Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24823 

1 In a prior review, the Department determined 

that CP Kelco was the successor-in-interest to 

Noviant B.V. See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 

from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

44099, 44101 (August 7, 2007), unchanged in the 

final, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 70821, 70822 

(December 13, 2007) (Final Results of First 

Administrative Review). 

2The Department addressed Aqualon’s comments 

in its December 16, 2008, issuance of its 

supplemental questionnaire. 

LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT— 

Continued 

[4/1/2009 through 5/8/2009] 

Firm Address Date accepted 

for filing Products 

Tottser Tool and Die 

Shop, Inc.

1630 Republic Road, Huntington, PA 19006 ....... 5/8/2009 Metal stampings and die sets for the automotive 

industry. 

Any party having a substantial 

interest in these proceedings may 

request a public hearing on the matter. 

A written request for a hearing must be 

submitted to the Office of Performance 

Evaluation, Room 7009, Economic 

Development Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, 

DC 20230, no later than ten (10) 

calendar days following publication of 

this notice. Please follow the procedures 

set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA’s final 

rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for 

requesting a public hearing. The Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance official 

program number and title of the 

program under which these petitions are 

submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

Dated: May 15, 2009. 

William P. Kittredge, 

Program Officer for TAA. 

[FR Doc. E9–12115 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–421–811 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

the Netherlands; Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

petitioner Aqualon Company, a division 

of Hercules Incorporated (Aqualon), a 

U.S. manufacturer of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and 

respondent CP Kelco B.V. (CP Kelco), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

CMC from the Netherlands. This 

administrative review covers imports of 

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by CP Kelco (formerly known 

as Noviant B.V.).1 The period of review 

(POR) is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 

2008. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of subject merchandise by CP Kelco 

have been made at less than normal 

value (NV). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on appropriate entries based on 

the difference between the export price 

(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) 

and NV. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Brian Davis, 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) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 

7924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2005, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on purified CMC from the Netherlands. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) 

(CMC Order). On July 11, 2008, the 

Department published the opportunity 

to request an administrative review of, 

inter alia, purified CMC from the 

Netherlands for the period 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). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), on July 11, 2008, CP 

Kelco and its U.S. affiliates (CP Kelco 

U.S., Inc. and JM Huber Corporation) 

timely requested that the Department 

initiate and conduct an administrative 

review of its sales of subject 

merchandise during the POR. Aqualon 

timely requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 

sales of subject merchandise by Akzo 

Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. (Akzo 

Nobel) and CP Kelco on July 14, 2008. 

On July 31, 2008, Akzo Nobel timely 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of its sales of 

merchandise covered by the order. On 

August 26, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of this antidumping 

duty administrative review covering 

sales, entries and/or shipments of 

purified CMC for the period July 1, 

2007, through June 30, 2008, from CP 

Kelco and Akzo Nobel. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308 

(August 26, 2008). 

On September 5, 2008, and September 

22, 2008, the Department issued its 

antidumping duty questionnaire to CP 

Kelco and Akzo Nobel, respectively. CP 

Kelco submitted its section A 

questionnaire response (AQR) on 

October 7, 2008. Akzo Nobel withdrew 

its request for review on October 9, 

2008. Subsequently, petitioner 

withdrew its request for review of sales 

by Akzo Nobel on October 10, 2008. See 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). CP Kelco 

submitted both its section B 

questionnaire response (BQR) and 

section C questionnaire response (CQR) 

on October 20, 2008, and its section D 

questionnaire response (DQR) on 

November 3, 2008. 

On November 6, 2008, Aqualon 

provided deficiency comments for CP 

Kelco’s BQR and CQR relating to, inter 

alia, data inconsistencies in both the 

home and U.S. markets.2

On November 12, 2008, the 

Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

Akzo Nobel. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

24824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

Review, 73 FR 66841 (November 12, 

2008). 

On December 16, 2008, the 

Department issued its first sections A– 

C supplemental questionnaire to CP 

Kelco. On January 9, 2009, the 

Department issued its first section D 

supplemental questionnaire to CP 

Kelco. On January 22, 2009, CP Kelco 

submitted its sections A–C 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(SQR). On February 2, 2009, CP Kelco 

submitted its supplemental section D 

questionnaire response (SDQR). On 

February 4, 2009, the Department issued 

its second sections A–C supplemental 

questionnaire to CP Kelco. On February 

9, 2009, Aqualon submitted comments 

on CP Kelco’s February 2, 2009, SDQR. 

On February 11, 2009, CP Kelco 

submitted its second sections A–C 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(SSQR). 

On March 27, 2009, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results by 46 days from 

April 2, 2009, until May 18, 2009. See 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

the Netherlands; Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 14959 (April 2, 2009). 

Following the release of the 

Department’s sales verification reports, 

the Department requested CP Kelco 

revise its home market and U.S. sales 

databases pursuant to the Department’s 

verification findings and the minor 

corrections presented by company 

officials at the start of the verifications. 

See Letter to CP Kelco from Angelica L. 

Mendoza, Program Manager, regarding 

Submission of Revised Sales Databases, 

dated May 5, 2009. CP Kelco submitted 

its revised sales databases on May 11, 

2009. On May 15, 2009, the Department 

issued an additional supplemental 

questionnaire to CP Kelco requesting 

further cost information for one 

particular control number, due May, 20, 

2009 (i.e., after the date of these 

preliminary results). Given that we will 

not receive this information until after 

the issuance of these preliminary 

results, we intend to address this issue 

in our final results. For further detail, 

see Memorandum to the File through 

Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, from Patrick Edwards, Senior 

Case Analyst, titled ‘‘Analysis of Data 

Submitted by CP Kelco B.V. in the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from the 

Netherlands,’’ dated May 18, 2009, 

(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) at 

9. 

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2007, through June 

30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is all purified 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 order is 

currently 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 this order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted a 

sales verification of the questionnaire 

responses of CP Kelco from February 23, 

2009, through February 27, 2009, and 

CP Kelco’s U.S. sales affiliate, CP Kelco 

U.S., Inc. (CP Kelco US) from March 2, 

2009, through March 4, 2009. We used 

standard verification procedures, 

including on–site inspection of CP 

Kelco’s production facility in Nijmegen, 

the Netherlands. Our verification results 

are outlined in the following 

memoranda: (1) Memorandum to the 

File, through Angelica L. Mendoza, 

Program Manager, ‘‘Verification of the 

Home Market and Export Price Sales 

Responses of CP Kelco, B.V. in the 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ dated April 30, 2009 

(Home Market Verification Report), and 

(2) Memorandum to the File, through 

Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, 

‘‘Sales Verification of Sections A–C 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

CP Kelco B.V. and CP Kelco U.S., Inc. 

in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Verification of United 

States Affiliate CP Kelco U.S., Inc.,’’ 

dated April 30, 2009 (CEP Verification 

Report). The Department conducted a 

verification of CP Kelco’s cost responses 

in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, from 

March 16, 2009, through March 21, 

2009. See Memorandum to the File from 

Christopher Zimpo, through Neal M. 

Halper, Director, and Peter Scholl, Lead 

Accountant, regarding ‘‘Verification of 

the Cost Response of CP Kelco B.V. in 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ dated May 18, 2009 (Cost 

Verification Report). Public versions of 

these reports are on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU) located in room 

1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce Building, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC. 

Date of Sale 

CP Kelco reported the invoice date as 

the date of sale for its U.S. sales. The 

Department considers invoice date to be 

the presumptive date of sale (see 19 CFR 

351.401(i)). For purposes of this review, 

we examined whether invoice date or 

another date better represents the date 

on which the material terms of sale were 

established. The Department, in 

reviewing CP Kelco’s questionnaire 

responses, found that the material terms 

of sale are set on the date on which the 

invoice is issued. CP Kelco reported 

that, following the receipt of purchase 

orders, the terms of sale are susceptible 

and subject to changes in price and 

quantity until issuance of the sales 

invoice. See SQR at page 12; see also 

SQR at page 31; see also CEP 

Verification Report at page 14. 

Furthermore, in reviewing sales 

documentation during verification, we 

noted instances where the material 

terms of sale changed prior to the date 

of invoice (see, e.g., CEP Verification 

Report at Exhibit 16). Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that invoice 

date is the appropriate date of sale for 

CP Kelco’s U.S. sales in this 

administrative review because it 

represents the date upon which the 

material terms of sale are established. 

This is consistent with the most recently 

completed administrative review of this 

order. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 45943, 45944 (August 8, 

2008) (Preliminary Results of Second 

Administrative Review), unchanged at 

the final results, Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75393 (December 11, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24825 

3See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 

2 for a further discussion of this issue. 

2008) (Final Results of Second 

Administrative Review). 

However, for instances where the date 

of shipment preceded the date of 

invoice, we have preliminarily 

determined to use the date of shipment 

for those sales. Normally, the 

Department employs invoice date as the 

date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(i). However, it is the 

Department’s practice to use shipment 

date as the date of sale when shipment 

date precedes invoice date. See Certain 

Cold–Rolled and Corrosion–Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 

13172–73 (March 18, 1998); see also 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 18074, 18079–80 (April 

10, 2006), unchanged in Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 

Republic of Korea; Final Results and 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 

4486 (January 31, 2007), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. 

Similarly, based on our review of CP 

Kelco’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that the date of 

invoice constitutes the date on which 

the material terms of sale are established 

in the home market (i.e., the 

Netherlands). See SQR at 12; see also 

Home Market Verification Report at 

pages 23–42; see also Home Market 

Verification Exhibit 21. CP Kelco 

reported that the terms of sale recorded 

on purchase orders in the home market 

are also subject to change, typically in 

the form of packing and product grade 

(which can affect price). See CP Kelco’s 

AQR at 30–34. Therefore, we are using 

the invoice date as the date of sale for 

home market sales. For a further 

discussion of our date of sale analysis, 

see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 

at 2. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

purified CMC from the Netherlands to 

the United States were made at less than 

fair value, we compared the EP or CEP 

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice 

below. In accordance with section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the 

EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. 

transactions to monthly weighted– 

average NVs. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all purified CMC 

produced and sold by the respondent in 

the Netherlands during the POR that fit 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of Order’’ 

section of this notice to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales with 

sales of the foreign like product in the 

home market. Where there were no sales 

of identical or similar merchandise 

made in the ordinary course of trade, we 

made product comparisons using 

constructed value (CV). Specifically, in 

making our comparisons, we used the 

following methodology. To determine 

the most similar model, we matched the 

foreign like product based on the 

physical characteristics reported by the 

respondent in the following order of 

importance: (1) grade, (2) viscosity, (3) 

degree of substitution, (4) particle size, 

and (5) solution characteristics. If an 

identical home–market model was 

reported, we made comparisons to 

weighted–average home market prices 

that were based on all sales which 

passed the cost of production (COP) test 

of the identical product during the 

relevant or contemporary month. See 

sections 771(16) and (35); see also 

773(b)(1) of the Act. If there were no 

contemporaneous sales of an identical 

model, we identified the most similar 

home–market model. See section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

In accordance with section 772 of the 

Act, we calculate either an EP or a CEP, 

depending on the nature of each sale. 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as 

the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) by the foreign exporter or producer 

before the date of importation to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser 

for exportation to the United States. 

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as 

the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) in the United States before or after 

the date of importation by or for the 

account of the producer or exporter of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. CP Kelco 

classified two types of sales to the 

United States: (1) direct sales to end– 

users (i.e., EP sales); and (2) sales via its 

U.S. affiliate, CP Kelco US, to end–users 

and distributors (i.e., CEP sales). For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we have accepted CP Kelco’s 

classifications. 

We calculated EP based on prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer. We used the sale invoice date 

as the date of sale.3 We based EP on the 

packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included 

foreign inland freight, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 

freight offset by freight revenue (see 

below for further discussion), and U.S. 

customs duties. As noted below, we are 

relying upon adverse facts available 

with respect to the reported factoring 

transaction fees incurred by CP Kelco on 

its EP sales. Specifically, we are 

adjusting the EP using the highest 

reported factoring transaction fee. See 

‘‘Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ 

section below; see also Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum at 9, for further 

details. 

We calculated CEP based on prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer after importation. We used the 

sale invoice date as the date of sale. We 

based CEP on the gross unit price from 

CP Kelco US to its unaffiliated U.S. 

customers, making adjustments where 

necessary for billing adjustments. Where 

applicable, and pursuant to sections 

772(c)(2)(A) and (d)(1) of the Act, the 

Department made deductions for 

movement expenses (foreign inland 

freight, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight offset by 

freight revenue (see below for further 

discussion), U.S. warehousing, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, and U.S. 

customs duties). 

In accordance with the recently 

completed administrative review of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from the 

People’s Republic of China, we capped 

the amount of freight revenue deducted 

at no greater than the amount of 

corresponding movement expenses for 

CP Kelco’s sales of purified CMC to the 

United States and in the home market. 

See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857, 

6858 (February 11, 2009) (Bags from the 

PRC), and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

As the Department explained in Bags 

from the PRC, section 772(c)(1) of the 

Act provides that the Department shall 

increase the price used to establish 

either export price or constructed export 

24826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

price in only the following three 

instances: (1) when not included in 

such price, the cost of all containers and 

coverings and all other costs, charges, 

and expenses incident to placing the 

subject merchandise in condition 

packed ready for shipment to the United 

States; (2) the amount of any import 

duties imposed by the country of 

exportation which have been rebated, or 

which have not been collected, by 

reason of the exportation of the subject 

merchandise to the United States; and 

(3) the amount of any countervailing 

duty imposed on the subject 

merchandise under subtitle A to offset 

an export subsidy. Section 773(a)(6) of 

the Act provides that the Department 

shall increase the price used to establish 

normal value by the cost of all 

containers and coverings and all other 

costs, charges, and expenses incident to 

placing the subject merchandise in 

condition packed ready for shipment to 

the United States. 

In addition, 19 CFR 351.401(c) of the 

Department’s regulations directs the 

Department to use a price in the 

calculation of U.S. price and normal 

value that is net of any price 

adjustments that are reasonably 

attributable to the subject merchandise 

or the foreign–like product (whichever 

is applicable). The term ‘‘price 

adjustment’’ is defined under 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(38) as a ‘‘change in the price 

charged for subject merchandise or the 

foreign like product, such as discounts, 

rebates, and post–sale adjustments, that 

are reflected in the purchaser’s net 

outlay.’’ 

In past cases, we have declined to 

treat freight–related revenues as 

additions to U.S. price under section 

772(c) of the Act or price adjustments 

under 19 CFR 351.102(b). Rather, we 

have incorporated these revenues as 

offsets to movement expenses because 

they relate to the transportation of 

subject merchandise or the foreign–like 

product. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire 

Rod from Sweden: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 51414, 51415 (September 

7, 2007) (SSWR Preliminary Results) 

(unchanged in Stainless Steel Wire Rod 

from Sweden: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12950 (March 11, 2008)). 

Further, our offset practice limits the 

granting of an offset to situations where 

a respondent incurs expenses and 

realized revenue for the same type of 

activity. See SSWR Preliminary Results, 

72 FR at 51415; see also Bags from the 

PRC, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; 

see also Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 

(August 11, 2008), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 7. According to CP Kelco’s 

responses, freight revenues are revenues 

received from customers for invoice 

items covering transportation expenses, 

and arise when freight is not included 

in the selling price under the applicable 

terms of delivery, but when CP Kelco 

arranges and prepays freight for the 

customer. See CP Kelco’s BQR at B–20 

and CP Kelco’s CQR at C–20 through C– 

21. Accordingly, CP Kelco incurred 

expenses and realized revenue for this 

activity. Therefore, we have limited the 

amount of the freight revenue used to 

offset CP Kelco’s movement expenses to 

the amount of movement expenses 

incurred on the sale of subject 

merchandise or the foreign–like 

product. For further discussion of our 

treatment of freight revenue, see 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

13 and 17. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted, where 

applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, 

including credit expenses, U.S. indirect 

selling expenses, and U.S. inventory 

carrying costs incurred in the United 

States and the Netherlands associated 

with economic activities in the United 

States. We also deducted CEP profit in 

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act. As discussed below, we are relying 

upon adverse facts available with 

respect to the reported factoring 

transaction fees incurred by CP Kelco on 

its CEP sales. Specifically, we are 

adjusting the CEP using the highest 

reported factoring transaction fee. See 

‘‘Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ 

section below; see also Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum at 9, for further 

details. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison Market Selection 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (e.g., whether the 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of the subject merchandise sold 

in the United States), we compared 

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)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, 

because CP Kelco’s aggregate volume of 

home market sales of the foreign–like 

product was greater than five percent of 

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that the home market was viable for 

comparison. Therefore, we have based 

NV on home market sales in the usual 

commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade. 

B. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because we 

determined CP Kelco to have made sales 

below the cost of production in the most 

recently completed administrative 

review, the Department requested that 

CP Kelco respond to section D of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire, as there were reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that CP 

Kelco made home market sales at prices 

below the cost of producing the 

merchandise in the current POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Second 

Administrative Review, 73 FR at 45946 

(unchanged in Final Results of Second 

Administrative Review). 

C. Calculation of Cost of Production 

We have preliminarily relied on the 

COP information provided by CP Kelco. 

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

the Act, we calculated the weighted– 

average COP for each model based on 

the sum of CP Kelco’s material and 

fabrication costs for the foreign like 

product, plus amounts for selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, as well as packing costs. 

D. Test of Home Market Prices 

We compared CP Kelco’s weighted– 

average COP figures to CP Kelco’s home 

market sales prices (net of billing 

adjustments, any applicable movement 

expenses, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing) of the foreign 

like product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

sales to the home market had been made 

at prices below COP. On a product– 

specific basis, we compared COP to 

home market prices, less any applicable 

movement charges. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

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

Act, whether such sales were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, and whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

the normal course of trade. 

E. Results of Cost Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of CP 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24827 

4 In past segments of this proceeding, the 

Department has included the transaction fees 

relating to the factoring of certain comparison 

market and U.S. sales by CP Kelco through an 

affiliated finance company in its dumping margin 

calculations. However, the Department intends to 

re-examine the appropriateness of including these 

affiliated transactions in its calculations in 

subsequent reviews of this proceeding. 

5 In some instances, the sale was initially factored 

but later reversed because the customer paid CP 

Kelco directly. 

Kelco’s sales of a given model were at 

prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below–cost sales of that 

model because these below–cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco’s 

home market sales of a given model 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below–cost sales 

because such sales were made: (1) in 

substantial quantities within the POR 

(i.e., within an extended period of time) 

in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act, and (2) at prices 

which would not permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

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

of the Act (i.e., the sales were made at 

prices below the weighted–average per– 

unit COP for the POR). We used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, if such sales existed, in 

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

Act. In this instant review, we found 

sales below the COP and have, as 

described above, disregarded such sales 

from our margin calculations. See 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

8. 

F. Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers or prices to 

affiliated customers that we determined 

to be at arm’s length. See 19 CFR 

351.403(c). We used the sale invoice 

date as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). We increased or decreased 

price, as appropriate, for certain billing 

adjustments where applicable. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

foreign inland freight incurred in the 

comparison market, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Following the 

methodology described in the ‘‘Export 

Price and Constructed Export Price’’ 

section above, where applicable, we 

offset foreign inland freight expenses by 

freight revenue. In addition, when 

comparing sales of similar merchandise, 

we made adjustments for differences in 

cost attributable to differences in 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise (e.g., DIFMER) pursuant to 

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

CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments 

for differences in circumstances of sale 

(COS) in accordance with section 

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

351.410. Specifically, we made COS 

adjustments for imputed credit 

expenses. We also made an adjustment, 

where appropriate, for the CEP offset in 

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

the Act. See ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section 

below. Additionally, we deducted home 

market packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

We have not made a deduction from NV 

for factoring transaction fees incurred by 

CP Kelco on certain home market sales, 

as noted in the ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section below. 

G. Price–to-Constructed Value 

Comparisons 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are 

unable to find a contemporaneous home 

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, SG&A 

expenses, and profit. We calculated the 

cost of materials and fabrication for CP 

Kelco based on the methodology 

described in the COP section of this 

notice. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 

expenses and profit on the amounts CP 

Kelco incurred and realized in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade, for 

consumption in the foreign country (i.e., 

the Netherlands). Accordingly, for sales 

of purified CMC for which we could not 

determine the NV based on comparison 

market sales, either because there were 

no useable sales of a comparable 

product or all sales of the comparable 

products failed the sales–below-cost 

test, we based NV on CV. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available is appropriate for the 

preliminary results with respect to 

factoring transaction fees incurred by CP 

Kelco on certain home market and U.S. 

sales. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the administering authority 

shall use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

In its SQR, CP Kelco explained that 

factoring is the process by which CP 

Kelco sells its accounts receivables to an 

affiliated finance company for payment 

of the receivables at a date earlier than 

CP Kelco would have received payment 

from the customer.4 The factoring entity 

charges a transaction fee to CP Kelco, 

which is discounted from the face value 

of the actual receivable; per the 

Department’s prior decisions in this 

case, CP Kelco reports these transaction 

fees as factoring expenses. See pages 

30–31 of CP Kelco’s SQR. 

During our verification of the pre– 

selected and surprise home market and 

U.S. sales, we noted several 

discrepancies with regard to CP Kelco’s 

reported transaction fees for factored 

sales. These transaction fees were 

reported on a percentage and per–unit 

basis. Specifically, the factoring 

transaction fee expressed as a 

percentage of gross unit price is 

reported in field FACTORlPCTH, 

where the factoring transaction fee on a 

per–metric ton basis is reported in field 

FACTORlDSTH. For the majority of 

the sales traces examined, we found 

systemic errors in CP Kelco’s 

calculation and reporting of this 

expense. 

Specifically, we discovered that CP 

Kelco miscalculated the reported and 

allegedly ‘‘corrected’’ (per the 

company’s minor corrections 

presentation) factoring transaction fees 

in several instances where it used total 

invoice price, inclusive of value–added 

tax (VAT) and shipping costs, in its 

factoring calculations. In these 

instances, CP Kelco should have used 

the total invoice price less the VAT and 

shipping costs. Moreover, for the U.S. 

sales examined, we noted instances 

where factoring transaction fees were 

unreported, as well as instances in 

which factoring transaction fees were 

reported although the sales were not 

factored.5 Therefore, considering all of 

the above, the Department is unable to 

rely upon CP Kelco’s reporting of 

factoring transaction fees for certain 

home market and U.S. sales. 

Because CP Kelco has failed to 

accurately report its factoring 

transaction fees to the best of its 

abilities, the Department must rely on 

facts available. 

B. Application of Adverse Inference for 

Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department finds that an 

24828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

6CP Kelco, like all respondents, was provided 

ample opportunity to report correct and accurate 

information with regard to its factoring transaction 

fees in its AQR, BQR, CQR, two supplemental 

questionnaire responses (SQR and SSQR), as well 

as in its minor corrections presentation during the 

home market sales verification, which were also 

found to be incorrect. See Home Market Verification 

Report at Section X and VE-1. 

7The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution involved in the two 

markets may have many or few links, and the 

respondent’s sales occur somewhere along this 

chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered 

interested party has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

the Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting the facts otherwise available. 

In addition, the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. 

(1994) (SAA), explains that the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870. It is 

the Department’s practice to consider, in 

employing adverse inferences, the 

extent to which a party may benefit 

from its own lack of cooperation. See, 

e.g., Id. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997) (Preamble). We find that, 

by failing to accurately report the 

transaction fees associated with its 

factored sales in both the home and U.S. 

markets, CP Kelco failed to cooperate to 

the best of its abilities. CP Kelco failed 

to provide accurate, verifiable 

information with regard to this expense 

and, as such, we are unable to 

determine that CP Kelco’s factoring 

transaction fees are either an accurate or 

a reasonable reflection of the company’s 

own sales experience.6 These errors 

were systemic for the vast majority of 

home market sales traces examined and, 

thus, call into question the accuracy of 

the universe of these reported factoring 

transaction fees in CP Kelco’s sales 

databases. The Federal Circuit has 

stated that, ‘‘§w§hile the adverse facts 

available standard does not require 

perfection and recognizes that mistakes 

sometimes occur, it does not condone 

inattentiveness, carelessness, or 

inadequate record keeping.’’ See Nippon 

Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The 

AFA standard, moreover, assumes that 

because respondents are in control of 

their own information, they are required 

to take reasonable steps to present 

information that reflects its experience 

for reporting purposes before the 

Department. Therefore, we find it 

appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to the company’s interests in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

As adverse facts available, we have 

denied an adjustment to price for CP 

Kelco’s factoring transaction fees 

incurred on all its home market sales for 

which factoring was reported. As stated 

above, with regard to CP Kelco’s U.S. 

sales, we have selected the highest 

reported factoring transaction fee in the 

company’s U.S. sales database and used 

that fee as the factoring transaction fee 

for all of CP Kelco’s U.S. sales which 

were factored. While the discrepancies 

were less prevalent with respect to CP 

Kelco’s factored U.S. sales, we have 

selected the highest reported factoring 

transaction fee in order to ensure that 

the company will not obtain a more 

favorable rate by failing to cooperate 

than had they cooperated fully. 

Moreover, because we are relying on the 

company’s own information, there is no 

need to corroborate the chosen facts 

available under section 776(c) of the 

Act. For a detailed discussion on the 

Department’s application of adverse 

facts available for factored home market 

sales in its margin calculations, see 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 

9. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP 

transaction. The LOT in the home 

market is the LOT of the starting–price 

sales in the home market or, when NV 

is based on CV, the LOT of the sales 

from which we derive SG&A expenses 

and profit. See 19 CFR 351.412(b)(2)(c). 

With respect to U.S. price for EP 

transactions, the LOT is also that of the 

starting–price sale, which is usually 

from the exporter to the importer. Id. 

For CEP, the LOT is that of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to the 

importer. Id. 

To determine whether home market 

sales are at a different LOT from U.S. 

sales, we examine stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer. If the home market sales are 

at different LOTs, and the difference 

affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, the Department makes an 

LOT adjustment in accordance with 

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

sales, we examine stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer. We analyze whether different 

selling activities are performed, and 

whether any price differences (other 

than those for which other allowances 

are made under the Act) are shown to 

be wholly or partly due to a difference 

in LOT between the CEP and NV. See 

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

Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, 

we make an upward or downward 

adjustment to NV for LOT if the 

difference in LOT involves the 

performance of different selling 

activities and is demonstrated to affect 

price comparability, based on a pattern 

of consistent price differences between 

sales at different LOTs in the country in 

which NV is determined. Finally, if the 

NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution than the LOT of the CEP, 

but the data available do not provide an 

appropriate basis to determine a LOT 

adjustment, we reduce NV by the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the home market on sales of 

the foreign like product, but by no more 

than the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses incurred for CEP sales. See 

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

offset provision). 

In analyzing differences in selling 

functions, we determine whether the 

LOTs identified by the respondent are 

meaningful. See Preamble, 62 FR 27296, 

27371. If the claimed LOTs are the 

same, we expect that the functions and 

activities of the seller should be similar. 

Conversely, if a party claims that 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 Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

In the present review, CP Kelco did 

not claim a LOT adjustment. See CP 

Kelco’s BQR at page B–18. In order to 

determine whether the home market 

sales were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales, 

we reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain of 

distribution’’),7 including selling 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24829 

CP Kelco’s narrative response to properly determine 

where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

functions for each type of sale. 

CP Kelco reported one LOT in the 

home market, the Netherlands, with two 

channels of distribution to two classes 

of customers: (1) direct sales from the 

plant to end users, and (2) direct sales 

from the plant to distributors. See 

Section CP Kelco’s BQR at page B–11. 

Based on our review of evidence on the 

record, we find that home market sales 

to both customer categories and through 

both channels of distribution were 

substantially similar with respect to 

selling functions and stages of 

marketing. CP Kelco performed the 

same selling functions for sales in both 

home market channels of distribution, 

including sales negotiations, customer 

care, credit risk management, logistics, 

inventory maintenance, packing, freight 

and delivery services, collection, sales 

promotion, and guarantees, etc. See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at pages A–14 through A– 

26. Each of these selling functions was 

identical in the intensity of their 

provision or only differed minimally, 

the exception being that CP Kelco 

provided direct sales personnel and 

technical support to a ‘‘high’’ degree of 

frequency to end–users, whereas these 

selling functions were provided with a 

‘‘moderate’’ frequency to HM 

distributors. See CP Kelco’s AQR at page 

A–26. However, after considering all of 

the above, we preliminarily find that CP 

Kelco had only one LOT for its home 

market sales. 

CP Kelco reported one EP LOT and 

one CEP LOT, each with two separate 

channels of distribution in the United 

States. EP sales were made to end users 

and distributors either from inventory or 

made to order, and CEP sales were also 

made to end users and distributors and 

were either made from inventory or 

made to order. Upon examining CP 

Kelco’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that it has two 

channels of distribution. See CP Kelco’s 

AQR at pages A–14 through A–15. See 

also CP Kelco’s CQR at page C–11. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that CP 

Kelco has two channels of distribution 

for EP sales, and two channels of 

distribution for CEP sales. 

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 Act. 

See Micron Tech. Inc. v. United States, 

243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

We reviewed the selling functions and 

services performed by CP Kelco on CEP 

sales as described in its questionnaire 

responses, after these deductions. We 

found that CP Kelco provides almost no 

selling functions to its U.S. affiliate in 

support of the CEP LOT. CP Kelco 

reported that the only services it 

provided for the CEP sales were logistics 

for freight, delivery and packing, and 

very limited customer care and 

inventory maintenance. See CP Kelco’s 

AQR at page A–14 through A–26. 

We then examined the selling 

functions performed by CP Kelco on its 

EP sales in comparison with the selling 

functions performed on CEP sales (after 

deductions). We found that CP Kelco 

performs an additional layer of selling 

functions at a greater frequency on its 

direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers which are not performed on 

its sales to its affiliate (e.g., sales 

negotiations, credit risk management, 

collection, sales promotion, direct sales 

personnel, technical support, 

guarantees, and discounts). See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at page A–26. Because 

these additional selling functions are 

significant, we find that CP Kelco’s 

direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers (EP sales) are at a different 

LOT than its CEP sales. 

Next, we compared the home market 

and EP sales. CP Kelco’s home market 

and EP sales were both made to end 

users and distributors. In both cases, the 

selling functions performed by CP Kelco 

were almost identical for both markets. 

Particularly, in both markets, CP Kelco 

provided the following services: sales 

negotiations, credit risk management, 

customer care, logistics, inventory 

maintenance, packing, freight/delivery, 

collection, sales promotion, direct sales 

personnel, technical support, guarantees 

and discounts. See CP Kelco’s SQR at 

page 26. Because the selling functions 

and channels of distribution are 

substantially similar, we preliminarily 

determine that the home market LOT is 

the same as the EP LOT. It was, 

therefore, unnecessary to make a LOT 

adjustment for comparison of CP Kelco’s 

home market and EP prices. 

According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate 

when the LOT in the home market is at 

a more advanced stage than the LOT of 

the CEP sales and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability. CP Kelco reported that it 

provided minimal selling functions and 

services for the CEP LOT and that, 

therefore, the home market LOT is more 

advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on 

our analysis of the channels of 

distribution and selling functions 

performed by CP Kelco for sales in the 

home market and CEP sales in the U.S. 

market (i.e., sales support and activities 

provided by CP Kelco on sales to its 

U.S. affiliate), we preliminarily find that 

the home market LOT is at a more 

advanced stage when compared to CEP 

sales because CP Kelco provides many 

selling functions in the home market at 

a higher level of service (i.e., sales 

negotiations, customer care, collection, 

direct sales personnel, technical 

support, etc.) as compared to selling 

functions performed for its CEP sales 

(i.e., CP Kelco reported that the only 

services it provided for the CEP sales 

were logistics for freight, delivery and 

packing, and very limited inventory 

maintenance and customer care). See CP 

Kelco’s AQR at page A–26. Thus, we 

find that CP Kelco’s home market sales 

are at a more advanced LOT than its 

CEP sales. As there was only one LOT 

in the home market, there were no data 

available to determine the existence of 

a pattern of price differences, and we do 

not have any other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining a LOT adjustment; 

therefore, we applied a CEP offset to NV 

for CEP comparisons. 

To calculate the CEP offset, we 

deducted the home market indirect 

selling expenses from NV for home 

market sales that were compared to U.S. 

CEP sales. As such, we limited the home 

market indirect selling expense 

deduction by the amount of the indirect 

selling expenses deducted in calculating 

the CEP as required under section 

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. See section 

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

Currency Conversion 

We made foreign currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Import 

Administration website at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that for 

the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 

2008, the following dumping margin 

exists: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

CP Kelco B.V. ............... 24.46 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

24830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii) 

of the Department’s regulations, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless extended by 

the Department, case briefs are to be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, are to be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(1). Parties who 

submit arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs 

must be served on interested parties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f) of 

the Department’s regulations. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Further, 

we request that parties submitting briefs 

and rebuttal briefs provide the 

Department with a copy of the public 

version of such briefs on diskette. 

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c) 

of the Department’s regulations, within 

30 days of the date of publication of this 

notice, interested parties may request a 

public hearing on arguments raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the 

Secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.310(d)(1). Parties will be notified of 

the time and location. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of the administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal 

brief, no later than 120 days after 

publication of the preliminary results, 

unless extended. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

for CP Kelco directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 

6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

This clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in the 

final results of this review for which the 

reviewed companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate non–reviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for any intermediate company 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Assessment Policy Notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for the reviewed 

company will be the rate established in 

the final results of review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1); (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review or the 

original less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be the all– 

others rate of 14.57 percent, which is 

the all–others rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See CMC Order. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: May 18, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12128 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program, Scientific 

Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in 

accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. 92–463). The topic of the meeting on 

June 9–10, 2009 is to review new start 

and continuing research and 

development projects requesting 

Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program funds in excess 

of $1M. This meeting is open to the 

public. Any interested person may 

attend, appear before, or file statements 

with the Scientific Advisory Board at 

the time and in the manner permitted by 

the Board. 

DATES: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 from 8 

a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and Wednesday, June 

10, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Allen/Mcghee/Page meeting 

room of the Washington Duke Inn, 3001 

Cameron Blvd., Durham, NC 27705. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 

North Stuart Street, Suite 303, 

Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 

696–2126. 

Morgan E. Frazier, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–12041 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans’ Advisory Board on Dose 

Reconstruction; Meeting 

AGENCY: Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Advisory Board Meeting Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) 

and the Sunshine in the Government 

Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) 

the Defense Threat Reduction Agency