purpose of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to CORE sold in 

the United States. 

Where there were no sales in the 

ordinary course of trade of identical 

merchandise in the home market to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to the next most similar 

foreign like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed in Appendix V of 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched foreign like 

products based on the Appendix V 

physical characteristics reported by 

each respondent. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CORE 

by the respondents to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared the Export Price (EP) or 

Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the 

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price/ 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act, we calculated monthly 

weighted-average prices for NV and 

compared these to individual U.S. 

transactions. Regarding HYSCO, Union 

and Dongbu, because we are using 

quarterly costs, we have not made priceto-price comparisons outside of a 

quarter to lessen the potential distortion 

to sales prices which result from 

significantly changing costs.6

Export Price/Constructed Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in 

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) 

of the Act. We calculated EP when the 

merchandise was sold by the producer 

or exporter outside of the United States 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the sale to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. We 

based EP and CEP on the packed prices 

and the applicable delivery terms to the 

first unaffiliated customer in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for a number 

of Union’s U.S. sales because these sales 

were made before the date of 

importation and were sales directly to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States, and because CEP methodology 

was not otherwise indicated. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, which included, where 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55772 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

7See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 46110, 46112 

(September 8, 2009) (unchanged in CORE 15 Final 

Results); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice 

of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 52267, 52270 

(September 9, 2008) (unchanged in CORE 14 Final 

Results). 

appropriate, foreign inland freight to the 

port, foreign brokerage, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. 

warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight 

from the warehouse to the unaffiliated 

customer, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, and U.S. customs duty. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP where the 

record established that sales made by 

HYSCO, POSCO, Dongbu, and Union 

were made in the United States after 

importation. HYSCO’s, POSCO’s, 

Dongbu’s and Union’s respective 

affiliates in the United States (1) took 

title to the subject merchandise and (2) 

invoiced and received payment from the 

unaffiliated U.S. customers for their 

sales of the subject merchandise to those 

U.S. customers. Thus, where 

appropriate, the Department determined 

that these U.S. sales should be classified 

as CEP transactions under section 772(b) 

of the Act. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign inland freight to the port, foreign 

brokerage, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight from the 

port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse 

expenses, U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

U.S. customs duty, credit expenses, 

warranty expenses, commissions, 

inventory carrying costs incurred in the 

United States, and other indirect selling 

expenses in the United States associated 

with economic activity in the United 

States. See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 

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

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

adjustment for CEP profit. Where 

appropriate, we added interest revenue 

to the gross unit price. 

HYSCO’s Entries of Subject 

Merchandise That Were Further 

Manufactured and Sold as Non-Subject 

Merchandise in the United States 

In its section A questionnaire 

response, HYSCO requested that the 

Department excuse it from reporting 

information for certain POR sales of 

subject merchandise imported by its 

wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO 

America Company (HAC), that were 

further manufactured after importation 

and sold as non-subject merchandise in 

the United States, claiming that 

determining CEP for sales through HAC 

would be unreasonably burdensome. 

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that 

when the value added in the United 

States by an affiliated party is likely to 

exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise, the Department 

shall use one of the following prices to 

determine CEP if there is a sufficient 

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable 

basis of comparison and the use of such 

sales is appropriate: (1) The price of 

identical subject merchandise sold by 

the exporter or producer to an 

unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of 

other subject merchandise sold by the 

exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 

person. 

The record evidence shows that the 

value added by the affiliated party to the 

subject merchandise after importation in 

the United States was significantly 

greater than the 65 percent threshold we 

use in determining whether the value 

added in the United States by an 

affiliated party substantially exceeds the 

value of the subject merchandise. See 19 

CFR 351.402(c)(2). We then considered 

whether there were sales of identical 

subject merchandise or other subject 

merchandise sold in sufficient 

quantities by the exporter or producer to 

an unaffiliated person that could 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison. In addition to the sales to 

HAC that were further manufactured, 

HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar, 

but not identical, subject merchandise 

to unaffiliated customers in the United 

States in back-to-back transactions 

through another HYSCO affiliate in the 

United States, Hyundai HYSCO USA 

(HHU). 

The appropriate methodology for 

determining the CEP for sales whose 

value has been substantially increased 

through U.S. further manufacturing 

generally must be made on a case-bycase basis. In this instance, we find that 

there is a reasonable quantity of sales of 

subject merchandise to an unaffiliated 

person for comparison purposes. See 

HYSCO Calc Memo. Furthermore, there 

is no other reasonable methodology for 

determining CEP for HAC’s CEP sales. 

Therefore, we relied on HYSCO’s other 

sales of similar merchandise to 

unaffiliated parties in the United States 

as the basis for calculating CEP for 

HYSCO’s sales through HAC, which is 

consistent with the four previous 

administrative reviews of CORE from 

Korea.7

Normal Value 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home market and 

U.S. sales, we determined that the 

quantity of the foreign like product sold 

in the exporting country was sufficient 

to permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 

773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 

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

of the Act, we based NV on the price at 

which the foreign like product was first 

sold for consumption in the home 

market, in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing 

costs in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we deducted 

inland freight from the plant to 

distribution warehouse, warehouse 

expense, inland freight from the plant/ 

warehouse to customer, and packing, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 

Act. Additionally, we made adjustments 

to NV, where appropriate, for credit and 

warranty expenses, in accordance with 

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

Where appropriate, we added interest 

revenue and applied billing adjustments 

to the gross unit price. 

We also made adjustments for Union, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 

for indirect selling expenses incurred in 

the home market or the United States 

where commissions were granted on 

sales in one market but not in the other. 

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we will limit the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

selling expenses incurred in the one 

market or the commissions allowed in 

the other market, whichever is less. See 

19 CFR 351.401(e). 

For purposes of calculating NV, 

section 771(16) of the Act defines 

‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise 

which is either (1) identical or (2) 

similar to the merchandise sold in the 

United States. When no identical 

products are sold in the home market, 

the products which are most similar to 

the product sold in the United States are 

identified. For the non-identical or most 

similar products which are identified 

based on the Department’s product 

matching criteria, an adjustment is 

made to the NV for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in the actual 

physical differences between the 

products sold in the United States and 

the home market. See 19 CFR 351.411 

and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

Cost of Production 

As stated above, in the most recently 

completed segments of the proceeding 

in which HYSCO, POSCO, Dongbu and 

Union participated, the Department 

found and disregarded sales that failed 

the cost test for each of these 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55773 

8See Memorandum from Kristen Case to Neal M. 

Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Union Steel Co., Ltd.,’’, dated September 7, 

2010 (‘‘Union Cost Calculation Memo’’); 

Memorandum from Laurens Van Houten to Neal M. 

Halper, Director of Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Dongbu Steel,’’ dated September 7, 2010 

(‘‘Dongbu Cost Calculation Memo’’); and 

Memorandum from Ji Young Oh to Neal M. Halper, 

Director of Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hyundai 

HYSCO’’ (HYSCO Cost Calculation Memo), dated 

September 7, 2010, the public versions of which are 

on file in the Central Record Unit, Room 7046, of 

the main Department building. 

companies. Therefore, for this review, 

the Department has reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like products under 

consideration for the determination of 

NV may have been made at prices below 

the COP as provided by section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the 

Department conducted a COP 

investigation of sales in the home 

market by HYSCO, POSCO, Dongbu and 

Union. 

A. Cost Reporting Period 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted-average 

cost for the POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta 

From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, 

and Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 

(January 24, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5 (explaining the 

Department’s practice of computing a 

single weighted-average cost for the 

entire period). However, the Department 

recognizes that possible distortions may 

result if we use our normal annualaverage cost method during a period of 

significant cost changes. In determining 

whether to deviate from our normal 

methodology of calculating an annual 

weighted-average cost, the Department 

evaluates the case-specific record 

evidence using two primary factors: (1) 

The change in the cost of manufacturing 

(COM) recognized by the respondent 

during the POR must be deemed 

significant; (2) the record evidence must 

indicate that sale prices during the 

shorter averaging periods could be 

reasonably linked with the COP or 

constructed value (CV) during the same 

shorter averaging periods. See Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 

(February 10, 2010) (SSSS from Mexico), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 and 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

75398 (December 11, 2008) (SSPC from 

Belgium), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

1. Significance of Cost Changes 

In prior cases, we established 25 

percent as the threshold (between the 

high- and low-quarter COM) for 

determining that the changes in COM 

are significant enough to warrant a 

departure from our standard annual-cost 

approach. See SSPC from Belgium at 

Comment 4. In the instant case, record 

evidence shows that Union, Dongbu, 

and HYSCO experienced significant 

changes (i.e., changes that exceeded 25 

percent) between the high and low 

quarterly COM during the POR for the 

selected products (i.e., CONNUMs) with 

the highest sales volumes. This change 

in COM is primarily attributable to the 

price volatility for substrate inputs used 

in the manufacture of CORE. Substrate 

is the major input consumed in the 

production of CORE. We found that 

prices for substrate changed 

significantly throughout the POR and, as 

a result, directly affected the cost of the 

material inputs consumed by Union, 

Dongbu, and HYSCO.8

2. Linkage Between Cost and Sale Price 

Information 

Consistent with past precedent, 

because we found the changes in costs 

to be significant, we evaluated whether 

there is evidence of a linkage between 

the cost changes and the sales prices 

during the POR. See, e.g., SSSS from 

Mexico at Comment 6, and SSPC from 

Belgium at Comment 4. The 

Department’s definition of ‘‘linkage’’ 

does not require direct traceability 

between specific sales and their specific 

production costs, but rather relies on 

whether there are elements that would 

indicate a reasonable correlation 

between the underlying costs and the 

final sales prices levied by the company. 

See SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. 

These correlative elements may be 

measured and defined in a number of 

ways depending on the associated 

industry and the overall production and 

sales processes. To determine whether a 

reasonable correlation existed between 

the sales prices and their underlying 

costs during the POR for each 

respondent, we compared weightedaverage quarterly prices to the 

corresponding quarterly COM for the 

five CONNUMs with the highest volume 

of sales in each of the comparison 

market and the United States market. 

Our comparison reveals that sale prices 

and costs for each of the sample 

CONNUMs generally trended in the 

same direction and indicated that there 

is linkage between changing costs and 

sale prices during the POR. The 

inventory records for HYSCO, Union 

and Dongbu demonstrate that the raw 

material and finished goods inventory 

are relatively low, indicating a minimal 

time lag between material purchase, 

production and sale dates. See Union, 

HYSCO and Dongbu Cost Calculation 

Memos. After reviewing this 

information and determining that there 

is a trend of sale prices and costs for the 

majority of the POR, we preliminarily 

determine that there is linkage between 

HYSCO, Union and Doungbu’s changing 

costs and sales prices during the POR. 

See, e.g., SSSS from Mexico at Comment 

6 and SSPC from Belgium at Comment 

4. 

Because we have found significant 

cost changes in COM as well as 

reasonable linkage between costs and 

sales prices, we have preliminarily 

determined that the use of quarterly cost 

leads to more appropriate comparisons 

in our antidumping duty calculation for 

HYSCO, Union and Dongbu. 

B. Calculation of Cost of Production 

Before making any comparisons to 

NV, we conducted a quarterly COP 

analysis of HYSCO, Union and 

Dongbu’s sales pursuant to section 

773(b)(3) of the Act to determine 

whether HYSCO, Union and Dongbu’s 

comparison market sales were made at 

prices below the COP. For these 

preliminary results, the Department 

used the quarterly cost database 

submitted on August 18, 2010, for 

HYSCO, the quarterly cost database 

submitted on August 18, 2010, for 

Union, and the quarterly COP database 

submitted on August 3, 2010, for 

Dongbu. 

For POSCO, we conducted an annual 

COP analysis pursuant to section 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act to 

determine whether POSCO’s 

comparison market sales were made at 

prices below the COP. We calculated the 

COP based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for SG&A 

expenses and packing, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. 

Except as noted below, the 

Department relied on the COP data 

submitted by HYSCO, POSCO, Union 

and Dongbu and their supplemental 

section D questionnaire responses for 

the COP calculation. Union provided 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55774 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

information in its questionnaire 

responses showing that it purchased 

substrate from affiliated parties. We 

consider substrate to be a major input 

and therefore have applied the majorinput rule to value such purchases. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.407(b), we adjusted Union’s 

substrate costs. Additionally, for the 

purposes of calculating Union’s general 

and administrative (G&A) expense ratio, 

we excluded an item of non-operating 

income. See Union Cost Calculation 

Memo at 3. 

For POSCO we excluded the gains 

related to the disposition and valuation 

of trading securities from the calculation 

of the G&A expense ratio because these 

gains are related to the company’s 

investment activities. See Memorandum 

from Sheikh M. Hannan, Senior 

Accountant to Neal M. Halper, Director, 

Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—POSCO,’’ dated 

September 7, 2010 (‘‘POSCO Cost 

Calculation Memo’’). 

HYSCO provided information in its 

questionnaire responses showing that it 

purchased substrate from affiliated 

parties. We consider substrate to be a 

major input and therefore have applied 

the major-input rule to value such 

purchases. Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.407(b), we adjusted HYSCO’s 

substrate costs. Additionally, we 

adjusted the cost of goods sold 

denominator used in the G&A expense 

ratio and financial expense ratios to 

reflect the major input adjustment. See 

HYSCO Cost Calculation Memo. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) Withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

In the current review, multiple 

CONNUMs in HYSCO’s submitted cost 

file contained negative values for certain 

cost fields. The Department requested 

on two different occasions that HYSCO 

provide an explanation for these 

negative values. See the Department’s 

Section D supplemental questionnaire, 

dated May 19, 2010, and July 21, 2010, 

respectively. However, HYSCO’s 

responses to date have not provided an 

adequate explanation of how negative 

POR production costs could be incurred 

to produce products. See HYSCO’s 

section D supplemental questionnaire 

responses, dated June 23, 2010, and 

August 4, 2010, respectively. 

Accordingly, the Department 

determines that it lacks the information 

necessary to calculate accurate 

production costs for certain CONNUMs 

in these preliminary results. Therefore, 

we determine that application of partial 

facts available is warranted pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) of the Act 

and have used the weighted-average 

value for each of those cost fields. See 

HYSCO Cost Calculation Memo. The 

Department intends to seek further 

explanation from HYSCO for the 

negative values in its cost file and will 

analyze any new data in the final 

results. 

Furthermore, HYSCO did not provide 

hot-rolled coil cost for CONNUMs sold, 

but not produced, during the POR. For 

CONNUMs sold but not produced 

during the POR, we selected as partial 

facts available pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and (2)(A) of the Act the next 

similar CONNUM, in accordance with 

the product characteristics as defined in 

the Department’s questionnaire, to use 

as the surrogate to compute the costs for 

these CONNUMs. See HYSCO Cost 

Calculation Memo. 

C. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

As required under section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act, we compared the quarterly or 

POR, as appropriate, weighted-average 

COP to the per-unit price of the 

comparison market sales of the foreign 

like product to determine whether these 

sales had been made at prices below the 

COP within an extended period of time 

in substantial quantities, and whether 

such prices were sufficient to permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We determined the net 

comparison market prices for the below 

cost test by subtracting from the gross 

unit price any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, rebates, direct and 

indirect selling expenses (also 

subtracted from the COP), and packing 

expenses. 

D. Results of the COP Test 

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

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

sales of a given product were at prices 

less than the COP, we did not disregard 

any below-cost sales of that product 

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

the respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model were at prices less than the 

COP, we disregarded the below-cost 

sales because: (1) They were made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the indexed POR or POR, as 

appropriate, weighted-average COPs, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

Therefore, for HYSCO, POSCO, Union 

and Dongbu, we disregarded below-cost 

sales of a given product of 20 percent or 

more and used the remaining sales as 

the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. See HYSCO, POSCO, Union and 

Dongbu Cost Calculation Memos. 

Calculation of NV Based on 

Comparison Market Prices 

For those comparison products for 

which there were sales at prices above 

the COP for HYSCO, POSCO, Union and 

Dongbu, we based NV on home market 

prices. In these preliminary results, we 

were able to match all U.S. sales to 

contemporaneous sales, made in the 

ordinary course of trade, of either an 

identical or a similar foreign like 

product, based on the matching 

characteristics identified in Appendix V 

of the original questionnaire. We 

calculated NV based on free on board 

(FOB) mill or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers, or prices to 

affiliated customers which were 

determined to be at arm’s length (see 

discussion below regarding these arm’slength sales). We made deductions, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for billing adjustments, discounts, 

rebates, and inland freight. 

Additionally, we added interest 

revenue. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home 

market packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs. See Calculation Memos 

for the 16th Review. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we adjusted 

for differences in the circumstances of 

sale. These circumstances included 

differences in imputed credit expenses 

and other direct selling expenses, such 

as the expense related to bank charges 

and factoring. Id. We also made 

adjustments, where appropriate, for 

physical differences in the merchandise 

in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55775 

9This rate is based on the margins calculated for 

those companies that were selected for individual 

review, excluding de minimis margins or margins 

based entirely on adverse facts available. 

Arm’s-Length Sales 

Dongbu, Union, HYSCO and POSCO 

also reported that they made sales in the 

home market to affiliated parties. The 

Department calculates NV 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 producer or exporter, 

i.e., sales at arm’s length. See 19 CFR 

351.403(c). 

To test whether these sales were made 

at arm’s length, we compared the 

reported home market prices of sales to 

affiliated and unaffiliated customers 

with applied billing adjustments, 

including interest revenue and net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, discounts, rebates, and 

packing. In accordance with the 

Department’s current practice, if the 

prices charged to an affiliated party 

were, on average, between 98 and 102 

percent of the prices charged to 

unaffiliated parties for merchandise 

identical or most similar to that sold to 

the affiliated party, we considered the 

sales to be at arm’s-length prices. See 

Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative: Ninth Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 

45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006) 

(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of 

the Ninth Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 

14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

Conversely, where we found that the 

sales to an affiliated party did not pass 

the arm’s-length test, then all sales to 

that affiliated party have been excluded 

from the NV calculation. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 

15, 2002); see also Calculation Memos 

for the 16th Review. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent 

possible. When there were no sales at 

the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales 

to comparison market sales at a different 

LOT. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether EP or CEP sales and 

NV sales were at different LOTs, we 

examined stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’slength) customers. If the comparison 

market sales are at a different LOT and 

the differences affect price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between sales at different LOTs in the 

country in which NV is determined, we 

will make an LOT adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 

sales, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

CEP LOT and the data available do not 

provide an appropriate basis to 

determine an LOT adjustment, we will 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 

(November 19, 1997). 

We did not make an LOT adjustment 

under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, there 

was only one home market LOT for each 

respondent and we were unable to 

identify a pattern of consistent price 

differences attributable to differences in 

LOTs. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). Under 

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

CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily 

granting a CEP offset for HYSCO, 

POSCO, Dongbu, and Union because the 

NV sales for each company are at a more 

advanced LOT than the LOT for the U.S. 

CEP sales. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of 

company-specific LOT findings for 

these preliminary results, see 

Calculation Memos for the 16th Review. 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, based on the official exchange 

rates published by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

HYSCO ......................................... *.22 

POSCO ......................................... *.04 

Union ............................................ 2.27 

Dongbu ......................................... 3.89 

Review-Specific Average Rate applicable to the following companies:9 LG Chem, Haewon, 

Hausys, and Dongkuk ............... 3.08 

*(De minimis). 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties to this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and may be 

filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

with an additional electronic copy of 

the public version of any such 

comments on a computer diskette. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the due date of the rebuttal briefs in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the final results 

of this administrative review, the 

Department shall determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department will 

calculate importer-specific assessment 

rates for each respondent based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. 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 (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this 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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondents subject to 

this review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise which it 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. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CORE from Korea 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

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

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (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 final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in this review, a 

prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV. See Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) 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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22887 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Comments on Vaccine 

Production and Additional Planning for 

Future Possible Pandemic Influenza 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The International Trade 

Administration invites submission of 

comments from the public and relevant 

industries on vaccine production and 

additional planning for future possible 

pandemic influenza. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before October 1, 2010. 

Comments should be no more than 15 

pages. Business-confidential 

information should be clearly identified 

as such. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

E-mail: 

Vaccine.Comments@trade.gov. 

Fax: (202) 482–1975 (Attn.: Jane 

Earley). 

Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Jane 

Earley, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Office of Health and Consumer Goods, 

Room 1015, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on the submission of 

comments, please contact Jane Earley by 

phone at (202) 482–2561 or Andrea 

Cornwell at (202) 482–0998. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments are sought in light of the 

announced end of the H1N1 influenza 

pandemic (see World Health 

Organization announcement of August 

10, 2010) and the need to plan for future 

pandemics. The facts and information 

obtained from written submissions will 

be used to inform the participation of 

the United States Department of 

Commerce in the interagency process to 

prepare for United States participation 

in international meetings and 

negotiations on pandemic planning, 

such as the meeting of the World Health 

Organization (WHO) Pandemic 

Influenza Preparedness Open Ended 

Working Group (PIP–OEWG) December 

13–17, 2010. 

The Department of Commerce invites 

comments from the pharmaceutical and 

medical technology industries and 

interested members of the public on a 

number of issues regarding vaccine 

production for pandemic influenza. 

The Department of Commerce invites 

written submissions on the following 

topics: 

1. Manufacturers’ experiences during 

the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. What issues 

could have been better handled by 

industry, governments and the WHO? 

What is realistic and unrealistic to 

expect from governments, vaccine 

manufacturers, the WHO and others 

during a mild pandemic such as the 

2009 H1N1 pandemic? How might 

expectations be different for a more 

severe pandemic? 

2. The emergency response process. 

Based on the H1N1 pandemic 

experience, what changes in operational 

procedures or practices should be made 

to prepare for the next influenza 

pandemic? What additional 

consultation and decisional processes 

(within industry and among 

governments and the WHO) for 

pandemic preparedness are needed? 

What are the most critical deficiencies 

that need to be overcome in the present 

system to mount a more effective and 

robust response to pandemic influenza? 

3. Improving availability for 

developing countries. How can we 

support and stimulate demand for 

seasonal flu vaccine in middle and 

lower income countries? Are there other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES