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 

32110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

Pacific fishing vessel owners and 

operators with electronic logbook 

applications (e-log applications). 

ADDRESSES: You may request copies of 

the NOAA Fishery Information System 

(FIS) Electronic Logbook Certification 

Guidelines (Certification Guidelines), 

and submit requests for certification of 

e-log applications to: Electronic 

Reporting System Manager, Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center 

(PIFSC), NMFS, 2570 Dole Street, 

Honolulu, HI 96822–2396, tel 808–983– 

5326; fax 808–983–2902. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt 

Kawamoto, PIFSC, tel. 808–983–5326. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is also accessible at 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

Background 

NMFS encourages the use of e-log 

applications as an alternative to paper 

logbooks and data reports. This 

recognizes that many fishermen use 

electronic navigation and 

communications equipment aboard 

their vessels, as well as computers for 

recording and maintaining catch and 

effort information, business records, and 

other information in a coordinated 

system that facilitates more efficient 

fishing operations. Accordingly, many 

fishermen wish to file Federal catch and 

effort reports in electronic format. This 

approach makes data submission easier 

for fishermen and reduces data entry 

and processing time for NMFS staff. 

Further, NMFS notes that if reports 

were to be submitted in connection with 

other at-sea communication means, 

electronic reports could be near realtime, which could facilitate monitoring 

and compliance efforts in circumstances 

that demand at-sea reporting. NMFS 

also must ensure that electronic data 

reports are in a standardized format that 

is compatible with the data management 

system for historical fishery records and 

for hard-copy processing. Otherwise, the 

benefits of electronic submissions are 

reduced. 

Based on recommendations from the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, NMFS published a final rule 

that modified the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for western 

Pacific fisheries, offering fishermen the 

option of submitting either paper or 

electronic logbook records (72 FR 

19123, April 17, 2007). The objectives of 

allowing electronic reporting include 

reducing the amount of time spent by 

fishermen to complete and file paper 

reports, improving the accuracy of 

reports, and reducing the time spent by 

NMFS personnel to process the logbook 

data. That final rule did not establish 

the technical requirements for electronic 

logbook programs. 

To implement electronic reporting, 

PIFSC will specify an ‘‘open’’ program 

whereby fishery participants may select 

from a variety of e-log applications that 

have been certified as eligible to 

participate in the electronic logbook 

program. An e-log application includes 

the following functions: gathering and 

storing logbook data (data entry), 

generating (exporting) electronic 

logbooks, and viewing logbook data on 

the application database and the 

electronic logbook. The aim of the 

certification process is to encourage the 

use of electronic logbooks for the 

reporting of catch and effort data by 

promoting standard data exchange 

procedures, formats, and application 

validation tests. The certification 

process provides vendors with technical 

guidelines for minimally-prescribed 

performance elements and criteria to 

meet data management requirements. 

The goal of certification is to ensure that 

PIFSC-certified e-log applications will 

ensure, to the extent practicable, that 

submitted electronic logbooks are 

complete and accurate and that the 

electronic submission will be 

successfully integrated into the NMFS 

data system in a secure manner. 

Fishermen must comply with Federal 

fishery reporting requirements, and are 

held accountable for data accuracy. 

Certification is necessary to provide a 

benchmark of performance standards 

and criteria for vendors to develop e-log 

applicatins that meet NMFS 

requirements. Certification enables 

vendor competition and potentially 

more product choices for fishermen. 

This is preferable to specifying a single 

supplier or e-log application. 

Certification does not guarantee that a 

product is free of defects; it means only 

that a product has passed validation 

tests aimed at complete, accurate, and 

successful reporting of logbook data. 

Certification does not protect the vendor 

from any product liability claims made 

by customers. The use of a certified elog application does not exempt 

fisherman from any western Pacific 

recordkeeping requirements. 

General Certification Process 

Based on a request for a vendor 

certification, PIFSC will evaluate the 

submitted e-log application and issue a 

statement to accept or deny the vendor’s 

request. The vendor must demonstrate 

that the submitted e-log application 

meets the standards set forth in this 

notice and in the Certification 

Guidelines for timely, accurate, and 

complete data submission in the proper 

format and structure for the fisheries 

reports required by Federal regulations. 

Upon successful demonstration of 

compliance with the standards and the 

Certification Guidelines, PIFSC will 

issue a vendor certification for the e-log 

application. PIFSC will initially certify 

e-log applications only for Hawaii-based 

pelagic longline fisheries; other 

certifications may follow. 

NMFS certification will not result in 

government endorsement or 

procurement of any related electronic 

hardware or software for use in NMFS 

data systems. PIFSC will request a fact 

sheet from the vendor to provide 

information to the fishing industry 

about the e-log application that was 

certified, the costs of the application, 

and possibly other value-added services 

that the vendor or application may 

provide. This will allow fishermen to 

make purchase decisions that are 

compatible with the data reporting and 

logbook requirements of Federal 

regulations and their personal needs. 

Initiation 

PIFSC will initiate the vendor 

certification process upon written 

request from the vendor (or distributor 

or reseller acting within the constraints 

of its agreement with the vendor), 

subject to the demonstration of 

compliance with this notice and the 

availability of test hardware and 

software. Consideration will be given to 

a vendor that has already successfully 

completed a comparable certification 

process in another U.S. fishery 

recordkeeping program. PIFSC will also 

consider certifying a vendor that resells, 

packages, or integrates e-log 

applications from a company that has 

been certified in a similar program for 

another U.S. fishery. 

A vendor requesting certification shall 

describe in detail the manner in which 

the proposed e-log application would 

meet the specifications outlined in this 

notice and in the Certification 

Guidelines. The vendor must supply 

PIFSC, at no cost, with at least one set 

of the hardware and software 

components for which certification is 

desired so that the proposed application 

can be tested and evaluated. PIFSC 

intends to complete the testing and 

certification process within 90 days. 

The vendor must provide 

documentation, including such fact 

sheets, operator manuals, user 

handbooks, or other materials that 

would be provided to fishermen 

purchasing the application. PIFSC will 

review the submission against the 

standards and Certification Guidelines, 

will perform trials using test fishery 

data, and may conduct field trials 

aboard fishing vessels. These tests may 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32111 

involve demonstrating every aspect of 

the e-log application, including 

troubleshooting procedures. In addition 

to the vendor providing everything the 

hardware and software needed to test 

and certify an e-log application, PIFSC 

must also receive any updates to the 

product(s) at no cost. 

Certification Criteria 

The ultimate goal of certification is to 

provide complete, accurate, and 

successful reporting of electronic 

logbook data. All data elements required 

for an electronic logbook must be 

supported. And, data values must be 

correctly transferred from the e-log 

application to electronic logbook in the 

correct file format and structure. 

Complete and accurate reporting means 

that all logbook information recorded by 

fishermen is reported in the electronic 

logbook, and that the information is 

stored and reported exactly as entered. 

Successful reporting means that each 

element of an electronic logbook 

submitted to PIFSC can be loaded into 

the NMFS data system automatically. 

The criteria for certification are as 

follows: 

1. Creation of electronic logbook 

document or files. The e-log application 

must be capable of creating electronic 

logbook documents on demand in the 

agreed file format using standard file 

naming conventions. The document file 

contents may vary by fishery, but 

initially must contain the contents of 

the NMFS Western Pacific Daily 

Longline Fishing Log, as follows: 

• Fishery: Hawaii Pelagic Longline 

• Electronic Logbook Document 

Contents: One trip including all sets, 

catch and effort records, protected 

species interaction records, and e-log 

application information 

2. Inspection tool for use by 

authorized personnel. The vendor must 

provide a companion e-log application 

‘‘viewer program’’ and documentation 

for use by PIFSC and other authorized 

personnel to inspect e-log application 

data. The viewer program must run on 

Windows XP, and must provide readonly access to all elements of the 

electronic logbook database and 

electronic logbook files. The viewer 

program must not have the capability to 

alter the logbook data. The 

documentation must include 

installation instructions and user 

instructions for PIFSC and other 

authorized personnel. 

3. Electronic Logbook Test Support 

Requirements. For test purposes, the elog application must allow data entry of 

all electronic logbook data elements. 

(See Appendix 3 of the Certification 

Guidelines for specific data elements 

that must be enterable.) 

4. Common Information 

Requirements. The information 

requirements common to all e-log 

applications for all fisheries are 

contained in Appendix 2 of the 

Certification Guidelines: Common 

Information Requirements. It covers the 

following requirements: 

• PIR Standard Codes: Reference 

codes for common information 

requirements. Example--Port code HNL 

for Honolulu, HI. 

• Date/Time: Date and time 

formatting requirements. 

• Calendar Date: Calendar date 

formatting requirements. 

• Geographic Location: Geographic 

(latitude/longitude) formatting 

requirements. 

• Source Keys: Requirements for 

reporting keys or identifiers used in the 

e-log application itself. Some source 

keys are required or recommended to 

allow cross-referencing between NMFS 

logbook records and the fisherman’s elog application. 

• Unknown values: Requirements for 

recording unknown (null) values. 

• Electronic Logbook file names and 

extensions: File-naming conventions for 

electronic logbook files. 

5. Fishery Specific Electronic Logbook 

Requirements. The e-log application 

must support the creation of the 

electronic logbook in a file format 

agreed upon by PIFSC and the vendor. 

The preferred file format for electronic 

logbook submission is XML. If PIFSC 

approves one or more electronic 

signature methods for use with 

electronic logbooks, the e-log 

application must also support at least 

one approved electronic signature 

method. Fishery specific information 

and file layout specifications are 

available in the Appendices to the 

Certification Guidelines, including the 

following: 

• Fishery: Hawaii Pelagic Longline 

• Reference: 50 CFR part 665, Subpart 

C, Western Pacific Pelagics 

• Specifications: PIR-LB–1.1–1, 

Appendix 3 

Requests for Certification 

Requestors must submit a request for 

certification to PIFSC. Requestors 

should contact PIFSC for current 

application requirements which may 

include the items listed in sections 1 

through 5 below: 

1. Identifiers 

a. Trade name of the service; 

b. Company name; 

c. Company headquarters address and 

phone number; 

d. Principal company employee point 

of contact for this submission; 

e. Principal business of the company; 

f. Parent and subsidiary companies, if 

applicable; 

g. Name(s) and location(s) of principal 

facilities; and 

h. Name and address of Hawaii point 

of contact, if applicable. 

2. E-log application components and 

supporting documents 

a. Hardware requirements; 

b. Software requirements; 

c. Application description and 

documentation; 

d. Handbooks, user manuals, and 

other supporting documents; 

e. Sample electronic logbook 

document(s) produced by the e-log 

application, and instructions to guide 

testing staff to substantially reproduce 

the document(s); 

f. Troubleshooting procedures; and 

g. e-log application and viewer 

(Windows XP). 

h. Requested certification(s) 

3. Technical specifications of the e-log 

application 

a. E-log application version numbers; 

b. Data entry format (compatibility 

with paper logbook format); 

c. Data formatting requirements; and 

d. Electronic logbook data storage and 

submission media. 

4. Customer service 

a. Local point of contact information 

(name, phone number, email address, 

etc.); 

b. Data security procedures and 

assurances; 

c. Fishermen’s privacy and 

confidentiality procedures and 

assurances; 

d. Technical assistance procedures 

and contacts; and 

e. Updates of PIR Standard Codes into 

the e-log application by fishermen. 

5. Litigation support and vendor 

agreements 

a. Vendor contact for litigation 

support; 

b. Vendor technical expert on e-log 

application ; 

c. Past experience in court 

documentation/appearances on e-log 

applications; 

d. Non-disclosure agreement; and 

e. Agreement to the certification 

guideline terms including an agreement 

to provide litigation support. 

Litigation Support 

Logbook information and other data 

reports may be used for law 

enforcement purposes, and all technical 

aspects of a vendor’s submission are 

subject to being admitted as evidence in 

court, as needed. The reliability of all 

technologies utilized in the e-log 

application may be analyzed in court 

for, among other things, testing 

32112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

procedures, error rates, peer review, and 

general industry acceptance. Further, 

the vendor may be required to provide 

technical and expert support for 

litigation to support the application’s 

capabilities and to establish cases 

against violators. If the vendor’s 

application has previously been subject 

to such scrutiny in a court of law, the 

vendor should describe the evidence 

and any court finding on the reliability 

of the application. 

Additionally, to maintain the integrity 

of the e-log application for fisheries 

management, the vendor will be 

required to sign a non-disclosure 

agreement limiting the release of certain 

information that might compromise 

either the confidentiality of fishermen’s 

personally identifying information or 

proprietary fishing data. The vendor 

shall include a statement confirming its 

agreement with these conditions. The 

scope of litigation support may include, 

but is not limited to, technical 

capabilities of the e-log application, elog application support and training 

content, alterations to the e-log 

application, and data content and 

history. 

A vendor may voluntarily retire a 

certification to terminate its obligation 

to provide litigation support for the 

product; such action must be in writing 

to PIFSC. The vendor’s obligation to 

provide litigation support will end 180 

calendar days after such notification is 

received. If a certification is retired, the 

e-log application is no longer available 

for use in the fishery. 

Change Control 

Once an e-log application is certified, 

it is the responsibility of the vendor to 

notify PIFSC of any change in its 

submission, such as a change affecting 

hardware or software components, 

performance characteristics, or customer 

support services or contacts. PIFSC 

reserves the right to reconsider and 

revoke the certification if, as a result of 

the change, the vendor’s application is 

deemed to no longer satisfy PIFSC 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. The vendor must report to 

the PIFSC e-log technical panel (as 

described in the Certification 

Guidelines) any changes to the certified 

product, along with updated copies of 

the new configuration prior to 

deploying the changes to customers. If 

the change affects the e-log application 

components used to meet the 

requirements, PIFSC may require reevaluation and possible recertification. 

The technical panel will notify the 

vendor within 30 days with a 

recertification statement which will say 

whether a recertification is required and 

if so, why and when the recertification 

would be completed. The vendor may 

report planned changes to the certified 

e-log application to PIFSC and request 

an advisory recertification statement 

within 30 days. The vendor is permitted 

to provide quick code upgrades for 

customers to handle critical defects; 

however, the vendor must report the 

code change to PIFSC prior to deploying 

the change to a customer. 

Advertising Prohibition 

Once a product is certified, the 

vendor may state that the product is 

‘‘certified for electronic logbook 

submission for the Hawaii pelagic 

longline fishery.’’ However, the vendor 

must not use in the vendor’s name or 

the product name, or claim endorsement 

of the e-log application by, any of the 

following: NOAA, NMFS, PIFSC, or 

PIRO. 

Expiration of Certification 

The certification expiration date for a 

product is determined by changes to 

PIFSC reporting requirements and 

reporting activity by product users. 

Additionally, PIFSC may set an 

expiration date for a certification based 

on other requirements. PIFSC will notify 

the vendor at least 120 days prior to 

expiration. PIFSC will set an expiration 

date for a certification if the product has 

not been used to submit an electronic 

logbook for three years. 

Revocation of Certification 

PISFC may revoke certification of a 

product if any of the following occurs: 

1. PIFSC repeatedly receives 

inaccurate or incorrectly formatted 

electronic logbooks and the error is 

traced to a defect in the e-log 

application; 

2. The vendor modifies a certified elog application without reporting the 

modification to PIFSC; or 

3. The vendor violates advertising 

prohibitions. 

If a certification is revoked, the e-log 

application is no longer available for use 

in the fishery. 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15958 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 20–2009 and 22–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zones 29 and 203 

Applications for Subzone Authority 

Dow Corning Corporation and REC 

Silicon; Notice of Public Hearing and 

Extension of Comment Period 

A public hearing will be held on the 

applications for subzone authority at the 

Dow Corning Corporation (Dow 

Corning) facilities in Carrollton, 

Elizabethtown and Shepherdsville, 

Kentucky (74 FR 21621–21622, 5/8/09) 

and at the REC Silicon facility in Moses 

Lake, Washington (74 FR 25488–25489, 

5/28/09). The Commerce examiner will 

hold the public hearing on September 1, 

2009 at 1 p.m., at the Department of 

Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Interested parties should 

indicate their intent to participate in the 

hearing and provide a summary of their 

remarks no later than August 28, 2009. 

The comment period for the cases 

referenced above is being extended to 

September 16, 2009, to allow interested 

parties additional time in which to 

comment. Rebuttal comments may be 

submitted during the subsequent 15-day 

period, until October 1, 2009. 

Submissions (original and one 

electronic copy) shall be addressed to 

the Board’s Executive Secretary at: 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 

1401 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov or 

(202) 482–0473. 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15966 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

[Docket No. 0906261096–91096–01] 

RIN 0648–ZC08 

Comparative Analysis of Marine 

Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO) 

AGENCIES: Fisheries Headquarters 

Program Office (FHQ), National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), National