Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Argentina and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 8054-8058 [E9-3795]

Download as PDF 8054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Ajubesteel withdrew its request for a review on January 13, 2009, which is within the 60–day deadline. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this new shipper review of Ajubesteel. Notification jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES As the Department is rescinding this antidumping duty new shipper review, normally, the all–others rate in effect at the time of entry, 4.8 percent ad valorem, would be assessed on all exports of circular welded non–alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea by Ajubesteel entered, or withdrawn, from warehouse for consumption during the period of review (November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008). However, Ajubesteel’s shipments are subject to an administrative review of the order on circular welded non–alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea, covering the same period. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 79055 (December 24, 2008). Because the sale(s) from this new shipper review also fall within the period of review of the administrative review, the Department will not issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at this time. Upon the completion of the November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008, administrative review, the Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP as appropriate. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanctions. This new shipper rescission and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 12, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping and Countervailing Operations. [FR Doc. E9–3656 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:05 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–807] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2007/ 2008 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 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, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 5, 1991, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). 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). The Department received timely requests from Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon) and from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and Toray Plastics America Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea covering Kolon’s sales for the period October 2, 2007, through May 31, 2008. On July 30, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review with respect to Kolon. 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). The deadline for completion of the preliminary results in this administrative review is currently March 2, 2009. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order or suspension agreement for which the administrative review was requested, and the final results of the review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the Federal Register. However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), we determine that it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the statutory time limit of 245 days. The Department requires additional time to analyze Kolon’s questionnaire responses, and issue supplemental questionnaires. In particular, there are complex issues concerning Kolon’s reported cost of production and U.S. sales that the Department requires additional time to analyze. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these preliminary results by 120 days. Therefore, the new deadline for completion of this review is June 30, 2009. The final results, in turn, will be due 120 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 17, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E9–3791 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–357–819, C–580–862] Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Argentina and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: February 23, 2009. E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson (Argentina) or John Conniff (Republic of Korea), 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) 482–4793 and (202) 482–1009, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On January 26, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and the Republic of Korea (Korea) filed in proper form by Korff Holdings, LLC doing business as Quaker City Castings (Petitioner). See Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina and the Republic of Korea, dated January 26, 2009 (the petitions). On January 29, 2009, and February 6, 9, and 10, 2009, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department’s requests, Petitioner filed additional information supplementing the petitions on February 5, 10, 11, and 12, 2009. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of Ni-resist piston inserts in Argentina and Korea receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it requests the Department to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section below). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Period of Investigations The anticipated period of the investigations (POI) is January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). Scope of Investigations The scope of these investigations includes all Ni-resist piston inserts regardless of size, thickness, weight, or outside diameter. Ni-resist piston inserts may also be called other names including, but not limited to, ‘‘Ring VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 Carriers,’’ or ‘‘Alfin Inserts.’’ Ni-resist piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, with or without a sheet metal cooling channel pressed and welded into the interior of the insert. Ni-resist piston inserts are composed of the material known as Ni-resist, of the chemical composition: 13.5%–17.5% Ni (nickel), 5.5%–8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8%–2.5% Cr (chromium), 0.5%–1.5% Mn (manganese), 1.0%–3.0% Si (silicon), 2.4%–3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron composition is produced primarily to the material specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 1. The scope of these investigations does not include piston rings nor any other product manufactured using the Niresist material. The subject imports are properly classified under subheading 8409.99.91.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but have been imported under HTSUS 7326.90. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description is dispositive of the scope of these investigations. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Governments of Argentina and Korea (GOA and GOK, respectively) for consultations with regard to the petitions. The Department held these consultations in Washington, DC, with representatives of the GOK on February 10, 2009, and with PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8055 representatives of the GOA on February 13, 2009. See Memorandum to the File regarding ‘‘Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Countervailing Duty Petition regarding Ni-Resist Piston Inserts,’’ (dated February 12, 2009), and Memorandum to the File regarding ‘‘Consultations with Officials from the Government of Argentina on the Countervailing Duty Petition regarding Ni-Resist Piston Inserts,’’ (dated February 13, 2009); these memoranda are on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 8056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of these investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that Niresist piston inserts as defined by Petitioner constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: NiResist Piston Inserts from Argentina’’ (Argentina Checklist), at Attachment II (Industry Support), and ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from the Republic of Korea’’ (Korea Checklist), at Attachment II (Industry Support) (dated February 17, 2009), on file in the CRU. With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in determining whether Petitioner has standing (i.e., the domestic workers and producers supporting the petitions account for (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions), we considered the industry support data contained in the petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section above. To establish industry support, Petitioner indicated that it was the sole producer of the domestic like product and provided its production statistics for the domestic like product for the year 2008. We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. No comments were submitted challenging Petitioner’s VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 industry support claims. For further discussion, see Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department’s review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. First, the petitions establish support from the domestic producer accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like products and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (i.e., polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Second, the domestic producer has met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producer who supports the petitions accounts for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like products. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Finally, the domestic producer has met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producer supporting the petitions accounts for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Injury Test Because Argentina and Korea are each a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Country’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Argentina and Korea materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioner alleges that imports of Niresist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic industries producing Ni-resist piston inserts. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced production, reduced shipments, reduced employment, and an overall decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment III (Injury). Subsidy Allegations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the CVD petitions on Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea finds that the petitions comply with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Standard’’ section. I. Argentina We are including in our investigation the following program alleged in the Argentina petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Argentina: E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices A. Tax Relief Under the Reintegro 1 For further information explaining why the Department is investigating this program, see Argentina Checklist. We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Argentina: A. Pre-Export Preferred Financing Petitioner alleges that pre-export loans are widely available to specific industries in Argentina. Petitioner states that the pre-export program makes available to exporters pre-export funds for individual sales at an interest rate of one percent up to 180 days, to be repaid no later than 60 days after the effective export date. Petitioner also states that the funds are provided by the Central Bank of Argentina and disbursed through private commercial banks. In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found that the pre-export financing provided by the Argentine Central Bank was terminated. See Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 FR 62106 (October 3, 2002) (Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel), and accompanying issues and decision memorandum at ‘‘Program Determined To Be Terminated’’ (Cold-Rolled Memorandum). Petitioner has provided no evidence that the Central Bank may have resumed its pre-export financing program. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program. B. Post-Export Preferred Financing jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Petitioner alleges that the postshipment financing program (aka, Circular OPRAC 1–9 Post-Shipment Financing) provides shipment-specific, short-term preferential loans to exporters after a product has been exported. Petitioner states that, similar to the pre-export financing, the length of the loan is limited to 180 days and interest is paid quarterly. Petitioner adds that the loans are granted for up to 30 percent of the peso equivalent of the foreign currency in which the export 1 In the Argentina petition, Petitioner submitted a subsidy allegation for the program ‘‘Tax Relief under the Reembolso’’ (see petition at page 19). ‘‘Reembolso,’’ however, is the former name of the tax relief program. In a prior Argentina CVD proceeding, the Department learned that the successor program is named ‘‘Reintegro.’’ See Notice of Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain ColdRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 FR 9670, 9673 (March 4, 2002). Therefore, we are initiating on the program as ‘‘Tax Relief under the Reintegro.’’ VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 transaction was paid and that the interest rate on the loans is the indexed market rate used by the commercial banks as required under Central Bank regulations. In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found the post-export financing provided by the Argentine Central Bank was terminated. See ColdRolled Memorandum at ‘‘Program Determined To Be Terminated.’’ Further, Petitioner has provided no evidence that the Central Bank may have resumed its post-export financing program. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program. C. Tax Relief Under the Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill Petitioner states that the purpose of this program is to provide an incentive to import goods and equipment that will be used to modernize productive processes in Argentina. Petitioner claims that the program achieves its objective by allowing the importation of new merchandise and equipment without the payment of import duties. Petitioner states that the GOA, through the state-owned Investment and Foreign Trade Bank, provides the duty exemption/reductions, which are contingent on export performance. In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found that the Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill to be not countervailable. See Cold-Rolled Memorandum at ‘‘Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable.’’ Specifically, the Department found that this program is neither de jure nor de facto specific as described in section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill may now be specific either in law or in fact. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program. D. Tax Relief Under Decrees Nos. 379/ 2001 and 502/2001 Petitioner states that the objective of this program is to create an incentives regime for Argentine manufacturers of capital goods. Under the program, Petitioner alleges there is a tax bond, which is applied to the payment of national taxes, equivalent to 10 percent of the amount resulting from the deduction from the sales price of the value of imported manufacturing inputs, parts or components, incorporated into the final product and cleared through customs at an import duty of zero percent. Petitioner claims that Ni-resist piston insert producers can use this program because the term ‘‘capital goods’’ can be used to refer to anything that is not an end-product. Petitioner claims that a Ni-resist piston insert is PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8057 not an end-product as its only purpose is to assist in the proper functioning of diesel pistons within diesel engines. We do not plan to investigate this program, which provides a tax incentive to manufacturers of capital goods. Niresist piston inserts are not capital goods and, therefore, producers of the subject merchandise could not use this program. II. Korea We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the Korea petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Korea: A. Energy Rate Reductions Under the Request Load Adjustment Program. B. Short-Term Export Financing. C. Loans under the Industrial Base Fund (IBF). D. Export Loans by Commercial Banks Under the Export-Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM) Trade Bill Rediscounting Program. E. Reserve for Research and Manpower Development Fund Under Article 9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA) (Formerly Article 8 of Tax Exemption and Reduction Control Act). F. Reserve for Investment Funds. For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, see Korea Checklist. Respondent Selection Normally for an investigation, the Department selects respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI. In this case, the HTSUS category that includes subject merchandise is broad and includes products other than products subject to these investigations. Therefore, such CBP data would not be informative to our selection of respondents for these investigations. In the petitions, Petitioner identified the following producers/exporters of Niresist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea as having exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI: Clorindo Appo SRL and Incheon Metal Co., Ltd., respectively. We are setting aside a period for interested parties to submit comments on the selection of Clorindo Appo SRL and Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. as respondents in these investigations. The Department requests interested parties to submit such comments within five calendar days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1 8058 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 34 / Monday, February 23, 2009 / Notices Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petitions has been provided to the GOA and GOK. As soon as possible and to the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to each company named in the petitions, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 17, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E9–3795 Filed 2–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance Regarding Which Children’s Products are Subject to the Requirements of CPSIA Section 108; Request for Comments and Information jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) section 108 permanently prohibits the sale of any ‘‘children’s toy or child care article’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of three specified phthalates. Section 108 of the CPSIA also prohibits on an interim basis ‘‘toys that can be placed in a child’s mouth’’ or ‘‘child care articles’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of three additional phthalates. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 These prohibitions became effective on February 10, 2009. The purpose of this notice is to seek public comment on the draft approach prepared by CPSC staff for determining which products constitute a ‘‘children’s toy or child care article’’ and therefore are subject to the requirements of section 108 of the CPSIA.1 DATES: Comments and submissions in response to this notice must be received by March 25, 2009. ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by e-mail to section108definitions@cpsc.gov. Comments also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504–7530. Comments should be captioned ‘‘Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance Regarding Which Children’s Products are Subject to the Requirements of CPSIA Section 108.’’ Depending upon comments received in response to this notice, the Commission will consider issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing these issues. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Babich, PhD, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7253; e-mail mbabich@cpsc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction 2 Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) 3 permanently prohibits the sale of any ‘‘children’s toy or child care article’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of three specified phthalates.4 Section 108 also prohibits on an interim basis ‘‘toys that can be placed in a child’s mouth’’ or ‘‘child care articles’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of three additional phthalates.5 These prohibitions became effective on February 10, 2009. The terms ‘‘children’s toy,’’ ‘‘toy that can be placed in a child’s mouth,’’ and ‘‘child care article’’ are defined in 1 The Commission voted unanimously (2–0) to publish the Federal Register Notice without change. 2 This report was prepared by the CPSC staff; it has not been reviewed or approved, by, and may not necessarily reflect the views of, the Commission. 3 Public Law 110–314. 4 Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). 5 Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 section 108, and the definitions apply only to this section of the Act. The staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received many inquiries from manufacturers seeking clarification on which products are subject to the requirements of section 108 and, in response, has developed a possible approach to guide manufacturers in determining which products might be subject to the requirements. The purpose of this notice is to seek public comment on the CPSC staff’s draft approach for determining which products are subject to the requirements of section 108 of the CPSIA, and to seek additional information on how the approach could be applied to particular product classes. The examples discussed below are not comprehensive. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the staff’s approach. Additionally, conclusions that are generally true for a class of products may not necessarily apply to each specific product in that class, for example, due to the way the product is advertised. The requirements of section 108 apply to subsets of ‘‘consumer products’’ as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).6 Products such as food, cosmetics, and medical devices that are regulated by other federal agencies are generally not considered ‘‘consumer products.’’ However, some products may fall under the jurisdiction of more than one agency. For example, articles such as infant bottles and cups are under the jurisdiction of both CPSC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has jurisdiction over indirect food additives, that is, when there is a possibility that a chemical may migrate from the article into a food or beverage. CPSC generally has jurisdiction over the outer portion of the product, which directly contacts the consumer. However, section 108 is based on phthalate concentration within the product and does not distinguish between exposure pathways. Therefore, for the purpose of CPSIA section 108, articles such as infant bottles and cups are regarded as consumer products. Children’s Toys Section 108 of the CPSIA defines a ‘‘children’s toy’’ as a ‘‘consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the 6 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(2), 1960; it should be noted, however, while certain products are carved out of the definition of consumer product, they may be regulated by the Commission under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), should they pose a health hazard within the meaning of that Act. E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM 23FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 34 (Monday, February 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8054-8058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-3795]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-357-819, C-580-862]


Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Argentina and the Republic of 
Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: February 23, 2009.

[[Page 8055]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson (Argentina) or John 
Conniff (Republic of Korea), 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) 482-4793 and (202) 482-1009, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On January 26, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning Ni-resist 
piston inserts from Argentina and the Republic of Korea (Korea) filed 
in proper form by Korff Holdings, LLC doing business as Quaker City 
Castings (Petitioner). See Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Ni-
Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina and the Republic of Korea, dated 
January 26, 2009 (the petitions).
    On January 29, 2009, and February 6, 9, and 10, 2009, the 
Department issued requests for additional information and clarification 
of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's requests, 
Petitioner filed additional information supplementing the petitions on 
February 5, 10, 11, and 12, 2009.
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of Ni-resist piston inserts in Argentina and Korea receive 
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act 
and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and Petitioner has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that 
it requests the Department to initiate (see ``Determination of Industry 
Support for the Petitions'' section below).

Period of Investigations

    The anticipated period of the investigations (POI) is January 1, 
2008, through December 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

Scope of Investigations

    The scope of these investigations includes all Ni-resist piston 
inserts regardless of size, thickness, weight, or outside diameter. Ni-
resist piston inserts may also be called other names including, but not 
limited to, ``Ring Carriers,'' or ``Alfin Inserts.'' Ni-resist piston 
inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, with or without a sheet metal 
cooling channel pressed and welded into the interior of the insert. Ni-
resist piston inserts are composed of the material known as Ni-resist, 
of the chemical composition: 13.5%-17.5% Ni (nickel), 5.5%-8.0% Cu 
(copper), 0.8%-2.5% Cr (chromium), 0.5%-1.5% Mn (manganese), 1.0%-3.0% 
Si (silicon), 2.4%-3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron composition is 
produced primarily to the material specifications of the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM A-436 grade 1.
    The scope of these investigations does not include piston rings nor 
any other product manufactured using the Ni-resist material. The 
subject imports are properly classified under subheading 8409.99.91.90 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but 
have been imported under HTSUS 7326.90. The HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
is dispositive of the scope of these investigations.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the 
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to 
consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determinations.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of the Governments of Argentina and Korea (GOA 
and GOK, respectively) for consultations with regard to the petitions. 
The Department held these consultations in Washington, DC, with 
representatives of the GOK on February 10, 2009, and with 
representatives of the GOA on February 13, 2009. See Memorandum to the 
File regarding ``Consultations with Officials from the Government of 
the Republic of Korea on the Countervailing Duty Petition regarding Ni-
Resist Piston Inserts,'' (dated February 12, 2009), and Memorandum to 
the File regarding ``Consultations with Officials from the Government 
of Argentina on the Countervailing Duty Petition regarding Ni-Resist 
Piston Inserts,'' (dated February 13, 2009); these memoranda are on 
file in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the 
main Department of Commerce building.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this

[[Page 8056]]

may result in different definitions of the like product, such 
differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to 
law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), 
citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 
(CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 
919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of these 
investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that Ni-resist piston inserts as defined 
by Petitioner constitute a single domestic like product, and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a 
discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see 
``Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Ni-Resist 
Piston Inserts from Argentina'' (Argentina Checklist), at Attachment II 
(Industry Support), and ``Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from the Republic of Korea'' (Korea 
Checklist), at Attachment II (Industry Support) (dated February 17, 
2009), on file in the CRU.
    With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in determining 
whether Petitioner has standing (i.e., the domestic workers and 
producers supporting the petitions account for (1) at least 25 percent 
of the total production of the domestic like product and (2) more than 
50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by 
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, 
the petitions), we considered the industry support data contained in 
the petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in 
the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above. To establish industry 
support, Petitioner indicated that it was the sole producer of the 
domestic like product and provided its production statistics for the 
domestic like product for the year 2008. We have relied upon data 
Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. No 
comments were submitted challenging Petitioner's industry support 
claims. For further discussion, see Argentina Checklist and Korea 
Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support).
    The Department's review of the data provided in the petitions, 
supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to 
the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry 
support. First, the petitions establish support from the domestic 
producer accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like products and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (i.e., 
polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and Argentina Checklist 
and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Second, the 
domestic producer has met the statutory criteria for industry support 
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producer 
who supports the petitions accounts for at least 25 percent of the 
total production of the domestic like products. See Argentina Checklist 
and Korea Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Finally, the 
domestic producer has met the statutory criteria for industry support 
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producer 
supporting the petitions accounts for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment 
II (Industry Support).
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is 
requesting the Department initiate. See Argentina Checklist and Korea 
Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support).

Injury Test

    Because Argentina and Korea are each a ``Subsidies Agreement 
Country'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the 
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from 
Argentina and Korea materially injure, or threaten material injury to, 
a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of Ni-resist piston inserts from 
Argentina and Korea are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and 
that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to 
the domestic industries producing Ni-resist piston inserts. In 
addition, Petitioner alleges that subsidized imports exceed the 
negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the 
Act.
    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing 
and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced production, 
reduced shipments, reduced employment, and an overall decline in 
financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation. See Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist at Attachment 
III (Injury).

Subsidy Allegations

    Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD 
proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of 
an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition 
of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the 
allegations. The Department has examined the CVD petitions on Ni-resist 
piston inserts from Argentina and Korea finds that the petitions comply 
with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating CVD 
investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea receive 
countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our 
initiation determination, see Argentina Checklist and Korea Checklist 
at ``Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Standard'' section.

I. Argentina

    We are including in our investigation the following program alleged 
in the Argentina petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Argentina:

[[Page 8057]]

A. Tax Relief Under the Reintegro \1\

    For further information explaining why the Department is 
investigating this program, see Argentina Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the Argentina petition, Petitioner submitted a subsidy 
allegation for the program ``Tax Relief under the Reembolso'' (see 
petition at page 19). ``Reembolso,'' however, is the former name of 
the tax relief program. In a prior Argentina CVD proceeding, the 
Department learned that the successor program is named 
``Reintegro.'' See Notice of Preliminary Negative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 FR 9670, 
9673 (March 4, 2002). Therefore, we are initiating on the program as 
``Tax Relief under the Reintegro.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
in Argentina:

A. Pre-Export Preferred Financing

    Petitioner alleges that pre-export loans are widely available to 
specific industries in Argentina. Petitioner states that the pre-export 
program makes available to exporters pre-export funds for individual 
sales at an interest rate of one percent up to 180 days, to be repaid 
no later than 60 days after the effective export date. Petitioner also 
states that the funds are provided by the Central Bank of Argentina and 
disbursed through private commercial banks.
    In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found that the pre-
export financing provided by the Argentine Central Bank was terminated. 
See Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 FR 62106 (October 
3, 2002) (Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel), and accompanying issues and 
decision memorandum at ``Program Determined To Be Terminated'' (Cold-
Rolled Memorandum). Petitioner has provided no evidence that the 
Central Bank may have resumed its pre-export financing program. 
Therefore, we do not plan to investigate this program.

B. Post-Export Preferred Financing

    Petitioner alleges that the post-shipment financing program (aka, 
Circular OPRAC 1-9 Post-Shipment Financing) provides shipment-specific, 
short-term preferential loans to exporters after a product has been 
exported. Petitioner states that, similar to the pre-export financing, 
the length of the loan is limited to 180 days and interest is paid 
quarterly. Petitioner adds that the loans are granted for up to 30 
percent of the peso equivalent of the foreign currency in which the 
export transaction was paid and that the interest rate on the loans is 
the indexed market rate used by the commercial banks as required under 
Central Bank regulations.
    In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found the post-export 
financing provided by the Argentine Central Bank was terminated. See 
Cold-Rolled Memorandum at ``Program Determined To Be Terminated.'' 
Further, Petitioner has provided no evidence that the Central Bank may 
have resumed its post-export financing program. Therefore, we do not 
plan to investigate this program.

C. Tax Relief Under the Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill

    Petitioner states that the purpose of this program is to provide an 
incentive to import goods and equipment that will be used to modernize 
productive processes in Argentina. Petitioner claims that the program 
achieves its objective by allowing the importation of new merchandise 
and equipment without the payment of import duties. Petitioner states 
that the GOA, through the state-owned Investment and Foreign Trade 
Bank, provides the duty exemption/reductions, which are contingent on 
export performance.
    In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel, the Department found that the Zero 
Tariff Turnkey Bill to be not countervailable. See Cold-Rolled 
Memorandum at ``Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable.'' 
Specifically, the Department found that this program is neither de jure 
nor de facto specific as described in section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. 
Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Zero Tariff Turnkey 
Bill may now be specific either in law or in fact. Therefore, we do not 
plan to investigate this program.

D. Tax Relief Under Decrees Nos. 379/2001 and 502/2001

    Petitioner states that the objective of this program is to create 
an incentives regime for Argentine manufacturers of capital goods. 
Under the program, Petitioner alleges there is a tax bond, which is 
applied to the payment of national taxes, equivalent to 10 percent of 
the amount resulting from the deduction from the sales price of the 
value of imported manufacturing inputs, parts or components, 
incorporated into the final product and cleared through customs at an 
import duty of zero percent. Petitioner claims that Ni-resist piston 
insert producers can use this program because the term ``capital 
goods'' can be used to refer to anything that is not an end-product. 
Petitioner claims that a Ni-resist piston insert is not an end-product 
as its only purpose is to assist in the proper functioning of diesel 
pistons within diesel engines.
    We do not plan to investigate this program, which provides a tax 
incentive to manufacturers of capital goods. Ni-resist piston inserts 
are not capital goods and, therefore, producers of the subject 
merchandise could not use this program.

II. Korea

    We are including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged in the Korea petition to have provided countervailable 
subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in 
Korea:
    A. Energy Rate Reductions Under the Request Load Adjustment 
Program.
    B. Short-Term Export Financing.
    C. Loans under the Industrial Base Fund (IBF).
    D. Export Loans by Commercial Banks Under the Export-Import Bank of 
Korea (KEXIM) Trade Bill Rediscounting Program.
    E. Reserve for Research and Manpower Development Fund Under Article 
9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA) (Formerly Article 8 
of Tax Exemption and Reduction Control Act).
    F. Reserve for Investment Funds.
    For further information explaining why the Department is 
investigating these programs, see Korea Checklist.

Respondent Selection

    Normally for an investigation, the Department selects respondents 
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 
during the POI. In this case, the HTSUS category that includes subject 
merchandise is broad and includes products other than products subject 
to these investigations. Therefore, such CBP data would not be 
informative to our selection of respondents for these investigations. 
In the petitions, Petitioner identified the following producers/
exporters of Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina and Korea as 
having exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POI: Clorindo Appo SRL and Incheon Metal Co., Ltd., respectively. We 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to submit comments on 
the selection of Clorindo Appo SRL and Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. as 
respondents in these investigations. The Department requests interested 
parties to submit such comments within five calendar days after the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments should be 
addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of

[[Page 8058]]

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of 
the public version of the petitions has been provided to the GOA and 
GOK. As soon as possible and to the extent practicable, we will attempt 
to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to each 
company named in the petitions, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date 
on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of subsidized Ni-resist piston 
inserts from Argentina and Korea are causing material injury, or 
threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 
703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigations being terminated; otherwise, the investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: February 17, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-3795 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P