Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28887 

Manufacturer / Exporter 

Weighted Average 

Margin (percentage) 

CP Kelco ....................... 12.00% 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to these final results, the 

Department has determined, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

for CP Kelco to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results. 

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

calculated importer–specific (or 

customer–specific) ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer–specific (or 

customer–specific) assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review are above de minimis. 

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 of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by CP Kelco for which CP Kelco did not 

know the merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate un– 

reviewed entries at the 6.65 percent all– 

others rate if there is no company– 

specific rate for an intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 

70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose Orders). See 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties for a 

full discussion of this clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results for all 

shipments of CMC from Finland 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

the cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of review; 2) if the exporter is not 

a firm covered in this review or the 

less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and 3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all–others rate 

of 6.65 percent ad valorem from the 

LTFV investigation. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose Orders. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14373 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–836] 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 27, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on light–walled 

rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) 

from Mexico in order to determine 

whether Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 

(Ternium) is the successor–in-interest to 

Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa) for purposes 

of determining antidumping duty 

liability. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 73 FR 63686 (October 27, 2008) 

(Notice of Initiation). We have 

preliminarily determined that Ternium 

is the successor–in-interest to Hylsa for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability in this proceeding. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury 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) 482–0195 or (202) 482– 

7924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order of LWRPT from 

Mexico on August 5, 2008. See Light– 

Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, 

and the Republic of Korea (Korea): 

Antidumping Duty Orders; Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Korea: 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

45403 (August 5, 2008). 

On September 3, 2008, Ternium filed 

a request for a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

LWRPT from Mexico (Initial 

Submission), claiming that Hylsa, a 

Mexican producer of LWRPT, changed 

its name to Ternium. Ternium requested 

28888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

1Prior to the reorganization effective April 1, 

2008, Ternium was a holding company and did not 

have any production or sales operations. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at page 2. 

2 In our Notice of Initiation, we referred to 

Ternium’s request as a ‘‘name change.’’ However, as 

explained above it is related to the transfer of 

production and sales functions from Hylsa to 

Ternium (i.e., an acquisition). Effective April 1, 

2008, Hylsa exists solely as a service company 

which employs workers at the former Hylsa 

facilities and provides its services to Ternium on a 

contract basis. See Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

page 2. 

3Hylsamex is the former parent company of 

Hylsa. On August 22, 2005, Ternium Luxemburg 

(the corporate parent of Ternium (see Ternium’s 

SQR at page 7)), acquired Hylsamex. See Ternium’s 

Initial Submission at page 2. 

that the Department determine whether 

it is the successor–in-interest to Hylsa, 

in accordance with section 751(b) of the 

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

and 19 CFR 351.216. In its request, 

Ternium indicated that effective April 1, 

2008, the production and sales 

operations of Hylsa were transferred to 

Ternium (the transfer).1 In response to 

this request the Department initiated a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order of LWRPT from 

Mexico. See Notice of Initiation. 

On November 13, 2008, the 

Department issued a questionnaire to 

Ternium requesting additional 

information regarding its successor–ininterest changed circumstances review 

request. On December 9, 2008, Ternium 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s questionnaire (SQR). On 

January 16, 2009, the Department issued 

a second supplemental questionnaire 

and on February 9, 2009, Ternium 

submitted its response (SSQR). On April 

8, 2009, the Department issued a third 

supplemental questionnaire, and on 

April 22, 2009, Ternium submitted its 

response (SSSQR). In our Notice of 

Initiation, we invited interested parties 

to comment. We did not receive any 

comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain welded carbon quality light– 

walled steel pipe and tube, of 

rectangular (including square) cross 

section, having a wall thickness of less 

than 4 mm. 

The term carbon–quality steel 

includes both carbon steel and alloy 

steel which contains only small 

amounts of alloying elements. 

Specifically, the term carbon–quality 

includes products in which none of the 

elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity by weight respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

The description of carbon–quality is 

intended to identify carbon–quality 

products within the scope. The welded 

carbon–quality rectangular pipe and 

tube subject to this order is currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 

7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Successor–in-Interest Determination 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department typically 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management, (2) production facilities, 

(3) supplier relationships, and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 

20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh 

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

Preliminary Results 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa.2 In its 

September 3, 2008, December 9, 2008, 

February 9, 2009, and April 22, 2009, 

submissions, Ternium provided 

evidence supporting its claim to be the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa. 

Documentation attached to Ternium’s 

September 3, 2008, December 9, 2008, 

February 9, 2009, and April 22, 2009, 

submissions shows that the transfer of 

production and sales operations from 

Hylsa to Ternium resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation is 

identified and discussed further below. 

In its Initial Submission, Ternium 

stated that Ternium S.A., a Luxemburg 

corporation (Ternium Luxemburg), 

acquired ownership of 99.3 percent of 

Hylsamex S.A. de C.V.’s (Hylsamex) 3

(and as a result, Hylsamex’s subsidiary 

Hylsa) outstanding shares on August 22, 

2005. See Ternium’s Initial Submission 

at page 2. Ternium also stated that 

following this acquisition, Hylsa’s 

operating and corporate structure were 

reorganized in several stages, the most 

recent of which took effect April 1, 

2008, when the production and sales 

operations of Hylsa were transferred to 

Ternium. Id. at page 2. Ternium also 

explained in its Initial Submission that 

the corporation now known as Ternium 

was a holding company that was 

acquired by Ternium Luxemburg in July 

2007, when it acquired Grupo IMSA, 

SAB de C.V. (Grupo IMSA). Id. at page 

2. According to Ternium, the name of 

that holding company was changed 

from Grupo IMSA to Ternium, effective 

December 13, 2007. Id. at page 2. 

Ternium stated that through Ternium 

Luxemburg’s acquisition of Grupo 

IMSA/Ternium, Ternium Luxemburg 

also acquired ownership of Grupo 

IMSA’s subsidiary IMSA, S.A. de C.V. 

(IMSA), a producer of LWRPT. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at page 2. 

The Department requested 

information relating to Ternium 

Luxemburg’s acquisition of Grupo IMSA 

(and its subsidiary IMSA) including: (1) 

2006, 2007, and 2008 annual capacity 

and annual production data for the 

former IMSA facility (as well as the 

former Hylsa facilities) that produces 

subject merchandise (see pages 2–3 and 

appendix S–1 of Ternium’s SSQR) and 

(2) documentation of the change in 

corporate name from Grupo IMSA to 

Ternium (see Ternium’s SQR at 

appendix S–2). 

The Department also requested that 

Ternium provide a current (as of March 

2009) management chart of Ternium, 

listing the former employers of each 

director/senior management personnel 

as well as a pre–transfer (June 2007) 

Hylsa management chart. See Ternium’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28889 

SSSQR at appendices S–2 and S–1, 

respectively. In reviewing the March 

2009 and June 2007 management charts, 

we found that Ternium Luxemburg’s 

acquisition of IMSA resulted in minimal 

changes to the composition of Hylsa’s/ 

Ternium’s directors/senior management 

personnel. Specifically, with regard to 

the March 2009 chart, of Ternium’s 51 

directors/senior management personnel, 

7 are former IMSA employees, 31 are 

former Hylsa employees, and the 

remaining 13 transferred from other 

Ternium Luxemburg affiliates. Thus, we 

preliminarily find that former Hylsa 

employees occupy the majority of 

director/senior management positions at 

Ternium. 

Ternium presented the following 

documentation in support of its 

assertion that it is the successor–ininterest to Hylsa: (1) a copy of 

documentation of the acquisition of 

Hylsamex by Ternium Luxemburg (see 

Ternium’s SQR at appendix S–3), (2) 

diagrams depicting Ternium 

Luxemburg’s corporate structure 

throughout the different stages of its 

acquisition of Hylsa, see Ternium’s 

Initial Submission at attachment 3–A for 

corporate structure as of September 30, 

2006 (i.e., Ternium Luxemburg’s 

corporate structure prior to the transfer) 

(see also Ternium’s Initial Submission 

at attachment 3–D for corporate 

structure as of April 30, 2008 (i.e., 

Ternium Luxemburg’s corporate 

structure after the transfer)), (3) tables 

depicting the management structure of 

Hylsa as of June, 2007, i.e., prior to the 

transfer (see Ternium’s SSSQR at 

appendix S–1) and the current 

management structure of Ternium 

Luxemburg as of March 2009, i.e., after 

the transfer of Hylsa (see Ternium’s 

SSSQR at appendix S–2), (4) listings of 

Hylsa’s suppliers of major inputs for 

production of subject merchandise in 

2007 (i.e., before the final transfer took 

place) and of Ternium’s suppliers of 

inputs for production of subject 

merchandise in the second quarter of 

2008, i.e., after the transfer took effect 

(see Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 6), (5) a list of Hylsa and 

Ternium facilities which have the 

capacity to produce subject 

merchandise (see Ternium’s Initial 

Submission at attachment 4), (6) data on 

annual capacity and actual production 

of LWRPT for 2006, 2007, and 2008 (see 

Ternium’s SSQR at appendix S–1) at 

said facilities, and (7) listings of (a) 

Hylsa’s LWRPT customers in the home 

market and United States during 2007 

(prior to the final transfer) (see 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 5–A), (b) IMSA’s LWRPT 

home market customers during 2007 

(see Ternium’s Initial Response at 

attachment 5–B), and (c) of Ternium’s 

LWRPT home market and U.S. 

customers during the second quarter of 

2008 (after the transfer took effect) (see 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 5–C). 

We examined the diagrams depicting 

Ternium Luxemburg’s corporate 

structure throughout the different stages 

of its acquisition of Hylsa. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 3 for diagrams of Ternium 

Luxemburg’s corporate structure as of 

(1) September 2006 (attachment 3–A), 

(2) September 30, 2007 (attachment 3– 

B), (3) December 31, 2007 (attachment 

3–C), and (4) April 30, 2008 (attachment 

3–D). 

We reviewed tables depicting the 

management structure of Hylsa as of 

June, 2007, i.e., prior to the transfer of 

production and sales operations from 

Hylsa to Ternium (see Ternium’s SSSQR 

at appendix S–1), and the current 

management structure of Ternium as of 

March 2009, i.e., after the transfer of 

Hylsa’s production and sales operations 

(see Ternium’s SSSQR at appendix S–2). 

As noted in Ternium’s Initial 

Submission on page 3 at footnote 2, the 

only significant changes involve: (1) 

transfers of personnel from other 

Ternium Luxemburg affiliates, (2) the 

promotion of former Hylsa employees to 

higher positions, and (3) changes to the 

structure of the organization chart (i.e., 

the creation of new positions). Based on 

our examination of the diagrams and 

tables described above, we preliminarily 

find that Ternium’s management 

structure, for the most part, resembles 

Hylsa’s prior to its acquisition by 

Ternium Luxemburg. See Ternium’s 

SSSQR at appendices S–1 and S–2. 

We also reviewed the list of major 

input suppliers that Ternium provided 

at attachment 6 of its Initial Submission. 

We compared Hylsa’s 2007 (i.e., prior to 

the transfer) suppliers for each input to 

Ternium’s second quarter 2008 (i.e., 

after the transfer) suppliers for each 

input. We noted no changes in suppliers 

between Hylsa and Ternium’s lists, 

except changes relating to input 

suppliers that supply the former IMSA 

facility of Apodaca. 

We examined the customer lists that 

Ternium provided in its Initial 

Submission at attachment 5. 

Specifically, we compared Hylsa’s 2007 

(i.e., prior to the transfer) list of home 

and export customers (including U.S. 

customers) for LWRPT (see attachment 

5–A) to Ternium’s second quarter 2008 

(i.e., after the transfer) list of home and 

export market customers (including U.S. 

customers) (see attachment 5–C) and 

also examined IMSA’s 2007 home 

market customer list (see attachment 5– 

B). Ternium affirmed in their SQR at 

page 11 and in their SSSQR at page 8, 

that none of the former Hylsa customers 

discontinued their relationship with 

Ternium due to the acquisition of 

Hylsamex by Ternium Luxemburg. The 

Department requested clarification as to 

why certain customer’s appeared on 

Hylsa’s 2007 and IMSA’s 2007 customer 

lists but did not appear on Ternium’s 

second quarter 2008 customer list and 

vice versa. Ternium explained in its 

SSSQR at pages 6 and 7 that the 

customer lists in its Initial Submission 

at attachment 5 identified: (1) the home 

market and U.S. customers that actually 

purchased subject merchandise from 

Hylsa during 2007 and the home market 

customers that actually purchased 

subject merchandise from IMSA during 

2007, and (2) the home market and U.S. 

customers that actually purchased 

subject merchandise from Ternium 

during the second quarter of 2008. In 

other words, the lists did not purport to 

reflect all of the customers that 

maintained relationships with Hylsa, 

IMSA, and Ternium during each period 

which is why several of the names on 

each list did not match. Ternium also 

explained that all former Hylsa 

customers were maintained as 

customers in Ternium’s sales computer 

following the merger and were eligible 

to make purchases at any time. See 

Ternium’s SSSQR at page 7. While we 

note that some of the customers from 

IMSA’s 2007 customer list are present in 

Ternium’s second quarter 2008 

customer list (and were not present in 

Hylsa’s 2007 list), given the overall 

Ternium second quarter 2008 customer 

list, we preliminarily find that 

Ternium’s customer list is 

representative of Hylsa’s prior to its 

acquisition by Ternium Luxemburg. 

Therefore, based on record information, 

we preliminarily find that Ternium’s 

customer base resembles Hylsa’s prior to 

its acquisition by Ternium Luxemburg. 

We also examined Ternium’s list of 

production facilities that are capable of 

producing LWRPT (including 

merchandise that falls within the scope 

of the antidumping duty order on 

LWRPT) provided at attachment 4 of its 

Initial Submission. Ternium stated in its 

SSQR at page 3 that none of the LWRPT 

produced at the facility formerly 

operated by IMSA is certified to meet 

any ASTM A–500 or A–513 standards 

for LWRPT or any other industry 

specifications for LWRPT, and as a 

result, are not exported to the United 

States. Because the former IMSA facility 

is limited in its abilities to produce 

28890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

subject merchandise that is appealing to 

customers in the United States, i.e., not 

certified to meet ASTM, and its capacity 

to produce subject merchandise is 

relatively small when compared to both 

former Hylsa facilities, we preliminarily 

determine that although production 

facilities for LWRPT have changed 

between pre–transfer Hylsa and post– 

transfer Ternium (which includes both 

the former Hylsa facilities and the 

facility formerly operated by IMSA), the 

post–transfer Ternium’s production 

facilities are not so significantly 

different from the former Hylsa 

production facilities that Ternium 

would be precluded from being a 

successor to Hylsa. 

The documentation and analysis 

thereof described above, both with 

regard to the transfer of production and 

sales operations from Hylsa to Ternium 

as well as Ternium Luxemburg’s 

acquisition of Grupo IMSA (and its 

subsidiary IMSA), demonstrates that 

there was little to no change in 

management structure, supplier 

relationships, production facilities, or 

customer base between pre–acquisition 

Hylsa and post–acquisition (after the 

acquisitions of Hylsamex and Grupo 

IMSA) Ternium. For these reasons, we 

preliminarily find that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa and, thus, 

should be accorded the same 

antidumping duty treatment with 

respect to LWRPT from Mexico as 

Hylsa. If the above preliminary results 

are affirmed in the Department’s final 

results, the cash deposit rate from this 

changed circumstances review will 

apply to all entries of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 

25327 (May 12, 2003). 

Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c), any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. Any hearing, 

if requested, will be held no later than 

37 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, or the first workday 

thereafter. Case briefs from interested 

parties may be submitted not later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

the issues raised in those comments, 

may be filed not later than 5 days after 

the time limit for filing the case brief, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). All 

written comments shall be submitted in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 

Persons interested in attending the 

hearing, if one is requested, should 

contact the Department for the date and 

time of the hearing. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will 

issue the final results of its antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review not 

later than 270 days after the date on 

which the review is initiated. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, 

deposit requirements for the subject 

merchandise exported and 

manufactured by Ternium will continue 

to be the all–others rate established in 

the investigation. See Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, 

and the Republic of Korea (Korea): 

Antidumping Duty Orders; Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Korea: 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

45403 (August 5, 2008). The cash 

deposit rate will be altered, if 

warranted, pursuant only to the final 

results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14369 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1615] 

Expansion and Reorganization of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 147, Reading, 

Pennsylvania Area 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones (FTZ) Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zone 

Corporation of Southern Pennsylvania, 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 147, 

submitted an application to the Board 

for authority to expand and reorganize 

FTZ 147 by deleting Site 4—Parcels A 

and C (632 acres total) and adding four 

additional sites (Sites 16–19) in 

Franklin and Cumberland Counties, 

Pennsylvania, adjacent to the Harrisburg 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry (FTZ Docket 35–2008, filed 5/27/ 

2008); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 31812, 6/4/2008) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand and 

reorganize FTZ 147 is approved, subject 

to the Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.28, subject to the 

Board’s standard 2,000-acre activation 

limit for the overall general-purpose 

zone project, and further subject to a 

sunset provision that would terminate 

authority on May 31, 2014, for Sites 16– 

19 where no activity has occurred under 

FTZ procedures before that date. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

May 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–14245 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO99 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; LowEnergy Marine Seismic Survey in the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean, August 2009 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Rice University (Rice), 

for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take small 

numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to conducting a 

marine seismic survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic during August 2009. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS requests comments on 

its proposal to authorize Rice to