Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 25215 

accordance with the Rural 

Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, 7 

U.S.C. 901 et seq., as amended, and as 

prescribed by OMB Circular A–129, 

Policies for Federal Credit Programs and 

Non-Tax Receivables. 

In addition, the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 

101–171) amended the RE Act to add 

Title VI, Rural Broadband Access, to 

provide loans and loan guarantees to 

fund the cost of construction, 

improvement, or acquisition of facilities 

and equipment for the provision of 

broadband service in eligible rural 

communities. RUS therefore requires 

Telecommunications and Broadband 

borrowers to submit Form 481, 

Financial Requirement Statement. This 

form implements certain provisions of 

the standard Rural Utilities Service loan 

documents by setting forth requirements 

and procedures to be followed by 

borrowers in obtaining advances and 

making disbursements of loan funds. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

for this collection of information is 

estimated to average 1 hour per 

response. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit, Not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

177. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 6.3. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 1,223 hours. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Joyce McNeil, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis at (202) 720–0812. Fax: (202) 

720–8435. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: May 20, 2009. 

David J. Villano, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12183 Filed 5–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Meeting of the Land Between The 

Lakes Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes 

Advisory Board will hold a meeting on 

Thursday, June 11, 2009. Notice of this 

meeting is given under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 

2. 

The meeting agenda includes the 

following: 

(1) Introductions/Orientation/ 

Welcome. 

(2) Environmental education updates. 

(3) LBL Updates. 

(4) Updating the LBL Web site. 

(5) Board discussion of comments 

received. 

The meeting is open to the public. 

Written comments are invited and may 

be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area 

Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 

100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, 

Kentucky 42211. Written comments 

must be received at Land Between The 

Lakes by June 4, 2009, in order for 

copies to be provided to the members at 

the meeting. Board members will review 

written comments received, and at their 

request, oral clarification may be 

requested at a future meeting. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 

11, 2009, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., CDT. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Paris Landing State Park, Buchanan, 

TN, and will be open to the public. 

For further information contact: 

Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, 

Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van 

Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 

42211, 270–924–2002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

William P. Lisowsky, 

Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes. 

[FR Doc. E9–12323 Filed 5–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–469–814] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: 

Preliminary Results and Rescission, in 

Part, of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

by Clearon Corporation and Occidental 

Chemical Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘petitioners’’), and Aragonesas 

Industrias y Energı ́a S.A. 

(‘‘Aragonesas’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated 

isos’’) from Spain with respect to 

Aragonesas. The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 2007 through May 31, 

2008. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), the Department is also 

rescinding this review with respect to 

Inquide Flix, S.A. (‘‘Inquide’’). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that Aragonesas made U.S. 

sales of chlorinated isos at prices less 

than normal value (‘‘NV’’). See 

Preliminary Results of Review section, 

below. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of 

administrative review, the Department 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See Disclosure and Public Hearing 

section, below. Unless extended, we 

will issue the final results of review no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–2371. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

24, 2005, the Department published in 

the Federal Register an antidumping 

duty order on chlorinated isos from 

Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates 

from Spain: Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order, 70 FR 36562 (June 24, 

2005). On June 9, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to 

Request an Administrative Review’’ of 

the antidumping duty order. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). Timely requests for 

reviews were received from petitioners 

with respect to Aragonesas and Inquide. 

The Department also received timely 

requests from Aragonesas and Inquide 

with respect to each of their companies. 

In response to these requests, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of administrative reviews with 

respect to Aragonesas and Inquide. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). The POR 

for this administrative review is June 1, 

2007 through May 31, 2008. 

On July 22, 2008, Inquide withdrew 

its request for administrative review. On 

September 18, 2008, petitioners 

withdrew their request for review with 

regard to Inquide. The applicable 

regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states 

that if a party that requested an 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
25216 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 

administrative review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

the requested review, the Secretary will 

rescind the review. In this case both 

requesting parties withdrew their 

requests within the time limit. 

Therefore, we are rescinding this 

review, in part, with respect to Inquide. 

On August 21, 2008, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Aragonesas. On 

September 25, 2008, the Department 

received Aragonesas’ response to 

section A of the antidumping 

questionnaire. On October 15, 2008, the 

Department received Aragonesas’ 

response to sections B and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire. On October 

27, 2008, the Department received 

Aragonesas’ response to section D of the 

antidumping questionnaire. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Aragonesas on November 26, 2008, 

December 9, 2008, January 29, 2009, and 

February 6, 2009. Aragonesas filed a 

timely response to each supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On February 25, 2009, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results by 78 days. See 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9218 

(March 3, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated 

isocyanurates are derivatives of 

cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated 

s–triazine triones. There are three 

primary chemical compositions of 

chlorinated isocyanurates: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 2H2O), and 

(3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). 

Chlorinated isocyanurates are available 

in powder, granular, and tableted forms. 

The order covers all chlorinated 

isocyanurates. 

Chlorinated isocyanurates are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 

2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isocyanurates 

and other compounds including an 

unfused triazine ring. Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), from March 23, 2009 through 

April 3, 2009, the Department verified 

the cost and sales information submitted 

by Aragonesas in its questionnaire 

responses provided during the course of 

this review. We used standard 

verification procedures including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by the respondent. 

See Memorandum from Robert Greger, 

Senior Accountant, to The File, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Aragonesas Industrias y Energia, S.A. in 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates 

from Spain,’’ dated May 18, 2009 (‘‘Cost 

Verification Report’’); see also 

Memorandum from Myrna Lobo, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to The File, ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of Aragonesas Industrias 

y Energia, S.A. in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain,’’ 

dated May 18, 2009 (‘‘Sales Verification 

Report’’). Both verification reports are 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1117 of the main 

Commerce Building. 

Selection of Comparison Market for 

Normal Value 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, the Department 

compared Aragonesas’ 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)(C) of the Act. We 

excluded sales of merchandise that was 

not foreign like product for reasons that 

are of a business proprietary nature. See 

Memorandum from Myrna Lobo, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to The File, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results,’’ dated May 19, 2009 

(‘‘Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum’’). Because Aragonesas’ 

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 subject merchandise, the 

Department determines that the home 

market is viable and sales in the home 

market can serve as the basis for 

calculating NV. 

Date of Sale 

Aragonesas reported invoice date as 

the date of sale for U.S. and home 

market sales. The Department’s 

regulations state that ‘‘{i}n identifying 

the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business. However, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale.’’ See 19 CFR 351.401(i). 

We examined the questionnaire 

responses and relevant sales 

documentation at verification, and 

determine that invoice date is the 

appropriate date of sale in both the U.S. 

and home markets. 

However, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, whenever 

shipment date precedes invoice date, we 

used shipment date as the date of sale. 

See, e.g., 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), remaining 

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 Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review and Determination To 

Revoke in Part, 72 FR 62630 (November 

6, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Issue 2, 

where the Department found ‘‘that it is 

appropriate to use the earlier of 

shipment or invoice date as Colakoglu’s 

and Habas’ U.S. date of sale in the 

instant review, consistent with the date– 

of-sale methodology established in the 

previous review.’’ 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether Aragonesas 

sold chlorinated isos in the United 

States at prices less than NV, the 

Department compared the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) of individual U.S. sales to the 

weighted–average NV of sales of the 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade in a month 

contemporaneous with the month in 

which the U.S. sale was made. See 

sections 777A(d)(2) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 25217 

Section 771(16) of the Act defines 

foreign like product as merchandise that 

is identical or similar to subject 

merchandise and produced by the same 

person and in the same country as the 

subject merchandise. Thus, we 

considered all products covered by the 

scope of the order that were produced 

by the same person and in the same 

country as the subject merchandise, and 

sold by Aragonesas in the home market 

during the POR, to be foreign like 

products for the purpose of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

chlorinated isos sold in the United 

States. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, the Department considered all 

products produced by the respondent, 

covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above, to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), the Department 

compared U.S. sales made by 

Aragonesas to sales made in the home 

market within the contemporaneous 

window period, which extends from 

three months prior to the U.S. sale until 

two months after the sale. Where there 

were no sales of identical merchandise 

in the comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, the Department compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparisons, the Department 

used the physical characteristics 

determined by the Department, and 

reported by Aragonesas, to match 

foreign like products to U.S. sales: 

chemical structure, free available 

chlorine content, physical form, and 

packaging. 

Export Price 

The Department based the price of 

Aragonesas’ U.S. sales on EP 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly 

by Aragonesas to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and the constructed export 

price (‘‘CEP’’) methodology was not 

otherwise indicated. We based EP on 

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. Aragonesas 

reported its U.S. sales on a delivered, 

duty paid basis. We made deductions 

from the starting price, where 

appropriate, for billing adjustments, 

foreign inland freight, international 

freight, foreign inland and marine 

insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage 

and handling, U.S. inland freight, 

commissions and U.S. duty, in 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.402. We also made 

some corrections and adjustments to 

international freight, brokerage and 

handling, inventory carrying costs and 

indirect selling expenses based on our 

findings at verification. See Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

After testing home market viability, 

whether home market sales to affiliates 

were at arm’s–length prices, and 

whether home market sales were at 

below–cost prices, we calculated NV for 

Aragonesas as noted in the ‘‘Calculation 

of Normal Value Based on Comparison 

Market Prices’’ section of this notice, 

below. 

A. Arm’s Length Test 

The Department may calculate NV 

based on a sale to an affiliated party 

only if it is satisfied that the price to the 

affiliated party is comparable to the 

prices at which sales are made to parties 

not affiliated with the exporter or 

producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length. See 

19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated 

customers for consumption in the home 

market that are determined not to be at 

arm’s–length are excluded from our 

analysis. In this proceeding, Aragonesas 

reported sales of the foreign like product 

to one affiliated customer. To test 

whether these sales were made at arm’s– 

length prices, the Department compared 

the prices of sales of comparable 

merchandise to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers, net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with 

the Department’s practice, when the 

prices charged to an affiliated party are, 

on average, between 98 and 102 percent 

of the prices charged to unaffiliated 

parties for merchandise comparable to 

that sold to the affiliated party, we 

determine that the sales to the affiliated 

party are at arm’s–length. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 

15, 2002). In this instance, Aragonesas’ 

sales to the affiliated home market 

customer did not pass the arm’s–length 

test, and we therefore excluded those 

sales from our analysis. See section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. See also 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

review, the Department disregarded 

sales made at prices that were below 

cost of production (‘‘COP’’). See 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 79789 

(December 30, 2008). As a result, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, in this review the 

Department determined that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Aragonesas sold the foreign like 

product at prices below the cost of 

producing the product during the 

instant POR. Accordingly, the 

Department required that Aragonesas 

provide a response to Section D of the 

questionnaire. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, for each product, sorted by 

control number, sold by Aragonesas 

during the POR, the Department 

calculated Aragonesas’ weighted– 

average COP based on the sum of its 

materials and fabrication costs, plus 

amounts for general and administrative 

expenses and interest expenses. See 

‘‘Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices’’ section below for treatment of 

home market selling expenses. We 

relied on the COP information provided 

by Aragonesas in its questionnaire 

responses. We made some adjustments 

to the COP information based on our 

findings at the cost verification. These 

adjustments are detailed in the 

Memorandum to Neal Halper, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results for Aragonesas 

Industrias y Energia S.A.’’ dated May 

19, 2009 (Preliminary Cost 

Memorandum). See also Cost 

Verification Report. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

In order to determine whether sales 

were made at prices below the COP, on 

a product–specific basis, the 

Department compared Aragonesas 

adjusted weighted–average COP to the 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act. In accordance with 

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

in determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices less 

than the COP, we examined whether 

such sales were made: (1) in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time; and (2) at prices which permitted 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time in the normal 

course of trade. The prices were 

inclusive of billing adjustments and 

exclusive of any applicable movement 

charges, discounts and rebates, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
25218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 

packing expenses, revised where 

appropriate. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given product are at prices less than the 

COP, the Department does not disregard 

any below cost sales of that product, 

because the Department determines that 

in such instances the below cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

the Department disregards the below 

cost sales because they: (1) were made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted–average COPs for 

the POR, were at prices which would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. Based on the results of our test, 

we found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Aragonesas’ 

home market sales were at prices less 

than the COP and, in addition, such 

sales did not provide for the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We therefore excluded these sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

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

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based NV on the prices at which 

the foreign like product was first sold by 

Aragonesas for consumption in the 

home market, in the usual commercial 

quantities, in the ordinary course of 

trade, and, to the extent possible, at the 

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the 

comparison U.S. sale. We excluded 

sales of merchandise that was not 

foreign like product, for reasons that are 

of a business proprietary nature. See 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

We calculated NV for Aragonesas using 

the reported gross unit prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers. Aragonesas 

reported that it offers its home market 

customers the following terms of 

delivery: cost and freight, carriage 

insurance paid, carriage paid, delivered 

duty paid, delivered duty unpaid, ex– 

works/free carrier, and free on truck. 

Where appropriate, the Department 

made adjustments to the starting price 

for billing adjustments. We deducted 

home market movement expenses 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 

Act. At the sales verification, 

Aragonesas could not locate an inland 

freight invoice pertaining to a few home 

market observations. For these few 

observations, as facts available under 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the average freight expense 

Aragonesas incurred to that customer. 

We deducted, where appropriate, 

discounts and rebates, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We 

also made adjustments for differences in 

costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411. In addition, the 

Department made adjustments under 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 

circumstances of sale for imputed credit 

and warranty expenses. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs, in 

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

and (B) of the Act. Further, based on our 

findings at verification, we made 

corrections to inland freight and we 

recalculated indirect selling expenses, 

inventory carrying costs and rebates. 

See Sales Verification Report. See also 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

We also made the appropriate 

adjustment where necessary for 

commissions paid in the home market 

pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and19 CFR 351.410(c). We made 

adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not in the 

other (i.e., commission offset). 

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we limited the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

one market or the commissions allowed 

in the other market, whichever is less. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, the Department determines 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same LOT as the EP or 

CEP sales in the U.S. market 

(Aragonesas had only EP sales in the 

U.S. market). The NV LOT is based on 

the starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market. Where NV is based 

on CV, the Department determines the 

NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales 

from which the Department derives 

selling expenses, general and 

administrative expenses, and profit for 

CV, where possible. For EP sales, the 

U.S. LOT is based on the starting price 

of the sales to the U.S. market. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, the 

Department examines stages in the 

marketing process and level of selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the customer. 

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

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

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

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). When the Department is 

unable to match U.S. sales to foreign 

like product sales in the comparison 

market at the same LOT as the EP sale, 

the Department may compare the U.S. 

sales to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested by a pattern of consistent 

price differences between comparison– 

market sales at the NV LOT and 

comparison–market sales at the LOT of 

the export transaction, the Department 

makes an LOT adjustment under section 

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

In this administrative review, 

Aragonesas had only EP sales in the 

U.S. market, thus the CEP methodology 

was not employed in this review. The 

Department obtained information from 

Aragonesas regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

home market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed for each channel of 

distribution. Aragonesas reported that it 

made EP sales in the U.S. market 

through a single distribution channel 

(i.e., sales to industrial users). Because 

all sales in the United States are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

For the home market, Aragonesas 

reported that it made sales through three 

channels of distribution (i.e., industrial 

customers, retail customers, and 

distributors), noting that the selling 

functions are more or less identical for 

retail and distributor sales. We 

compared the selling functions 

performed by Aragonesas for these 

distribution channels and found that 

Aragonesas performed similar selling 

activities in the home market for the 

retail and distributor channels of 

distribution, and fewer selling activities 

for industrial home market customers. 

Thus, we preliminarily find that the 

retail and distributor channels of 

distribution constitute one NV LOT, 

while the channel of distribution for 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 25219 

industrial customers constitutes a 

second NV LOT. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(7)(ii) of the Act, where sales in 

the U.S. market are matched with sales 

in the home market at a more advanced 

LOT (i.e., retail and distributor channels 

of distribution), the Department will 

grant an LOT adjustment to NV if there 

is a consistent pattern of price 

differences. Therefore, we compared 

prices at the two LOTs in the home 

market and found that a consistent 

pattern of price differences does not 

exist between the LOTs. Therefore, an 

LOT adjustment is not warranted. See 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the 

Act, we converted amounts expressed in 

foreign currencies into U.S. dollar 

amounts based on the exchange rates in 

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

reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

the United States. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the weighted–average dumping 

margin for the period June 1, 2007 

through May 31, 2008 is as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

WeightedAverage 

Margin 

(percentage) 

Aragonesas Industrias y 

Energı ́a S.A. .......................... 45.50 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for the company listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this 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), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, 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 24.83 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 70 FR 24506 

(May 10, 2005). These requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Assessment Instructions 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries exported by Aragonesas. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the 

Department calculates an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise for each respondent. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we will calculate importer–specific 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

and the total quantity of the examined 

sales. These rates will be assessed 

uniformly on all entries of the 

respective importers made during the 

POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

This notice constitutes rescission of 

the administrative review of Inquide. 

The Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

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) (‘‘Assessment 

Policy Notice’’). This clarification 

applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by any company included in the final 

results of review for which the reviewed 

company did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, the 

Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 

who wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1870, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) the party’s name, 

address and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be 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(d). 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 cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

an electronic copy of the public version 

of such comments. Case and rebuttal 

briefs must be served on interested 

parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.303(f). 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

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 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
25220 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Notices 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12293 Filed 5–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige 

National Quality Award 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 

2, notice is hereby given that the Judges 

Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National 

Quality Award will meet Tuesday, June 

16, 2009. The Judges Panel is composed 

of twelve members prominent in the 

fields of quality, innovation, and 

performance excellence and appointed 

by the Secretary of Commerce. The 

purpose of this meeting is to discuss the 

Judging process and Judging process 

changes for 2009; the role of the Judges 

Panel in the award process; an overview 

of scoring data; the 2009 Baldrige 

Award cycle; the Judges Panel survey of 

applicants; and the Judges Panel 

mentoring process. Under each of these 

categories applicant information may be 

disclosed. The applications under 

review by the Judges Panel contain trade 

secrets and proprietary commercial 

information submitted to the 

Government in confidence. 

DATES: The meeting will convene June 

16, 2009 at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 

p.m. on June 16, 2009. The entire 

meeting will be closed. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Administration Building, 

Lecture Room B, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland 20899. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National 

Quality Program, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, 

telephone number (301) 975–2361. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Assistant Secretary for Administration, 

with the concurrence of the General 

Counsel, formally determined on 

January 08, 2009, that the meeting of the 

Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to 

Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as 

amended by Section 5(c) of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act, Public 

Law 94–409. The meeting, which 

involves examination of Award 

applicant data from U.S. companies and 

other organizations and a discussion of 

these data as compared to the Award 

criteria in order to recommend Award 

recipients, may be closed to the public 

in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of 

Title 5, United States Code, because the 

meeting is likely to disclose trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information obtained from a person and 

privileged or confidential. 

Dated: May 20, 2009. 

Patrick Gallagher, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–12284 Filed 5–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Agency Emergency Processing Under 

Office of Management and Budget 

Review; Chronic Hazard Advisory 

Panel Questionnaire 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 

announcing that a collection of 

information has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for emergency processing under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed collection of information 

concerns a questionnaire to panel 

candidates for selection to a Chronic 

Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to study 

the effects of phthalates and phthalate 

alternatives on children’s health. 

DATES: Comments on this request for 

approval of information collection 

requirements should be submitted by 

June 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this request 

for approval of information collection 

requirements should be captioned 

‘‘Emergency Request—Chronic Hazard 

Advisory Panel’’ and submitted to (1) 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for 

CPSC, Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503; 

telephone: (202) 395–7340, or by e-mail 

to Brenda_Aguilar@omb.eop.gov and (2) 

to the Office of the Secretary by e-mail 

at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or mailed to the 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Comments may also be sent via 

facsimile at (301) 504–0127. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Glatz, Division of Policy and 

Planning, Office of Information 

Technology and Technology Services, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–7671, or by 

e-mail to lglatz@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Proposed Collection of Information 

Section 108(b)(2)(A) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA) (Pub. L. 110–314) requires 

the Commission to begin the process of 

appointing a CHAP pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. 2077 to study the effects on 

children’s health of all phthalates and 

phthalate alternatives as used in 

children’s toys and child care articles. 

Section 108(b)(2)(B) of the CPSIA 

specifies what the panel is to examine 

and requires the panel to complete its 

examination within 18 months after its 

appointment. The panel must report to 

the CPSC no later than 180 days after 

completing its examination, and, no 

later than 180 days after receiving the 

panel’s report, the CPSC must 

promulgate a final rule to determine 

whether an interim prohibition on three 

specific phthalates should remain in 

effect and evaluate the panel’s findings 

and recommendation. 

In order to establish the CHAP and 

execute the mandatory rulemaking 

within the statutory deadlines imposed 

under the CPSIA, the CPSC requests 

emergency processing of the collection 

of information under section 3507(j) of 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 

1320.13). The CPSC will provide a 

questionnaire to 27 panel candidates to 

identify potential conflicts of interest. 

With respect to this collection of 

information, the CPSC estimates the 

burden of this collection will be 

approximately 1 hour. The total 

estimated burden to all candidates is 27 

hours. The annual reporting cost is 

estimated to be $1,481.76. This estimate 

is based on the estimated total burden 

hours for responding to the 

questionnaire (27 hours) multiplied by 

an estimated wage (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics: All workers, good-producing 

industries, management, professional 

and related, September 2008) of $54.88 

per hour (27 hours × $54.88 per hour = 

$1,481.76). 

B. Request for Comments 

The Commission solicits written 

comments from all interested persons 

about the proposed collection of 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES