Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27281 

Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 

FR 58 (January 2, 2002). While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999), 

and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From 

Israel: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). 

Thus, if the evidence demonstrates 

that, with respect to the production and 

sale of subject merchandise, the new 

company operates as the same business 

entity as the former company, the 

Department will accord the new 

company the same antidumping 

treatment as its predecessor. 

Additionally, in changed–circumstances 

reviews where the Department 

determines that a successor company is 

a successor–in-interest to a predecessor 

company that had not been subject to 

the order previously, the Department’s 

practice is to apply the determination 

back to the date of the occurrence that 

prompted the changed–circumstances 

review. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt– 

Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand: Final 

Results of Changed–Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review, 74 FR 8904 

(February 27, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; see also Stainless Steel 

Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 

24643, 24644 (April 26, 2006), and 

Certain Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth 

Carbon Steel Products From the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Changed– 

Circumstances Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 64 FR 66880, 66881 (November 

30, 1999). 

We preliminarily determine that SKF 

Aeroengine is the successor–in-interest 

to SNFA. In its February 6, 2009, 

submission, SKF Aeroengine provided 

evidence supporting its claim to be the 

successor–in-interest to SNFA. 

Specifically, SKF Aeroengine submitted 

its Managing Director’s declaration that 

the September 3, 2007, name change of 

the company did not result in changes 

in management, production facilities, 

product mix, sales channels, supplier 

base, or customer base. Moreover, in the 

declaration, the Managing Director also 

stated that there are no plans to alter 

either the production facilities or 

product mix of SKF Aeroengine, there 

are no plans to integrate SKF 

Aeroengine’s production with that of 

either SKF France S.A. or SKF 

Aerospace France S.A.S., and that SKF 

Aeroengine continues to operate as a 

separate and distinct business apart 

from the other SKF entities located in 

France. According to the declaration, 

SKF Aeroengine employs the same 

channels of distribution, payment terms, 

and delivery modes to serve the same 

customer base as SNFA had used. SKF 

Aeroengine also submitted an outline of 

its senior officers and board of directors 

both before and after its name change to 

demonstrate that the name change did 

not affect its senior management. 

Finally, SKF Aeroengine submitted an 

outline of the senior officers and boards 

of directors of SKF France S.A. and SKF 

Aerospace France S.A.S. both before 

and after the name change to 

demonstrate that the name change did 

not result in changes to the senior 

management of either SKF France S.A. 

or SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. 

In summary, SKF Aeroengine has 

presented evidence to establish a prima 

facie case of its successorship status. 

The record indicates that SNFA’s name 

change to SKF Aeroengine has not 

changed the operations of the company 

in a meaningful way. SKF Aeroengine’s 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base are substantially unchanged from 

those of SNFA. The record evidence 

demonstrates that the new entity 

operates essentially in the same manner 

as the predecessor company. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that SKF Aeroengine should 

be assigned the same antidumping–duty 

treatment as SNFA. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice of preliminary results of 

changed–circumstances review. 

Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, 

limited to the issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be submitted not later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

the case briefs or comments. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument a statement of the 

issue, a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate in a hearing 

if a hearing is requested must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Such requests should contain the 

following information: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; (3) a list 

of issues to be discussed. Issues raised 

in the hearing will be limited to those 

discussed in the case briefs. If 

requested, any hearing will be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of the final 

results of this changed–circumstances 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

briefs or at the hearing if requested. 

As indicated in the CCR Initiation, 

during the course of this changed– 

circumstances review we will not 

change any cash–deposit requirements 

on entries of merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order unless a change 

is determined to be warranted pursuant 

to the final results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. 

Dated: June 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13493 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–839] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results 

of the 2007/2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain polyester staple fiber from the 

Republic of Korea. The period of review 

is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. 

This review covers imports of certain 

polyester staple fiber from one 

producer/exporter. We preliminarily 

find that sales of the subject 

merchandise have been made below 

normal value. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

27282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioners also asked for the Department to 

request CBP import data, for either direct shipments 

or shipments through Canada or Mexico, under the 

name ‘‘Samyang.’’ 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results not later than 120 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelly Atkinson or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0116 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 25, 2000, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the 

Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). See Notice 

of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the 

Republic of Korea and Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber From the Republic of Korea and 

Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). 

On May 5, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to 

Request Administrative Review’’ of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 29, 

2008, Huvis Corporation (‘‘Huvis’’) 

requested an administrative review. On 

May 30, 2008, Wellman, Inc.; DAK 

Americas LLC; and Invista, S.a.r.L. 

(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’) 

requested an administrative review of 

Huvis. On July 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice initiating the review 

with respect to Huvis.1 See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 

(July 1, 2008). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2007, through April 

30, 2008. 

On July 17, 2008, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire in this 

review. We received responses from 

Huvis in August and September 2008. In 

November 2008, February, March, and 

April 2009, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Huvis. We received 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires in January, March, April 

and May 2009. 

On February 4, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review until no later than June 1, 

2009, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). See Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber From the Republic of 

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6014 (February 4, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of the order, the 

product covered is PSF. PSF is defined 

as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, 

combed or otherwise processed for 

spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 

decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in 

diameter. This merchandise is cut to 

lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) 

to five inches (127 mm). The 

merchandise subject to the order may be 

coated, usually with a silicon, or other 

finish, or not coated. PSF is generally 

used as stuffing in sleeping bags, 

mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, 

cushions, pillows, and furniture. 

Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex 

(less than 3 denier) currently classifiable 

in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at 

subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically 

excluded from the order. Also, 

specifically excluded from the order are 

polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier 

that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches 

(fibers used in the manufacture of 

carpeting). In addition, low–melt PSF is 

excluded from the order. Low–melt PSF 

is defined as a bi–component fiber with 

an outer sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner core. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 

5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, during April 2008, we verified the 

sales information provided by Huvis in 

Korea using standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant sales and financial records, and 

selection of original documentation 

containing relevant information. The 

Department reported its findings on 

June 1, 2009. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales Response 

of Huvis Corporation in the 

Antidumping Review of Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic 

of Korea’’ dated June 1, 2009. This 

report is on file in the Central Records 

Unit in room 1117 of the main 

Department building. We plan to verify 

Huvis’ submitted cost information in 

July 2009. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Huvis’ sales of 

PSF to the United States were made at 

less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice 

below. 

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

Act, we compared the EP of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weighted– 

average NV of the foreign–like product, 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced and sold by the respondent in 

the home market covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, to be foreign–like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. In accordance with section 

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

determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign–like product to the 

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. For further details, see the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below. 

We compared U.S. sales to monthly 

weighted–average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

home market. Where there were no 

contemporaneous sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market, we 

compared sales made within the 

window period, which extends from 

three months prior to the POR until two 

months after the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2). As directed by section 

771(16) of the Act, where there were no 

sales of identical merchandise in the 

home market made in the ordinary 

course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 

we compared U.S. sales to sales of the 

most similar foreign–like product made 

in the ordinary course of trade. Further, 

as provided in section 773(a)(4) of the 

Act, where we could not determine NV 

because there were no sales of identical 

or similar merchandise made in the 

ordinary course of trade in the home 

market to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27283 

2The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison markets begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 

61732. In performing this evaluation, we considered 

the narrative responses of the respondent to 

properly determine where in the chain of 

distribution the sale occurs. 

3Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate LOTs in 

a particular market. CTL Plate, 62 FR at 61732. For 

purposes of these preliminary results, we have 

organized the common selling functions into four 

major categories: sales process and marketing 

support, freight and delivery, inventory and 

warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 

services. 

4Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling, general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. See, 

e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005), 

unchanged in Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea, 

70 FR 73435 (December 12, 2005) 

Date of Sale 

For its home market sales, Huvis 

reported invoice date as its date of sale 

because Huvis permits home market 

customers to make order changes up to 

that time. Thus, Huvis’ invoices to its 

home market customers establish the 

material terms of sale. 

For its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date 

of shipment as its date of sale because 

it permits U.S. customers to make order 

changes up to the date of shipment and 

because the merchandise is always 

shipped on or before the date of invoice. 

Thus, the material terms of sale are 

established on the date of shipment. See 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 

Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/ 

2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 31058, 31060 (May 30, 

2008) (‘‘Preliminary Results of 2006/07 

Administrative Review’’); unchanged in 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Korea: Final Results of the 2006–2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 74144 (December 5, 2008) 

(‘‘Final Results of 2006/07 

Administrative Review’’); see also 

Certain Cold–Rolled and Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172–73 (March 

18, 1998). 

Export Price 

For sales to the United States, we 

calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act because the 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, and because constructed export 

price methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. Huvis reported sales to the 

United States based upon four different 

types of sales terms: free–on board 

(‘‘FOB’’); cost, insurance, and freight 

(‘‘CIF’’); cost and freight (‘‘C&F’’); and 

ex–dock duty paid (‘‘EDDP’’) FOB. We 

calculated EP based on these reported 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. Where appropriate, we 

made deductions, consistent with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the 

following movement expenses: loading 

fees, inland freight from the plant to 

port of exportation, foreign brokerage 

and handling, international freight, 

marine insurance, and U.S. customs 

duty (including U.S. brokerage and 

handling). 

We increased EP, where appropriate, 

for duty drawback in accordance with 

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis 

provided documentation demonstrating 

that it received duty drawback under 

Korea’s individual–rate system. In prior 

investigations and administrative 

reviews, the Department has examined 

Korea’s individual–rate system and 

found that the government controls in 

place generally satisfy the Department’s 

requirements for receiving a duty 

drawback adjustment (i.e., that (1) the 

rebates received were directly linked to 

import duties paid on inputs used in the 

manufacture of the subject merchandise, 

and (2) there were sufficient imports to 

account for the rebates received). See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Results of the 

Eleventh Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea, 71 

FR 7513 (February 13, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. We 

examined the documentation submitted 

by Huvis in this administrative review 

and confirmed that it meets the 

Department’s two–prong test 

(mentioned above) for receiving a duty 

drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we 

are allowing the reported duty drawback 

adjustment on Huvis’ U.S. sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s home market sales of the 

foreign–like product to its volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a) of the 

Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) 

and (C) of the Act, because the 

respondent’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign–like product 

was greater than five percent of its 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that the home market was viable for 

comparison. 

B. Level of Trade 

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

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997) (‘‘CTL Plate’’). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market sales were at different stages in 

the marketing process than the U.S. 

sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),2 including selling 

functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. Id. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e., 

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices),4 we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United States, 

et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (interpreting Congressional intent 

to be in accordance with this 

methodology). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign– 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sales 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data show that the difference in LOT 

affects price comparability, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

Huvis reported a single channel of 

distribution and a single LOT in each 

market, and has not requested an LOT 

adjustment. In the single channel of 

distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise 

is shipped directly to the customer on 

an FOB, CIF, C&F, or EDDP–FOB basis. 

For home market sales, merchandise is 

delivered to the customer’s location or 

sold on an ex–works basis. 

27284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

We examined the information 

reported by Huvis regarding its 

marketing process for making the 

reported home market and U.S. sales, 

including the type and level of selling 

activities performed, and customer 

categories. Specifically, we considered 

the extent to which the sales process, 

freight services, warehouse/inventory 

maintenance, and warranty services 

varied with respect to the different 

customer categories (i.e., distributors 

and end users) within each market and 

across the markets. 

Huvis reported that it made direct 

sales to distributors and end users in 

both the home market and to the United 

States. Also, for sales to the United 

States, Huvis reported sales to trading 

companies. For sales in the home 

market and to the United States, Huvis’ 

selling activities included negotiating 

sales terms, receiving and processing 

orders, arranging for freight and 

delivery, and preparing shipping 

documents. For each market, Huvis was 

available to provide technical advice 

upon a customer’s request. For sales in 

the home market and to the United 

States, Huvis offered no inventory 

maintenance services nor advertising, 

and it did not handle any warranty 

claims during the POR. 

Because the selling functions were 

similar in both markets, we 

preliminarily find that a single LOT 

exists in the home market and in the 

United States, and that Huvis’ home 

market and U.S. sales were made at the 

same LOT. 

C. Sales to Affiliated Customers 

Huvis made sales in the home market 

to affiliated customers. To test whether 

these sales were made at arm’s length, 

we compared the starting prices of sales 

to affiliated customers to those of sales 

to unaffiliated customers, net of all 

movement charges, direct and indirect 

selling expenses, discounts, and 

packing. Where the price to affiliated 

parties was, on average, within a range 

of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the 

same or comparable merchandise to the 

unaffiliated parties, we determined that 

the sales made to affiliated parties were 

at arm’s length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we included in our margin 

analysis only sales to affiliated parties 

that were made at arm’s length. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review, we had 

disregarded some sales by Huvis 

because they were made at prices below 

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’). Under 

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

previously disregarded below–cost sales 

provide reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that the respondent made sales 

of the subject merchandise in its 

comparison market at prices below the 

COP within the meaning of section 

773(b) of the Act. Whenever the 

Department has this reason to believe or 

suspect sales were made below the COP, 

we are directed by section 773(b) of the 

Act to determine whether, in fact, there 

were below–cost sales. 

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

Act, we disregard sales from our 

calculation of NV that were made at less 

than the COP if they were made in 

substantial quantities over an extended 

period of time at prices that would not 

permit recovery of costs within a 

reasonable period. We find that the 

below–cost sales represent ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ when 20 percent or more of 

the respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) 

of the Act. Further, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the 

Department normally considers sales to 

have been made within an extended 

period of time when made during a 

period of one year. Finally, prices do 

not permit recovery of costs within a 

reasonable period of time if the per unit 

COP at the time of sale is below the 

weighted average per unit COP for the 

POR, in accordance with section 

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

Under section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 

where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we do 

not disregard any below–cost sales of 

that product because such below–cost 

sales were not made in substantial 

quantities. 

Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available 

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if the ‘‘necessary 

information is not available on the 

record.’’ As discussed in the 

‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section below, 

Huvis could not provide market prices 

for purified terephthalic acid (‘‘PTA’’) 

and qualified terephthalic acid (‘‘QTA’’) 

as requested by the Department. 

Therefore, under section 776(a) of the 

Act, use of facts otherwise available is 

warranted in determining the market 

price for PTA and QTA. 

1. Calculation of COP 

We calculated the COP on a product– 

specific basis, based on the sum of the 

respondent’s costs of materials and 

fabrication for the merchandise under 

review, plus amounts for SG&A 

expenses, financial expenses, and the 

costs of all expenses incidental to 

placing the foreign–like product packed 

and in a condition ready for shipment, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 

the Act. 

We relied on COP information 

submitted in Huvis’ cost questionnaire 

responses except for the following 

adjustments. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

Huvis Corporation,’’ dated June 1, 2009. 

(1) In performing our analysis under 

sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act, 

we adjusted Huvis’ reported cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to account 

for purchases of PTA, modified 

terephthalic acid (‘‘MTA’’), and 

QTA from affiliated parties at non– 

arm’s–length prices. Under section 

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

351.407(b), the Department will 

determine the value of a major 

input from an affiliated person 

based on the higher of the transfer 

price, the market price, or the 

affiliate’s COP. 

In the instant review, Huvis could not 

provide a market price for QTA, as 

requested in the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

Therefore, in accordance with sections 

773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Act, we have 

relied on facts available to make a 

determination of market value. 

Consistent with the previous 

administrative review, we find no 

evidence on the record to overturn our 

prior finding that MTA and QTA are 

interchangeable and can be successfully 

used in place of one another using 

similar quantities. See Final Results of 

2006/07 Administrative Review at 

Comment 10. Because QTA and MTA 

are interchangeable, we used the market 

price for MTA as a proxy for the market 

price of QTA for the major input 

analysis. Accordingly, we increased 

Huvis’s reported transfer price of QTA 

by the percent difference between the 

reported transfer price of QTA and the 

higher of the surrogate market price or 

the affiliate’s adjusted COP. 

For MTA, we determined the value of 

this major input based on the higher of 

the transfer price, the market price, or 

the affiliate’s COP. We adjusted Huvis’ 

reported transfer price of MTA by the 

percent difference between the reported 

transfer price and the higher of market 

price or affiliate’s COP. 

For PTA, we find that it is not a major 

input because Huvis’ purchases of PTA 

do not represent a significant percentage 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27285 

of the total COM of merchandise under 

review. Under section 773(f)(2) of the 

Act, the Department may disregard 

transactions if the transfer price of an 

input does not fairly reflect the amount 

usually reflected for sales of that input. 

Huvis could not provide a market price 

for this input, as requested in the 

Department’s original and supplemental 

questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance 

with sections 773(f)(2) and 776(a) of the 

Act, we have relied on facts available to 

make a determination of market value. 

We constructed a price for the missing 

market price of this input. This 

methodology is consistent with our 

calculation for the proxy market price of 

PTA in the previous administrative 

review. See Final Results of 2006/07 

Administrative Review at Comment 10. 

Because the market price of PTA 

exceeded the transfer price, we adjusted 

Huvis’ reported transfer price of PTA by 

the percent difference between the 

reported transfer price and the market 

price. 

(2) We adjusted Huvis’ reported 

financial expenses offset by interest 

on deposits for retirement 

insurance. Consistent with our 

treatment of this income in the 

prior administrative reviews, we 

excluded this offset because it is not 

related to interest income incurred 

on short–term investments of 

working capital. See Preliminary 

Results of 2006/07 Administrative 

Review, 73 FR at 31062; unchanged 

in Final Results of 2006/07 

Administrative Review. 

2. Test of Home Market Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted– 

average COP figures for the POR to the 

home market sales of the foreign–like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

these sales were made at prices below 

the COP. According to our practice, the 

prices were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges and indirect selling 

expenses. In determining whether to 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices less than their COP, we 

examined, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether 

such sales were made (1) within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities, and (2) at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

3. Results of COP Test 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home market sales were at 

prices less than the POR average COP 

and, thus, the below–cost sales were 

made within an extended period of time 

in substantial quantities. In addition, 

these sales were made at prices that did 

not permit the recovery of costs within 

a reasonable period of time. Therefore, 

we excluded these below–cost sales and 

used the remaining above–cost sales of 

the same product, as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

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

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on the price 

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. 

We made adjustments for differences in 

packing in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the 

Act. We also made adjustments, where 

appropriate, consistent with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for loading 

fees and for inland freight from the 

plant to the customer. In addition, we 

made adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’), in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We 

made COS adjustments, where 

appropriate, by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred on home market sales 

(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges) 

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 

(i.e., credit expenses and bank charges). 

See 19 CFR 351.410(c). 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We find that the following dumping 

margin exists for the period May 1, 

2007, through April 30, 2008: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average 

margin percentage 

Huvis Corporation ......... 1.50 

Because we have a cost verification 

scheduled for July 2009, case briefs for 

this administrative review must be 

submitted no later than one week after 

the issuance of the cost verification 

report. Rebuttal briefs must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(d)(1), and must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held two days after the rebuttal briefs 

are filed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument: (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See section 751(a)(3) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

Huvis submitted evidence 

demonstrating that it was the importer 

of record for certain of its POR sales. We 

examined the customs entry 

documentation submitted by Huvis and 

tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted 

that Huvis was indeed the importer of 

record for certain sales. Therefore, for 

purposes of calculating the importer– 

specific assessment rates, we have 

treated Huvis as the importer of record 

for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where 

Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis 

submitted the reported entered value of 

the U.S. sales and we have calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those sales. 

Regarding sales where Huvis was not 

the importer of record, we note that 

Huvis did not report the entered value 

for the U.S. sales in question. 

Accordingly, we have calculated 

importer–specific per–unit duty 

assessment rates for the merchandise in 

question by aggregating the dumping 

margins calculated for all U.S. sales to 

each 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 importer– 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. 

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 will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

27286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

produced by companies included in 

these preliminary results for which the 

reviewed companies did not know their 

merchandise 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 intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. Id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon completion of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of PSF from 

Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) the cash deposit rate for the 

reviewed company will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

administrative review (except no cash 

deposit will be required if its weighted– 

average margin is de minimis, i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent); (2) for merchandise 

exported by manufacturers or exporters 

not covered in this review but covered 

in the original less–than-fair–value 

investigation or a previous review, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

most recent rate published in the final 

determination or final results for which 

the manufacturer or exporter received 

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, the 

previous review, or the original 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous reviews, 

the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 

percent, the all–others rate established 

in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 

the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Amended Final Determination and 

Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court 

Decision, 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 

2003). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13510 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP69 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14502 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Russell Fielding, Louisiana State 

University, Room 227, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, 70803, has applied in due 

form for a permit to import samples 

from Risso’s (Grampus griseus), spinner 

(Stenella longirostris), and spotted 

(Stenella frontalis) dolphins and shortfinned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus) for the purpose of 

scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

July 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 14502 from the list of available 

applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 

33701; phone (727)824–5312; fax 

(727)824–5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 14502. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Skidmore or Kristy Beard, 

(301)713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

The applicant is requesting a 

scientific research permit to import 

muscle, blubber, and teeth samples from 

Risso’s, spinner, and spotted dolphins 

and short-finned pilot whales collected 

during the legal cetacean hunts of St. 

Vincent and the Grenadines. Samples 

from up to 100 individuals will be 

imported to the NOAA Center for 

Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 

in Beaufort, North Carolina, for 

contaminant analysis (specifically 

methyl-mercury). No animals will be 

taken to provide samples for this 

research and no marine mammals will 

be incidentally harassed. A permit is 

requested for three months for the 

importation of samples to occur. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: June 2, 2009. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13368 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P