31922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the 

schedule for the hearing and parties 

should confirm the time, date, and place 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. Requests for a public 

hearing should contain: (1) party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 703(f) 

and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15967 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–807] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of 

Korea: Preliminary Results of 

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 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 

and strip (PET film) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea). This review covers one 

company, Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon) 

and the period October 2, 2007, through 

May 31, 2008. We preliminarily 

determine that Kolon has not made sales 

below normal value (NV). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on PET film 

from Korea. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). 

In accordance with Section 751 (a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act, as amended (the Act) 

and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 30, 

2008, Kolon requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on PET film from Korea. On June 30, 

2008, DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), 

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. 

(Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics 

America Inc. (Toray) (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’), also requested a review 

of Kolon. 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review for 

Kolon covering the period October 2, 

2007, through May 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On June 30, 2008, we issued our 

antidumping questionnaire to Kolon. 

We received Kolon’s response to our 

questionnaire on September 10, 2008 

(Section A) and October 3, 2008 

(Sections B, C, and D). During the 

period December 18, 2008, through 

April 1, 2009, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Kolon. We received 

responses to those questionnaires from 

January 23, 2009, through April 24, 

2009. 

On February 23, 2009, we extended 

the deadline for the preliminary results 

of this review until no later than June 

30, 2009. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

from the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 

of the 2007/2008 Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 8054 (February 23, 2009). 

On May 26, 2009, Petitioners 

submitted comments concerning the 

profitability of Kolon’s home market 

and U.S. sales and the model match 

methodology that should be employed 

in this review. On June 9, 2009, Kolon 

submitted rebuttal comments to 

Petitioner’s May 26, 2009 letter. See the 

‘‘Product Comparisons’’ section of this 

Notice, infra, for a discussion of the 

Model match methodology that we have 

employed in this review. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of all gauges of raw, 

pretreated, or primed polyethylene 

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, 

whether extruded or coextruded. The 

films excluded from this review are 

metallized films and other finished 

films that have had at least one of their 

surfaces modified by the application of 

a performance enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 

inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. 

PET film is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and for customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive as to the 

scope of the product coverage. 

Period of Review 

On August 20, 2008, Kolon requested 

that the Department amend the time 

frame covered by the review to the 

period April 3, 2008, to May 31, 2008. 

See Kolon’s August 20, 2008, letter. 

Kolon noted that April 3, 2008, is the 

date that the Department published its 

final results of the changed 

circumstances review in which Kolon 

was formally reinstated within the 

order. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and 

Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 73 FR 18259 (April 3, 2008) 

(Final Results of CC Review). Kolon 

asserted the Department has no basis to 

review transactions prior to the date 

Kolon was formally reinstated into the 

order. 

On August 27, 2008, Petitioners filed 

a rebuttal to Kolon’s August 20, 2008 

letter. See Petitioners’ August 27, 2008, 

letter. Petitioners noted the Department 

ordered CBP to suspend liquidation of 

Kolon’s entries on October 2, 2007, 

which is the date the Department issued 

its Preliminary Results of the Changed 

Circumstances Review. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Intent to 

Reinstate Kolon Industries, Inc. in the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 56048 

(October 2, 2007). Petitioners assert that 

because the Department ordered 

suspension of liquidation with respect 

to Kolon’s entries effective October 2, 

2007, that date is the proper date for the 

beginning of the review period. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31923 

We have preliminarily defined the 

period covered by this review as 

October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008. 

In our Preliminary Results of CC Review, 

we indicated the effective date for 

suspension of liquidation would be the 

date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Results of CC Review. See 

Preliminary Results of CC Review at 

56048. Furthermore, Kolon was aware of 

the possibility of reinstatement into the 

order at the initiation of the changed 

circumstances review, and the potential 

imposition of antidumping duties if the 

Department found that Kolon had 

resumed dumping. See Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Polyethylene 

Terpthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 

Korea, 72 FR 527 (January 5, 2007). In 

order to provide for the imposition of 

duties at a later point, the Department 

suspended liquidation of entries on the 

date of publication of the Preliminary 

Results of CC Review. This is consistent 

with our practice in changed 

circumstances reviews. See, e.g., 

Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

and Reinstatement of the Antidumping 

Order, 70 FR 16218 (March 30, 2005) 

and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review and 

Reinstatement in the Antidumping 

Order, 74 FR 22885 (May 15, 2009). 

In addition, 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i) 

states that in considering whether to 

revoke an antidumping order, the 

Secretary will, inter alia, consider 

whether the respondent has agreed in 

writing to an immediate reinstatement 

into the order if the Secretary concludes 

that the respondent sold merchandise at 

less than fair value. In determining to 

revoke the order as to Kolon, the 

Department noted that Kolon provided 

a statement agreeing to the immediate 

reinstatement of the order if the 

Department determines that Kolon sold 

merchandise at less than fair value. See 

Polyethylene Terpthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the Republic of Korea; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Revocation in Part, 61 FR 58374, 58375 

(November 14, 1996). Therefore, Kolon 

was aware of the potential for 

‘‘immediate’’ reinstatement in the order 

if dumping resumed and the necessity 

of suspending liquidation in order to 

impose duties at a later point. The 

inclusion in the period of review of 

Kolon’s U.S. sales made beginning 

October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008, 

is therefore reasonable. This is also in 

keeping with our practice in other 

contexts, in which the period of review 

covers entries, exports and sales during 

the period beginning with the date of 

suspension of liquidation. See 19 CFR 

351.213(e)(1)(ii). Based on the foregoing, 

we have included in this review all of 

Kolon’s U.S. sales made during the 

period October 2, 2007, through May 31, 

2008. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of PET 

film from Korea to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared Kolon’s constructed export 

price (CEP) or export price (EP) sales 

made in the United States to unaffiliated 

purchasers, to NV, as described in the 

‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In 

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

the Act, we compared the CEP and EP 

of individual transactions to monthly 

weighted-average NVs. 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act we considered all products 

produced by Kolon covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, and sold in the home 

market during the POR, to be foreign 

like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We first 

attempted to compare contemporaneous 

U.S. and comparison-market sales of 

products that are identical with respect 

to the following characteristics: (1) 

Specification; (2) thickness; (3) surface 

treatment; and (4) grade. Consistent 

with the methodology employed in 

Final Results of CC Review, and in the 

recent investigation of PET film from 

Thailand, we used the actual 

thicknesses of the film rather than a 

range of thicknesses for product 

comparison purposes. See Final Results 

of CC Review and Accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

7. See also, Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand 73 

FR 24565, 24567 (May 5, 2008) 

(unchanged in final determination). 

Where we were unable to compare sales 

of identical merchandise, we compared 

U.S. sales to home market sales of the 

most similar merchandise based on the 

above characteristics. Where there were 

no sales of the foreign like product of 

the identical merchandise in the 

ordinary course of trade in the home 

market to compare to a U.S. sale, we 

compared the price of the U.S. sale to 

constructed value (CV). 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we base NV on sales made 

in the home market at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the CEP or EP sales in the 

U.S. market. The NV LOT is defined as 

the starting-price sales in the home 

market or, when NV is based CV, as the 

sales from which selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses and 

profit are derived. See 19 CFR 

351.412(b)(2)(c). The EP LOT is defined 

as the starting price in the United States 

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. With 

respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. 

market, the CEP LOT is defined as the 

level of the constructed sale from the 

exporter to the importer. See 

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

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the home-market sales 

are at different LOTs, and the difference 

affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment 

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

For CEP sales, if the NV level is more 

remote from the factory than the CEP 

level and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

the levels between NV and CEP affects 

price comparability, we adjust NV 

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 

(the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., 

Preliminary CC Review at 56050; see 

also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products from 

Brazil; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 

2005); unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 

(October 7, 2005). For CEP sales, we 

consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and CEP profit under 

section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See 

Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). We expect that if the LOTs 

claimed by the respondent are the same, 

the functions and activities of the seller 

should be similar. Conversely, if a party 

claims that the LOTs are different for 

different groups of sales, the functions 

and activities of the seller should be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel 

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 

Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 

(May 10, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Comment 6. 

We obtained information from Kolon 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making its reported foreign market 

and U.S. sales to unaffiliated customers. 

Kolon provided a description of all 

selling activities performed, along with 

a flowchart and tables comparing the 

levels of trade among each channel of 

distribution and customer category for 

both markets. See Kolon’s September 

10, 2008, questionnaire response at A– 

12. 

For the home market, Kolon identified 

two channels of distribution described 

as follows: (1) Direct shipments (i.e., 

products produced to order); and (2) 

warehouse shipments from inventory. 

Id. Within each of these two channels of 

distribution, Kolon made sales to 

unaffiliated customers. Id. We reviewed 

the level at which Kolon performed 

each of these selling functions with 

respect to each claimed channel of 

distribution and customer category. For 

all of the activities listed (which 

included sales forecasting, strategic and 

economic planning, sales promotion, 

order processing, and technical 

assistance), the level of performance for 

both direct shipments and warehouse 

shipments was identical across all types 

of customers. Based on our analysis of 

all of Kolon’s home market selling 

functions, we find all home market sales 

were made at the same LOT, the NV 

LOT. We also found that Kolon 

provided a similar level of selling 

functions on all of its EP sales, and that 

the level of these EP selling functions 

was comparable to the level of selling 

functions that Kolon performed on its 

home market sales. Id. Based on the 

foregoing, we determine that there is 

one level of trade for Kolon’s EP sales 

and that the EP LOT is comparable to 

the home market LOT. 

Kolon also indicated it made CEP 

sales through its U.S. affiliate, Kolon 

USA. Id. We then compared the CEP 

LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT is 

based on the selling activities associated 

with the transaction between Kolon and 

its affiliated importer, Kolon USA, 

whereas the NV LOT is based on the 

selling activities associated with the 

transactions between Kolon and 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. Our analysis indicates the 

selling functions performed for 

unaffiliated home market customers are 

either performed at a higher degree of 

intensity or are greater in number than 

the selling functions performed for 

Kolon USA. For example, in comparing 

Kolon’s selling activities, we find there 

are more functions performed in the 

home market which are not a part of 

CEP transactions (e.g., sales promotion, 

inventory maintenance, sales and 

marketing support). For selling activities 

performed for both home market sales 

and CEP sales (e.g., processing customer 

orders, freight and delivery 

arrangements), we find Kolon actually 

performed each activity at a higher level 

of intensity in the home market. We 

note that CEP sales from Kolon to Kolon 

USA generally occur at the beginning of 

the distribution chain, representing 

essentially a logistical transfer of 

inventory that resembles ex-factory 

sales. In contrast, all sales in the home 

market occur closer to the end of the 

distribution chain and involve smaller 

volumes and more customer interaction 

which, in turn, require the performance 

of more selling functions. Id. Based on 

the foregoing, we conclude that the NV 

LOT is at a more advanced stage than 

the CEP LOT. Because we found the 

home market and U.S. sales were made 

at different LOTs, we examined whether 

a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may 

be appropriate in this review. As we 

found only one LOT in the home 

market, it was not possible to make a 

LOT adjustment to home market prices, 

because such an adjustment is 

dependent on our ability to identify a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the home market sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction. See 19 CFR 

351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have 

no other information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a LOT 

adjustment. Because the data available 

do not form an appropriate basis for 

making a LOT adjustment, and because 

the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the CEP LOT, we 

have made a CEP offset to NV in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. 

United States Price 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP 

as ‘‘the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter of the subject 

merchandise outside of the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser 

* * * for exportation to the United 

States, as adjusted under subsection (c) 

of this section.’’ Section 772(b) of the 

Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which 

the subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of the subject merchandise or 

by a seller affiliated with the producer 

or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).’’ 

For purposes of this administrative 

review, Kolon classified all of its U.S. 

sales shipped directly from Korea to the 

United States as EP sales. Kolon 

reported all sales that were invoiced 

through its U.S. subsidiary Kolon USA 

as CEP transactions. For these 

preliminary results, we have accepted 

these classifications. The merchandise 

shipped directly to unaffiliated 

customers in the U.S. market was not 

sold through an affiliated U.S. importer, 

and we find no other grounds for 

treating these transactions as CEP sales. 

We, therefore, preliminarily determine 

that these transactions were EP sales. 

We have classified as CEP transactions 

the merchandise that was invoiced 

through Kolon USA because these sales 

were ‘‘sold in the United States’’ within 

the meaning of 772(b) of the Act. 

Export Price 

We calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP 

on packed prices to customers in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

billing adjustments and early payment 

discounts. We also made adjustments 

for the following movement expenses in 

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

the Act: foreign inland freight, foreign 

brokerage and handling charges, ocean 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, 

and U.S. customs duties. Finally, we 

made an addition to U.S. price for duty 

drawback in accordance with section 

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act based upon 

Kolon’s demonstration that it received 

duty drawback on imported materials 

used in the production of PET film. See 

Kolon October 3, 2008, Section C 

response at C–31. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, for those sales to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser that took place 

after importation into the United States, 

we calculated CEP. We based CEP on 

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. We made 

adjustments for billing adjustments and 

early payment discounts. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

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

the Act; these included foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling 

charges, U.S. brokerage and handling, 

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. 

As further directed by section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted those selling 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31925 

expenses associated with economic 

activity in the United States including 

direct selling expenses (i.e., 

commissions, warranties, warehousing, 

and U.S. credit expenses), inventory 

carrying costs, and other U.S. indirect 

selling expenses. We also made an 

adjustment for profit in accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Finally, we 

made an addition to U.S. price for duty 

drawback in accordance with section 

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act based upon 

Kolon’s demonstration that it received 

duty drawback on imported materials 

used in the production of PET film. See 

Kolon October 3, 2008, Section C 

response at C–31. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is greater than five 

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared Kolon’s volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product to the volume of its U.S. sales 

of the subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. Because Kolon’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 for subject merchandise, we 

determined the home market was viable. 

See Kolon’s September 10, 2008, 

questionnaire response at Appendix A– 

1. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

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

because the Department had disregarded 

certain of Kolon’s sales in the Final 

Results of CC Review (the most recently 

completed review in which Kolon 

participated), the Department had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Kolon made home market sales at 

prices below Kolon’s costs of 

production (COP) in this review. As a 

result, the Department was directed 

under section 773(b) of the Act to 

determine whether Kolon made home 

market sales during the POR at prices 

below its COP. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of Kolon’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (SG&A), 

interest expenses, and home market 

packing costs. We relied on the COP 

information provided by Kolon. 

To determine whether Kolon’s home 

market sales had been made at prices 

below the COP, we computed weightedaverage COPs during the POR, and 

compared the weighted-average COP 

figures to home market sales prices of 

the foreign like product as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act. On a 

product-specific basis, we compared the 

COP to the home market prices net of 

billing adjustments, discounts and 

rebates, any applicable movement 

charges, selling expenses, and packing 

expenses. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act, whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities, and whether such 

sales were made at prices which did not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time in the 

normal course of trade. Where less than 

20 percent of the respondent’s home 

market sales of a given model were at 

prices below the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

model because we determined that the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 

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

weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

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. 

Our cost test for Kolon revealed that, 

for home market sales of certain models, 

less than 20 percent of the sales of those 

models were at prices below the COP. 

We therefore retained all such sales in 

our analysis and used them as the basis 

for determining NV. Our cost test also 

indicated that for home market sales of 

other models, more than 20 percent 

were sold at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time and 

were at prices which would not permit 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. Thus, in 

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

Act, we excluded these below-cost sales 

from our analysis and used the 

remaining above-cost sales as the basis 

for determining NV. 

C. Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV based on the 

sum of Kolon’s material and fabrication 

costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the cost of 

materials for CV as described above in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section of this notice. In accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

based SG&A expenses and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by the 

respondent in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade, 

for consumption in the foreign country. 

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers in Korea. We 

used Kolon’s adjustments and 

deductions as reported. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

foreign inland freight pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 

addition, for comparisons involving 

similar merchandise, we made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

compared pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. We also 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 for 

imputed credit expenses. As noted 

above in the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section of 

this notice, we also made an adjustment 

for the CEP offset in accordance with 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, 

we deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

E. Price-to-CV Comparisons 

If we were unable to find a home 

market match of such or similar 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 

NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to CV in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists for the period October 2, 

2007 through May 31, 2008: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted average 

margin 

(percentage) 

Kolon Industries, Inc. ... 0.15% (de minimis) 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit case briefs 

not later than 30 days after the 

publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

35 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue, (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) a list of the issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of issues raised 

in any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For assessment 

purposes, where possible, we calculated 

importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for PET film from 

Korea based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any assessment rate calculated 

in the final results of this review is 

above de minimis. The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of these reviews and for 

future deposits of estimated duties, 

where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for Kolon will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of review (except, if the rate is zero or 

de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, 

no cash deposit will be required for 

Kolon); (2) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the less than 

fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review, 

the cash deposit rate will be the allothers rate of 4.82 percent from the 

LTFV investigation. See Antidumping 

Duty Order and Amendment to Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic 

of Korea, 56 FR 25669 (June 5, 1991). 

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. These 

preliminary results of administrative 

review are issued and this notice is 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15961 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO84 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Construction and Operation of a 

Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off 

Massachusetts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA) to Neptune LNG, L.L.C. (Neptune) 

to take, by harassment, small numbers 

of several species of marine mammals 

incidental to construction and 

operations of an offshore liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) facility in 

Massachusetts Bay for a period of 1 

year. 

DATES: Effective July 1, 2009, through 

June 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and 

application are available by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225 or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. A copy of the 

application containing a list of 

references used in this document may 

be obtained by writing to this address, 

by telephoning the contact listed here 

(FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) on the Neptune LNG 

Deepwater Port License Application is 

available for viewing at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by entering the 

search words ‘‘Neptune LNG.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289 ext. 

156. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES