Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16359 

will use the data in several ways. First, 

the capital workweek data will be used 

as an indicator of capital use in the 

estimation of monthly output (industrial 

production). Second, the workweek data 

will also be used to improve the 

projections of labor productivity that are 

used to align industrial production (IP) 

with comprehensive benchmark 

information in the Economic Census, 

Manufacturing and Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. Third, the utilization rate 

data will assist in the assessment of 

recent changes in IP, as most of the 

high-frequency movement in utilization 

rates reflect production changes rather 

than capacity changes. 

II. Method of Collection 

The Census Bureau will use the mail 

out/mail back survey forms to collect 

the data. An electronic version of the 

form for reporting via the Internet will 

also be offered. Companies will be asked 

to respond within 20 days of the initial 

mailing. This due date will be imprinted 

at the top of the form. Letters 

encouraging participation will be 

mailed to companies that have not 

responded by the designated time. 

Subsequent to the letter, a telephone 

follow-up will be conducted. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0175. 

Form Number: MQ–C2. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

7,500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1.75 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 52,500. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$1,594,425. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States 

Code, Section 182. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information has practical 

utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden (including hours 

and cost) of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 7, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–8182 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–201–834) 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. (Amtex), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from 

Mexico. The review covers exports of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States produced and exported by 

Amtex; the period of review (POR) is 

July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. 

We preliminarily find that Amtex 

made sales at less than normal value 

(NV) during the POR. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties based on differences between the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) and NV. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit arguments in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

the arguments: (1) a statement of the 

issues, (2) a brief summary of the 

arguments (no longer than five pages, 

including footnotes) and (3) a table of 

authorities. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner 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) 482–6312 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on CMC from 

Mexico on July 11, 2005. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 11, 

2008, the Department published the 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of CMC from 

Mexico for the period of July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 

(July 11, 2008). On July 22, 2008, 

respondent Amtex requested an 

administrative review. On August 26, 

2008, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of initiation of 

this antidumping duty administrative 

review. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

On August 26, 2008, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex 

submitted its response to section A of 

the Department’s questionnaire on 

October 14, 2008 (Amtex Section A 

Response). Amtex submitted its 

response to sections B and C of the 

Department’s questionnaire on 

November 6, 2008 (Amtex Sections B 

and C Response). 

On March 13, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire for 

sections A, B, and C, to which Amtex 

responded on March 20, 2009 (Amtex 

Supplemental Response). 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2007, through June 30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is all purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), 

sometimes also referred to as purified 

sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or 

cellulose gum, which is a white to off– 

white, non–toxic, odorless, 

biodegradable powder, comprising 

sodium CMC that has been refined and 

purified to a minimum assay of 90 

percent. Purified CMC does not include 

unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 

Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and 

CMC that is cross–linked through heat 

treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that 

has undergone one or more purification 

operations which, at a minimum, reduce 

the remaining salt and other by–product 

portion of the product to less than ten 

percent. The merchandise subject to this 

16360 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

order is classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States at 

subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Date of Sale 

The Department’s regulations state 

that it will normally use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business, as the date of sale. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the 

Department is satisfied that ‘‘a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale,’’ the Department 

may choose a different date. Id. Amtex 

has reported the definitive invoice (as 

differentiated from pro forma invoice) 

as the invoice date. See Amtex Section 

A Response at A22. 

With regard to the invoice date, 

Amtex bills some of its sales via 

‘‘delayed invoices’’ in both the home 

and U.S. markets. See Amtex Section A 

Response at A22. Delivery is made to 

the customer and a pro forma invoice is 

issued, but the subject merchandise 

remains in storage and continues to be 

the property of Amtex until withdrawn 

for consumption by the customer 

(usually at the end of a regular, monthly 

billing cycle), at which time a definitive 

invoice is issued. Id. In Amtex’s normal 

books and records, it is this definitive 

invoice date, not the pro forma invoice 

date, that is recorded as the date of sale. 

Id. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the 

definitive invoice date is the date of sale 

provided it is issued on or before the 

shipment date; and that the shipment 

date is the date of sale where the invoice 

is issued after the shipment date. See 

Analysis Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico 

dated April 2, 2009 (Analysis 

Memorandum), for further discussion of 

date of sale. A public version of this 

memorandum is on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU) located in Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce Building, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CMC in 

the United States were made at less than 

NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ 

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

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

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Tariff Act), we calculated monthly 

weighted–average NVs and compared 

these to individual U.S. transactions. 

Because we determined Amtex made 

both EP and CEP sales during the POR, 

we used both EP and CEP as the basis 

for U.S. price in our comparisons. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act, we considered all 

products produced by Amtex 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 relied on 

five characteristics to match U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise to comparison 

sales of the foreign like product (listed 

in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) 

viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) 

particle size; and 5) solution gel 

characteristics. Where there were no 

sales of identical merchandise in the 

home market to compare to U.S. sales, 

we compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of these product characteristics and the 

reporting instructions listed in the 

Department’s August 26, 2008, 

questionnaire. Because there were 

contemporaneous sales of identical or 

similar merchandise in the home market 

suitable for comparison to all U.S. sales, 

we did not compare any U.S. sales to 

constructed value (CV). See the CV 

section below. 

Export Price (EP) 

Section 772(a) of the Tariff 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 subject merchandise outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States,’’ as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Tariff Act. In 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Tariff Act, we used EP for a number of 

Amtex’s U.S. sales because these sales 

were made before the date of 

importation and were sales directly to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States, and because CEP methodology 

was not otherwise indicated. 

We based EP on the packed, delivered 

duty paid, cost and freight (C&F) or free 

on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. Amtex 

reported no price or billing adjustments, 

and no discounts. We made deductions 

for movement expenses in accordance 

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 

Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight from 

the mill to the U.S. border, inland 

freight from the border to the customer 

or warehouse, and U.S. brokerage and 

handling. We made adjustment for 

direct expenses (credit expenses) in 

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

the Tariff Act. 

Constructed Export Price (CEP) 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Tariff Act, CEP is ‘‘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 such 

merchandise, or by a seller affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, to a 

purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter,’’ as adjusted 

under sections 772(c) and (d) of the 

Tariff Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for 

a number of Amtex’s U.S. sales because 

Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate 

in the United States, Amtex Chemicals 

LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), 

which, in turn, sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. See, e.g., Amtex Section A 

Response at A19–A20. We preliminarily 

find these U.S. sales are properly 

classified as CEP sales because they 

occurred in the United States and were 

made through Amtex’s U.S. affiliate, 

Amtex Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers. 

We based CEP on the packed, 

delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. Amtex reported no price 

or billing adjustments, and no discounts 

or rebates. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

which included, where appropriate, 

foreign inland freight to the border, 

foreign brokerage and handling, customs 

duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland 

freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 

the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (credit 

costs), inventory carrying costs, and 

indirect selling expenses. We made no 

adjustment for CEP profit for the reasons 

set forth in the Analysis Memorandum. 

See Analysis Memorandum at 11. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16361 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a) of the Tariff Act. Because 

Amtex’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was greater than five percent of its 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise, we determined the 

home market was viable. See section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, 

we based NV on home market sales in 

the usual commercial quantities and in 

the ordinary course of trade. 

B. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers. Amtex reported 

no billing adjustments, discounts or 

rebates in the home market. We made 

deductions for movement expenses 

including, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight and insurance, pursuant 

to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. 

In addition, when comparing sales of 

similar merchandise, we made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., 

DIFMER) pursuant to section 

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

CFR 351.410. We made COS 

adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses. 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 

Tariff Act. 

C. Constructed Value (CV) 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if 

we are unable to find a 

contemporaneous comparison market 

match of identical or similar 

merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 

773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall 

be based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication employed in 

making the subject merchandise, selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, financial expenses, profit, and 

U.S. packing costs. We found 

contemporaneous market matches for all 

the U.S. sales. Therefore, for these 

preliminary results, it was not necessary 

to base NV on CV. For a more detailed 

explanation of our CV analysis, which 

relies upon business proprietary 

information, please see Analysis 

Memorandum at 10–13. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the 

extent practicable, we base NV on sales 

made in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the export 

transaction. The NV LOT is based on the 

starting price of sales in the home 

market or, when NV is based on CV, on 

the LOT of the sales from which SG&A 

expenses and profit are derived. 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 section 19 

CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). 

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

If the comparison–market sales are at a 

different LOT, and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison–market sales at the 

LOT of the export transaction, we make 

a LOT adjustment under section 

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

CEP offset provision). See, e.g., 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), results 

unchanged in Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products from 

Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005); 

see also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse 

Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 

(February 26, 2002) and accompanying 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Comment 8. 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, 

1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that 

if the claimed LOTs 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 

dissimilar. See Porcelain–on-Steel 

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

Amtex reported it had sold CMC to 

end–users and distributors in the home 

market and to end–users and 

distributors in the United States. For the 

home market, Amtex identified two 

channels of distribution: end users 

(channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). 

See Amtex’s Section A Response at A15. 

Amtex claimed a single level of trade in 

the home market, stating that it 

performs essentially the same selling 

functions to either category of customer. 

We obtained information from Amtex 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making its reported home market and 

U.S. sales. Amtex provided a table 

listing all selling activities it performs, 

and comparing the levels of trade among 

each channel of distribution in each 

market. See Amtex’s Section A 

Response at Exhibit A–8. We reviewed 

Amtex’s claims concerning the intensity 

to which all selling functions were 

performed for each home market 

channel of distribution and customer 

category. For virtually all selling 

functions, the selling activities of Amtex 

were identical in both channels, 

including sales forecasting, personnel 

training, sales promotion, direct sales 

personnel, technical assistance, 

warranty service, after–sales service and 

arranging delivery. Id. Amtex described 

the level of activity as independent of 

channel of distribution. See Amtex’s 

Section A Response at A16. 

While we find some differences in the 

selling functions performed between the 

home market end–user and distributor 

channels of distribution, such 

differences are minor in that they are 

not the principal selling functions but 

rather specific to a few customers and 

rarely performed. See Amtex’s Section 

A Response at Exhibit A–8. Based on 

our analysis of all of Amtex’s home 

market selling functions, we agree with 

Amtex’s characterization of all its home 

market sales as being made at the same 

level of trade, the NV LOT. 

In the U.S. market, Amtex reported a 

single level of trade for both EP and CEP 

sales through two channels of 

distribution (i.e., end–users and 

distributors). See Amtex Sections B and 

C Response at C21. We examined the 

record with respect to Amtex’s EP sales 

and find that for all EP sales, Amtex 

performed such selling functions as 

sales forecasting, sales promotion, direct 

sales personnel, technical assistance, 

warranties, after–sales services and 

arranging delivery. See Amtex’s Section 

A Response at Exhibit A–8. In terms of 

16362 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

the number and intensity of selling 

functions performed on EP sales, these 

were indistinguishable between sales 

from Amtex to end users and to 

distributors. Id. Accordingly, we agree 

with Amtex and preliminarily 

determine that all EP sales were made 

at the same LOT. 

We compared Amtex’s EP level of 

trade to the single NV level of trade 

found in the home market. While we 

find differences in the levels of intensity 

performed for some of these functions 

between the home market NV level of 

trade and the EP level of trade, such 

differences are minor (specific to a few 

customers and rarely performed) and do 

not establish distinct levels of trade 

within the home market. Based on our 

analysis of all of Amtex’s home market 

and EP selling functions, we find these 

sales were made at the same level of 

trade. 

For CEP sales, however, we find that 

the CEP LOT is more advanced than the 

NV LOT. In the Selling Functions Chart, 

Amtex claims that the number and 

intensity of selling functions performed 

by Amtex in making its sales to Amtex 

Chemicals are lower than the number 

and intensity of selling functions Amtex 

performed for its EP sales, and further 

claims that CEP sales are at a less 

advanced stage than home market sales. 

See Amtex’s Section A Response at A17 

and Exhibit A–8. Amtex’s Section C 

Response, however, indicates that 

Amtex’s CEP sales are at a more 

advanced marketing stage than are its 

home market sales. See Amtex Sections 

B and C Response at C37 and Exhibit 

B12.1. Amtex reports that most of the 

principal selling functions in both 

markets are carried out by a single 

employee in the Mexico office. Based on 

the allocation of that employee’s time 

between CEP sales and other sales, it is 

evident that the intensity of activity for 

the principal selling functions is greater 

for CEP sales than other sales. Id.; see 

also Exhibit A–1. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that the CEP 

LOT (that is, sales from Amtex to its 

U.S. affiliate) involves a much more 

intense level of activity than the NV 

LOT. See Analysis Memorandum at 4– 

7; see also Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44095, 44098 (August 7, 

2007), unchanged in final results, 72 FR 

70300 (December 11, 2007). 

Because we found the home market 

and U.S. CEP 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 sales 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 CEP LOT. See 19 CFR 

351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, because 

the CEP LOT involves a much more 

intense level of activity than the NV 

LOT, it is not possible to make a CEP 

offset to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. 

Currency Conversions 

Amtex reported certain home market 

and U.S. sales prices and adjustments in 

both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. 

Therefore, we made peso–U.S. dollar 

currency conversions, where 

appropriate, based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the date of the sale, as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Board, 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Tariff Act. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find the following 

weighted–average dumping margin 

exists for the period July 1, 2007 

through June 30, 2008: 

Producer/Exporter 

Weighted–Average 

Margin 

(Percentage) 

Quimica Amtex, S.A. de 

C.V. ........................... 3.95 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within thirty days of 

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Requests should contain the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number, 

the number of participants, and a list of 

the issues to be discussed. At the 

hearing, each party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on issues 

raised in that party’s case brief, and may 

make rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the date of 

publication, or the first business day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed no later 

than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit 

arguments in these proceedings are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and 3) a table 

of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting written comments must 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of the issues 

in any such written comments or at a 

hearing, within 120 days of publication 

of these preliminary results. 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Upon 

completion of this administrative 

review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 

the Department will calculate an 

assessment rate on all appropriate 

entries. Amtex has reported entered 

values for all of its sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific duty assessment rates 

on the basis of the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales of that importer. These rates will 

be assessed uniformly on all entries the 

respective importers made during the 

POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

Where the assessment rate is above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

on or after 41 days following the 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the company included in 

these preliminary results that the 

company did not know were destined 

for the United States. In such instances 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the ‘‘all others’’ 

rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company or companies 

involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following cash 

deposit requirements will be effective 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16363 

for all shipments of CMC from Mexico 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

the cash deposit rate for Amtex will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of review, unless that rate is less than 

0.50 percent (de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; 2) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the less–thanfair–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 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all–others rate 

of 12.61 percent from the LTFV 

investigation. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: April 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8233 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO41 

Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant 

Regional Administrator), has made a 

preliminary determination that an 

Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) 

application contains all of the required 

information and warrants further 

consideration. This EFP would allow 

two commercial fishing vessels to 

temporarily retain undersize fish and 

fish in excess of possession limits for 

the purpose of data collection in 

support of research conducted by the 

University of Rhode Island (URI). The 

Assistant Regional Administrator has 

made a preliminary determination that 

the activities authorized under this EFP 

would be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). However, 

further review and consultation may be 

necessary before a final determination is 

made to issue an EFP. Therefore, NMFS 

announces that the Assistant Regional 

Administrator proposes to recommend 

that an EFP be issued. 

Regulations under the Magnuson– 

Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

applications for proposed EFPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: DA9–087@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line ‘‘Comments on URI 

TED EFP.’’ 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional 

Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside 

of the envelope ‘‘Comments on URI TED 

EFP.’’ 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Silva, Cooperative Research 

Liaison, 978–281–9326. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Southern New England Collaborative 

Research Initiative, URI was selected by 

the Commercial Fisheries Research 

Foundation to conduct a study titled, 

‘‘Evaluation of a Modified Turtle 

Excluder Device (TED) Design in the 

Southern New England and Mid– 

Atlantic Summer Trawl Fisheries.’’ The 

primary objective of this experiment is 

to evaluate the catch performance of a 

summer flounder trawl fitted with a 

TED. This objective would be 

accomplished through comparative tows 

between two summer flounder trawls, 

one of which has the experimental TED. 

URI proposes to employ two 

commercial vessels that operate in the 

summer flounder fishery to conduct this 

research. Investigators propose to 

conduct approximately 80, 90-minute 

tows (40 paired tows) in the New 

England and Mid–Atlantic regions over 

the course of 22 sea days in the summer 

of 2009, starting in early June. 

Investigators would collect data on 

estimated total catch weight, and weight 

and length measurements on summer 

flounder and other bycatch species. All 

legal catch would be sold. 

URI submitted a complete EFP 

application on March 26, 2009, 

requesting exemption from minimum 

fish size and possession limit 

regulations for the purpose of data 

collection prior to discarding undersize 

fish and fish above the vessel’s 

possession limit. Aside from these 

exemptions, all other elements of these 

fishing trips would comply with fishing 

regulations. 

The applicant may request minor 

modifications and extensions to the EFP 

throughout the year. EFP modifications 

and extensions may be granted without 

further notice if they are deemed 

essential to facilitate completion of the 

proposed research and have minimal 

impacts that do not change the scope or 

impact of the initially approved EFP 

request. Any fishing activity conducted 

outside the scope of the exempted 

fishing activity would be prohibited. If 

the research project is terminated for 

any reason prior to completion, any 

unused funds collected from catch sold 

to pay for research expenses may be 

refunded to NOAA. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Kristen C. Koch, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–8236 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[Application No. 97–9A003] 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance (# 97–9A003) 

of an Amended Export Trade Certificate 

of Review Issued to the Association for 

the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce issued an amended Export 

Trade Certificate of Review to the