20318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

4We note that the deadline for submitting 

rebuttal comments was March 21, 2011. However, 

according to Petitioners, although PTDT certified as 

to service, Petitioners still had not received a 

service copy of PTDT’s submission as of March 23, 

2011. Therefore, we find good cause under 19 CFR 

351.302(b) to extend the time limit to submit 

rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept 

Petitioners’ submission. Moreover, because PTDT 

certified that it served Petitioners with its 

submission and subsequently submitted a letter 

confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT’s 

submission, as requested by Petitioners. 

5See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii). 6See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

conducting this NSR concurrently with 

the first administrative review. 

On March 23, 2011, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments.4 With 

respect to PTDT’s argument that the 

rescission would render significant time 

and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that 

this NSR was undertaken at PTDT’s 

request and certification. PTDT’s 

certification at the time of the request 

for the NSR did not state that PTDT had 

exported a low volume of subject 

merchandise produced by a company 

that exported during the POI. With 

respect to PTDT’s argument that the 

Department should exercise its 

discretion and overlook this technical 

violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in cases where 

an exporter is not the producer of all 

merchandise it ships to the United 

States, a secondary certification that the 

supplier did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. Petitioners further note that as 

the Department already stated, the 

regulations do not require the 

consideration of relative volumes 

sourced from a company that exported 

to the United States during the POI, 

with respect to the secondary 

certification requirement. Therefore, 

Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled 

to an NSR. 

Final Rescission of Review 

As stated in the Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind, the Department has 

determined that PTDT does not meet the 

minimum requirements for establishing 

its qualification for an NSR under 19 

CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT 

sold and exported subject merchandise 

to the United States during the POR that 

had been produced by a company that 

had exported to the United States 

during the POI. Because PTDT could not 

produce a certification that none of the 

merchandise it exported during the POR 

had been produced by a company that 

had exported during the POI, PTDT 

does not meet the minimum 

requirements for establishing 

qualification for an NSR. Furthermore, 

we note that the regulations provide a 

basis for extending the POR of NSRs 5

and applying the de minimis provision 

for margins of less than 0.5 percent,6 but 

there is no basis for overlooking the 

requirements set forth in 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are 

rescinding this NSR. As the Department 

is rescinding this NSR, we are not 

calculating a company-specific rate for 

PTDT, and PTDT will remain part of the 

PRC-wide entity subject to the PRCwide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this final rescission of 

this NSR for all shipments of subject 

merchandise by PTDT, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’): (1) For subject merchandise 

produced and exported by PTDT, as part 

of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit 

rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by PTDT, 

but not manufactured by PTDT, as part 

of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit 

rate will continue to be the PRC-wide 

rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for 

subject merchandise manufactured by 

PTDT, but exported by any party other 

than PTDT, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate applicable to the exporter. 

These cash deposit requirements will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘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 in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8742 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for 

a changed circumstances review (‘‘CCR’’) 

of Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest & I–Mei’’), the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) is initiating a CCR of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). We 

have preliminarily concluded that Viet 

I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet I– 

Mei’’) is the successor-in-interest to 

Grobest & I–Mei, and, as a result, should 

be accorded the same treatment 

previously accorded to Grobest & I–Mei, 

with regard to the antidumping duty 

order on frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on these preliminary 

results. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach at (202) 482–1655, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam 

on February 1, 2005. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp 

Order’’). Grobest & I–Mei participated in 

a new shipper review; the second, third, 

fourth, and fifth administrative reviews 

of the VN Shrimp Order; and requested 

an administrative review for the sixth 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20319 

1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

administrative review of the VN Shrimp 

Order. On February 28, 2011, Viet I–Mei 

informed the Department that Grobest & 

I–Mei had ended their partnership, and 

petitioned the Department to conduct a 

CCR to confirm that Viet I–Mei is the 

successor-in-interest to Grobest & I–Mei, 

for purposes of determining 

antidumping duties due as a result of 

the VN Shrimp Order. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,1

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices, or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.1020); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.0020 and 

0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.0510); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.1040); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and pan-fried. 

The products covered by the order are 

currently classified under the following 

HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.0003, 

0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 

0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 

0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 

0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 

0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010 and 

1605.20.1030. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Initiation of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.216, the 

Department will conduct a CCR upon 

receipt of information concerning, or a 

request from an interested party for a 

review of, an antidumping duty order 

which shows changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review of the 

order. The information submitted by 

Viet I–Mei supporting its claim that Viet 

I–Mei is the successor-in-interest to 

Grobest & I–Mei, demonstrates changed 

circumstances sufficient to warrant such 

a review. See 19 CFR 351.216(d); see 

also Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Mexico, 75 FR 67685 (November 3, 

2010). 

In accordance with the abovereferenced regulation, the Department is 

initiating a CCR to determine whether 

Viet I–Mei is the successor-in-interest to 

Grobest & I–Mei. In determining 

whether one company is the successorin-interest to another, the Department 

examines a number of factors including, 

but not limited to, changes in 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid 

From Israel; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 

(February 14, 1994). Although no single 

factor will necessarily provide a 

dispositive indication of succession, 

generally, the Department will consider 

one company to be a successor-ininterest to another company if its 

resulting operation is similar to that of 

its predecessor. See Brass Sheet and 

Strip From Canada; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). 

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 prior company, the 

Department will assign the new 

company the cash-deposit rate of its 

predecessor. Id.; Notice of Final Results 

of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

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

also Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France: Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, 75 FR 34688 

(June 18, 2010) (the Department found 

successorship where the company 

changed its ownership structure, but 

made only minor changes to its 

operations, management, supplier 

relationships, and customer base). 

In its February 28, 2011, submission, 

Viet I–Mei provided information to 

demonstrate that it is the successor-ininterest to Grobest & I–Mei. With respect 

to management prior to and following 

the name change, the submission 

indicates that the Deputy General 

Manager of Grobest & I–Mei is now the 

General Manager of Viet I–Mei, and 

three out of five additional senior 

managers have retained their 

management positions. Additionally, 

Viet I–Mei’s submission shows only 

minor changes to the organizational 

structure of Viet I–Mei from the 

structure of Grobest & I–Mei. 

Specifically, the majority of 

departments in Viet I–Mei are identical 

to the departments in Grobest & I–Mei. 

Thus, the majority of Viet I–Mei’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

managers remain in positions identical 

to those they held in Grobest & I–Mei. 

See Attachment 3 of Viet I–Mei’s 

February 28, 2011, submission. 

In addition, the submission indicates 

that the production facilities for Viet I– 

Mei and Grobest & I–Mei are identical. 

Following the name and investment 

changes, Viet I–Mei retained the same 

address and assets as Grobest & I–Mei. 

See Attachments 2 and 4 of Viet I–Mei’s 

February 28, 2011, submission. 

In its March 18, 2011, submission, 

Viet I–Mei identifies Grobest & I–Mei’s 

raw materials suppliers and Viet I–Mei’s 

raw materials suppliers, showing that 

Viet I–Mei’s raw material suppliers are 

identical to Grobest & I–Mei’s. 

Additionally, Viet I–Mei provides 

representative invoice samples from raw 

material suppliers to Grobest & I–Mei 

and Viet I–Mei. See Attachments 1 and 

2 of Viet I–Mei’s March 18, 2011, 

submission. 

Further, Viet I–Mei addressed changes 

to its customer base by providing 

customer lists and representative 

invoices and packing lists. The lists 

show that the customers of Viet I–Mei 

were customers of Grobest & I–Mei. See 

Attachments 3, 4, and 5 of Viet I–Mei’s 

March18, 2011, submission. 

Given the few changes noted above, 

we have preliminarily determined that 

no major changes have occurred with 

respect to Viet I–Mei’s management, 

production facilities, suppliers, or 

customer base as a result of the 

dissolution of the partnership of Grobest 

& I–Mei. 

When it concludes that expedited 

action is warranted, the Department 

may publish the notice of initiation and 

preliminary results for a CCR 

concurrently. See 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 

69 FR 30878 (June 1, 2004). We have 

determined that expedition of this CCR 

is warranted because we have the 

information necessary to make a 

preliminary finding already on the 

record. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from Japan: Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, 71 FR 14679 

(March 23, 2006). In this case, we 

preliminarily find that Viet I–Mei is the 

successor-in-interest to Grobest & I–Mei 

and, as such, is entitled to Grobest & I– 

Mei’s cash-deposit rate with respect to 

entries of subject merchandise. 

Should our final results remain the 

same as these preliminary results, 

effective the date of publication of the 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assign 

entries of merchandise produced or 

exported by Viet I–Mei the antidumping 

duty cash-deposit rate applicable to 

Grobest & I–Mei. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 14 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 28 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice or the first working day 

thereafter. Interested parties may submit 

case briefs and/or written comments no 

later than 14 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, which must be limited to 

issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed not later than 

21 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this CCR are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument with an 

electronic version included. Consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue 

the final results of this CCR no later 

than 270 days after the date on which 

this review was initiated or within 45 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results if all parties agree to our 

preliminary finding. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

initiation and preliminary results notice 

in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) 

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

351.216 and 351.221(c)(3). 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8733 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Executive Business 

Development Mission 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Mission Description 

The United States Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service (CS) is organizing a 

Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Trade Mission to Turkey on 

October 23–29, 2011. Led by a senior 

Department of Commerce official, the 

mission will include representatives 

from a variety of U.S. firms specializing 

in the following product areas: 

• Wind Turbines; 

• Geothermal Exploration, Drilling 

and Geophysical Engineering Services; 

• Geothermal Power Plant 

Equipment; 

• Biomass Power Generation; 

• Hydroelectric Power Plant 

Equipment Supply; 

• Solar Power Generation Systems; 

• Cogeneration Systems; 

• Energy Efficiency Systems and 

Solutions; 

• Fuel Cells, Heat Pumps Exc. 

Mission participants will be 

introduced to international agents, 

distributors, and end-users whose 

capabilities and services are targeted to 

each participant’s needs. This mission 

will contribute to the National Export 

Initiative and the Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency Export Initiative goals 

through increased sales of U.S. 

equipment/services in Turkey. The 

participants will also have a site visit to 

the Izmir Ataturk Organized Industrial 

Zone, targeted by the U.S. Department 

of Energy for a Near-Zero Zone Project 

(NZZ) to promote industrial energy 

efficiency and potential U.S. export 

opportunities. The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), in coordination with 

other U.S. agencies, is launching the 

Near-Zero Zone project. This 

interagency project has the support of 

the Turkish government and business 

organizations, and will help industrial 

companies operating within the Izmir 

Ataturk Organized Industrial Zone 

(IAOSB) reduce their energy usage 

through a series of cost-effective 

efficiency upgrades. 

One-on-one meetings with NZZ 

industrial participants will also be 

included, to follow quickly on an energy 

efficiency survey to be completed in 

September 2011. This mission will be 

an important deliverable for our 

bilateral Framework for Strategic 

Economic and Commercial Cooperation 

mechanism, a new process of 

engagement with the government of 

Turkey on economic and trade issues, 

chaired by Secretary Locke and U.S. 

Trade Representative, Ron Kirk. 

Participants will have an opportunity 

to meet with major buyers, and potential 

agents and distributors operating in 

Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir, Turkey. 

The U.S. and Foreign Commercial 

Service is targeting a minimum of 15 

and a maximum of 20 U.S. companies. 

Commercial Setting 

Turkey is a country offering 

significant opportunities for foreign 

investors and exporters with its 

geographically favorable position to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES