Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32107 

fluctuations. Economists use ASEC data 

to determine the effects of various 

economic forces, such as inflation, 

recession, recovery, and so on, and their 

differential effects on various 

population groups. 

A prime statistic of interest is the 

classification of people in poverty and 

how this measurement has changed over 

time for various groups. Researchers 

evaluate ASEC income data not only to 

determine poverty levels but also to 

determine whether government 

programs are reaching eligible 

households. 

New questions are proposed for the 

ASEC, beginning in 2010. The questions 

are related to: (1) Medical expenditures; 

(2) presence and cost of a mortgage on 

property; (3) child support payments; 

and (4) amount of child care assistance 

received. These questions will enable 

analysts and policymakers to obtain 

better estimates of family and household 

income, and to gauge poverty status 

more precisely. To offset respondent 

burden, some questions will be removed 

from the ASEC. Those removed include 

questions on transportation assistance, 

child care services, and questions on 

receipt of government assistance related 

to welfare reform. 

Congressional passage of the State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP), or Title XXI, led to a mandate 

from Congress, in 1999, that the sample 

size for the CPS, and specifically the 

ASEC, be increased to a level whereby 

more reliable estimates can be derived 

for the number of individuals 

participating in this program at the state 

level. By administering the ASEC in 

February, March, and April, rather than 

only in March as in the past, we have 

been able to achieve this goal. The total 

number of respondents has not been 

upwardly affected by this change. 

II. Method of Collection 

The ASEC information will be 

collected by both personal visit and 

telephone interviews in conjunction 

with the regular February, March and 

April CPS interviewing. All interviews 

are conducted using computer-assisted 

interviewing. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0354. 

Form Number: There are no forms. 

We conduct all interviewing on 

computers. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

78,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 25 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 32,500. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There 

are no costs to the respondents other 

than their time to answer the CPS 

questions. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, United 

States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, 

United States Code, Sections 1–9. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–16039 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Determination to Revoke 

Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

results of the 2006–2007 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from Argentina. This 

administrative review covers three firms 

which were selected as mandatory 

respondents, Asociacion de 

Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA), 

Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik), and 

Seylinco, S.A. (Seylinco), and one firm 

which was not selected as a mandatory 

respondent, Compania Inversora 

Platense S.A. (CIPSA). Based on our 

revised cost of production analysis, the 

final results margin for Patagonik has 

changed from the preliminary results. In 

addition, we are revoking the order with 

respect to Seylinco. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maryanne Burke for Seylinco, David 

Cordell for Patagonik, Deborah Scott for 

ACA and CIPSA, or Robert James, Office 

7, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5604, 

(202) 482–0408, (202) 482–2657 or (202) 

482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 30, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

Argentina for the period December 1, 

2006 to November 30, 2007. See Honey 

from Argentina: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Revoke Order in 

Part, 73 FR 79802 (December 30, 2008) 

(Preliminary Results). 

On December 31, 2008, Patagonik 

filed a response to the section D 

supplemental questionnaire the 

Department had issued on November 

19, 2008. On February 3, 2009, the 

Department issued Patagonik a second 

supplemental questionnaire for section 

D, to which Patagonik responded on 

March 2, 2009. 

On February 9, 2009, Patagonik 

submitted what it termed a minor 

correction to its section B response. 

Specifically, Patagonik argued that due 

to a clerical error on one invoice, the 

color of the honey supplied to the 

customer differed from the color of the 

honey specified on the invoice. 

Patagonik argued this information was 

not new but rather was typical of a 

minor correction that would have been 

identified had the Department verified 

Patagonik’s responses. Patagonik urged 

the Department to use this information 

because it was the most accurate 

information available. Petitioners (the 

American Honey Producers Association 

and Sioux Honey Association) objected 

to Patagonik’s submission in a letter 

dated February 17, 2009. On February 

18, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Patagonik regarding its 

February 9, 2009, submission. Patagonik 

32108 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

1Only exports by Seylinco in which Seylinco is 

the first party with knowledge of the U.S. 

destination of the merchandise are covered by this 

revocation. 

filed responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires on March 4, 2009, and 

March 23, 2009, respectively. 

In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

Preliminary Results, petitioners, ACA, 

CIPSA, Patagonik, and Seylinco filed 

case briefs on April 8, 2009. Petitioners, 

Patagonik, and Seylinco submitted 

rebuttal briefs on April 20, 2009. In 

addition, Seylinco filed comments on 

petitioners’ rebuttal brief on April 21, 

2009. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is 

December 1, 2006 to November 30, 

2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is honey from Argentina. The products 

covered are natural honey, artificial 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, preparations of 

natural honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, and 

flavored honey. The subject 

merchandise includes all grades and 

colors of honey whether in liquid, 

creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk 

form, and whether packaged for retail or 

in bulk form. The merchandise is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS). Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and Customs purposes, 

the Department’s written description of 

the merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Determination to Revoke Order, in Part 

The Department may revoke, in whole 

or in part, an antidumping duty order 

upon completion of a review under 

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). While Congress has 

not specified the procedures that the 

Department must follow in revoking an 

order, the Department has developed a 

procedure for revocation that is 

described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 

regulation requires, inter alia, that a 

company requesting revocation must 

submit the following: (1) a certification 

that the company has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than normal 

value (NV) in the current review period 

and that the company will not sell 

subject merchandise at less than NV in 

the future; (2) a certification that the 

company sold commercial quantities of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in each of the three years forming 

the basis of the request; and (3) an 

agreement to immediate reinstatement 

of the order if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold subject merchandise at 

less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). 

Upon receipt of such a request, the 

Department will consider: (1) whether 

the company in question has sold 

subject merchandise at not less than 

normal value (NV) for a period of at 

least three consecutive years; (2) 

whether the company has agreed in 

writing to its immediate reinstatement 

in the order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that the 

company, subsequent to the revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV; and (3) whether the continued 

application of the antidumping duty 

order is otherwise necessary to offset 

dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). 

On December 31, 2007, pursuant to 

section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), Seylinco requested 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to its sales of subject 

merchandise. Seylinco’s request was 

accompanied by certification that it: (1) 

sold the subject merchandise at not less 

than NV during the current POR and 

will not sell the merchandise at less 

than NV in the future; (2) sold subject 

merchandise to the United States in 

commercial quantities for a period of at 

least three consecutive years; and (3) 

agreed to immediate reinstatement of 

the antidumping duty order, as long as 

any exporter or producer is subject to 

the order, if the Department concludes 

that, subsequent to the revocation, 

Seylinco sold the subject merchandise 

at less than NV. 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined that Seylinco’s request 

meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 

351.222(e)(1) and that revocation is 

warranted pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2). See Preliminary Results, 

73 FR at 79804–05 and Memorandum to 

Gary Taverman, ‘‘Request by Seylinco, 

S.A. for Revocation in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Honey 

from Argentina,’’ dated December 19, 

2008. We have not altered our findings 

for these final results. Therefore, we 

find that Seylinco qualifies for 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on honey from Argentina under 19 

CFR 351.222(b)(2) and, accordingly, we 

are revoking the order with respect to 

subject merchandise exported by 

Seylinco.1 For further discussion, see 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Effective Date of Revocation 

The revocation of Seylinco applies to 

all entries of subject merchandise that 

are exported by Seylinco, and are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after December 1, 

2007. The Department will order the 

suspension of liquidation ended for all 

such entries and will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

release any cash deposits or bonds. The 

Department also will instruct CBP to 

refund with interest any cash deposits 

on entries made on or after December 1, 

2007. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

A list of issues addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is appended 

to this notice. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the 

main Commerce Building and can be 

accessed directly on the web at http:// 

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

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the information Patagonik 

submitted in response to the 

Department’s supplemental section D 

questionnaires, we have made 

adjustments to the beekeepers’ and 

middleman’s costs. We relied on the 

cost data submitted by the two 

beekeeper respondents and the 

middleman in their cost questionnaire 

responses, except as follows. 

1. Because the middleman was unable 

to provide financial statements or 

corporate tax returns for 2007, we 

used the middleman’s verified cost 

data from the 2004–2005 new 

shipper review of honey from 

Argentina. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Administrative Review of 

Honey from Argentina,’’ dated 

March 30, 2009, where the 

Department placed Attachment A of 

the 2004–2005 Honey from 

Argentina New Shipper Review 

memorandum, ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results – Patagonik S.A. Beekeeper 

Respondents.’’ See also Honey from 

Argentina: Preliminary Results of 

New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850 

(November 24, 2006); unchanged in 

Honey from Argentina: Final 

Results of New Shipper Review, 72 

FR 19177 (April 17, 2007). 

2. We calculated land rental cost for 

Beekeeper 1 based on the market 

value of honey as payment–in-kind 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32109 

3The assessment rate for CIPSA will be the same 

as the cash deposit rate assigned to that company. 

for land use. 

3. We adjusted Beekeeper 2’s rent 

costs to reflect the market value for 

bartered honey. 

For additional details, see Memorandum 

to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Results - 

Patagonik S.A.’s - Beekeeper 

Respondents / Collector of Honey,’’ 

dated June 29, 2009. We note the 

changes identified above have an effect 

on the final margin, and in fact we find 

sales below cost. 

We also reclassified Patagonik’s 

reported third country warranty expense 

as post–sale price adjustments granted 

by Patagonik in order to maintain good 

customer relations. See the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 and the 

Analysis Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Review of Honey from Argentina (A– 

357–812) for Patagonik S.A. (Patagonik). 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

dumping margins exist for the period 

December 1, 2006 through November 

30, 2007. 

Exporter 

Weighted Average 

Margin 

(percentage) 

ACA .............................. 0.00 

CIPSA ........................... 0.772

Patagonik S.A. .............. 0.77 

Seylinco ........................ 0.00 

2This rate is based on the average of the 

margins calculated in this review, other than 

those which were zero, de minimis, or based 

on total facts available. 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated duty assessment rates which 

will be applied to all ACA, CIPSA,3

Patagonik, and Seylinco entries made 

during the POR. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of these final results of 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

automatic assessment regulation on May 

6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by companies included in these final 

results of 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 unreviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

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 these final results, consistent 

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for 

the companies covered by this review, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

listed above except for Seylinco, which 

is revoked from the order; (2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, but was covered in a previous 

review or the original less than fair 

value (LTFV) investigation, 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, a prior 

review, or the original 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) 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 continue to be 30.24 

percent, which is the all–others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; 

Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 

(December 10, 2001). These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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 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 doubled 

antidumping duties. 

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, 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 

determination and notice in accordance 

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

the Tariff Act. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

Appendix – List of Comments in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Revocation of the Order 

with Respect to Seylinco, S.A. 

(Seylinco) 

Comment 2: Patagonik S.A.’s 

(Patagonik’s) Proposed Change to 

Reported Honey Color 

Comment 3: Use of Facts Available for 

Patagonik 

Comment 4: Treatment of Patagonik’s 

U.K Warranty Expense 

Comment 5: Treatment of Asociacio ́n de 

Cooperativas Argentinas’ (ACA’s) 

Testing Expenses 

Comment 6: Appropriate Margin to 

Assign to Compan ̃ı ́a Inversora Platense 

S.A. (CIPSA) 

[FR Doc. E9–15965 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XL07 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Certification Requirements for 

Electronic Logbook Applications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; certification 

requirements for electronic logbook 

applications. 

SUMMARY: This notice describes the 

certification process and requirements 

for vendors wishing to supply western