Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47225 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Steel Tube Co., Ltd ................................................................ 24.33 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd ................................................................... 10.90 

Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co, Ltd., Jiangsu Fanli Steel Pipe Co, Ltd, Tuoketuo County Mengfeng Special Steel Co., Ltd ...................... 24.92 

Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jianli Steel Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Zhuji Jiansheng Machinery Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang 

Jianli Industry Group Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 30.69 

All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 21.33 

In accordance with sections 703(d) 

and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for 

companies not investigated, we 

determined an ‘‘all others’’ rate by 

weighting the individual company 

subsidy rate of each of the companies 

investigated by the company’s exports 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. The ‘‘all others’’ rate does not 

include zero and de minimis rates or 

any rates based solely on the facts 

available. In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 

directing U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of OCTG from 

the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, and to 

require a cash deposit or bond for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Due to the 

anticipated timing of verification and 

issuance of verification reports, case 

briefs for this investigation must be 

submitted no later than one week after 

the issuance of the last verification 

report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for a 

further discussion of case briefs). 

Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five 

days after the deadline for submission of 

case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied 

upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, within 30 

days of the publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

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

address, and telephone; (2) the number 

of participants; and (3) a list of the 

issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. See id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–22187 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–489–806] 

Certain Pasta From Turkey: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 28, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review (‘‘CCR’’) of the countervailing 

duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on certain pasta 

from Turkey as requested by Marsan 

Gida Sanayi ve Ticret A.S. (‘‘Marsan’’) 

See Notice of Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta 

from Turkey, 74 FR 4938 (January 28, 

2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). As stated in 

the Initiation Notice, we are not 

applying the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) 

successor-in-interest methodology to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor to Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi 

ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’) for CVD 

purposes. Id. at 4939. After receiving 

additional information regarding the 

circumstances which warranted the CCR 

of Gidasa, pursuant to the new criteria 

outlined in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review’’ 

section below, we preliminarily find 

that Marsan is not the successor to 

Gidasa, for purposes of the CVD cash 

deposit rates, and therefore its 

merchandise should continue to enter 

under the ‘‘all others’’ cash deposit rate. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2009. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

1Recognizing the Department may conduct other 

types of CCRs, the discussion in this section focuses 

on ‘‘successorship’’ CCRs for determining the 

appropriate cash deposit rate for the respondent 

company in question. 

2See Letter to Gregory W. Campbell, Office of 

Policy from Corus Group plc, entitled 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances 

Review; Request for Comments on Agency 

Practice,’’ dated February 23, 2007, and Letter to 

Gregory W. Campbell, Office of Policy, from Law 

Offices of Stewart and Stewart, entitled 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances 

Reviews: Request for Comment on Agency Practice; 

Comments of Stewart and Stewart,’’ dated February 

23, 2007. Copies of these public comments are 

available on file in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit in Room HCHB 1117 of the 

Department’s main building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelly Atkinson or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0116 or (202) 482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

order on certain pasta from Turkey. See 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Turkey, 61 

FR 38546 (July 24, 1996). On December 

3, 2008, Marsan requested that the 

Department initiate and conduct 

expedited CCRs to determine that, for 

purposes of the AD and CVD cash 

deposits, Marsan is the successor to 

Gidasa. See Marsan’s December 3, 2008, 

submission entitled, ‘‘Pasta from 

Turkey: Request for Expedited Changed 

Circumstances Review of AD/CVD 

Orders’’ (‘‘CCR Request’’). On January 

28, 2009, the Department published a 

notice of initiation of a CCR of the CVD 

order for Marsan. See Initiation Notice. 

On April 16, 2009, the Department 

requested additional information and 

issued a questionnaire to Marsan, to 

which it responded on May 1, 2009. See 

Marsan’s May 1, 2009, response 

entitled, ‘‘Pasta from Turkey: Marsan 

response to the supplemental 

questionnaire.’’ 

On April 14, 2009, and June 2, 2009, 

the Department published its 

preliminary and final results, 

respectively for the CCR of the AD order 

on certain pasta from Turkey and found 

that Marsan was the successor-ininterest to Gidasa. See Certain Pasta 

from Turkey: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 74 FR 17153 

(April 14, 2009); Certain Pasta from 

Turkey: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 74 FR 26373 

(June 2, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds (or 2.27 

kilograms) or less, whether or not 

enriched or fortified or containing milk 

or other optional ingredients such as 

chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, 

milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, 

coloring and flavorings, and up to two 

percent egg white. The pasta covered by 

this scope is typically sold in the retail 

market, in fiberboard or cardboard 

cartons, or polyethylene or 

polypropylene bags, of varying 

dimensions. 

Excluded from the order are 

refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as 

well as all forms of egg pasta, with the 

exception of non-egg dry pasta 

containing up to two percent egg white. 

The merchandise subject to review is 

currently classifiable under item 

1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise subject 

to the order is dispositive. 

Preliminary Results 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 

review of, a CVD order which shows 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review of the order. In this 

case, the Department finds that the 

information submitted by the 

respondent provided sufficient evidence 

of changed circumstances to warrant a 

review to determine whether Marsan is 

the successor to Gidasa for purposes of 

CVD cash deposit rates. Thus, in 

accordance with section 751(b) of the 

Act, the Department initiated a CCR to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor to Gidasa for purposes of CVD 

cash deposit rates with respect to 

imports of certain pasta from Turkey. 

In Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006), the 

Department indicated that it intended to 

further consider the issue of whether 

alternative or additional successorship 

criteria, other than those the Department 

relies upon in an AD CCR, would be 

more appropriate in a successorshiptype 1 CVD CCR context. Moreover, the 

Department stated that it anticipated 

issuing a Federal Register notice 

inviting the public to submit comments 

on the issue. Subsequently, the 

Department published Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; 

Request for Comment on Agency 

Practice, 72 FR 3107 (January 24, 2007) 

(‘‘Request for Comment’’), in which the 

Department highlighted various 

considerations relevant to the issue of 

CVD CCRs, and provided the public an 

opportunity to comment on whether any 

changes to the Department’s practice 

regarding such reviews was warranted 

and, if so, what those changes should 

entail. 

We received comments from two 

parties in response to the Request for 

Comment.2 The first commenter urged 

that any decision to revise or clarify the 

Department’s CVD CCR practice should 

reflect the historically limited purpose 

of CCRs, which is to modify a 

successor’s cash deposit rate for future 

entries until it obtains a new rate as a 

result of an administrative review. 

Citing to the statute, various past 

Department decisions and findings of 

the Court of International Trade, as well 

as noting various practical constraints, 

the commenter argued that CCRs are not 

administrative reviews and do not 

necessarily involve the calculation of 

rates related to specific entries. 

Administrative reviews, this party 

contended, are the appropriate forum in 

which to collect the evidence and 

calculate the precise level of 

subsidization for a successor company. 

In contrast, the function of CCRs is to 

address the effect of ‘‘changed 

circumstances’’ on a final affirmative 

determination that resulted in a CVD 

order. Put otherwise, the function of a 

CCR is to determine whether the 

company is essentially the same as the 

predecessor company for cash deposit 

purposes. If the company is not 

essentially the same, the commenter 

argued that the Department should 

normally assign the successor company 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate until an 

administrative review is requested as 

the all others rate is the default rate for 

exports that have not been investigated 

or subject to an administrative review. 

With regard to which criteria the 

Department should use in assessing 

whether the successor company is 

essentially the same as the predecessor 

company, this commenter argued for the 

following factors: (1) Organization 

structure; (2) management; and (3) 

production facilities relevant to the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47227 

3For purposes of CVD CCRs, the ‘‘look-back 

window’’ is defined as the period spanning from 

the present (i.e., the time the CCR request was 

submitted to the Department), back to the end of the 

period of investigation or, if there have been 

intervening opportunities to request an 

administrative review, the end of the period of 

review associated with the most recent opportunity 

to request an administrative review. The look-back 

window has been circumscribed in this manner 

based, in part, on the principle that if changed 

circumstances occurred prior to this period that 

were of concern to any party in the proceeding, that 

party could have requested an administrative 

review to consider those changes. 

4This list is based on the Department’s extensive 

experience in applying its regulations and existing 

practice to various factual patterns. Taking just one 

example, 19 CFR 351.525(b) provides general 

‘‘attribution’’ rules that would apply when 

determining the subsidy rate when two previously 

unrelated subject merchandise producers merge. 

What is clear ex ante in applying these general rules 

is that the resulting rate for the merged entity would 

most likely be different from the previously 

calculated subsidy rates for either of the two premerger companies. Given the fact-intensive analysis 

Continued 

production and exportation of subject 

merchandise. 

The second commenter agreed with 

the Department’s observation in the 

Request for Comment that AD and CVD 

proceedings, while having some points 

of common analysis, are ultimately 

focused on analytically distinct 

questions; where AD proceedings are 

focused on the extent to which a foreign 

producer or exporter has made sales 

below fair value, CVD proceedings are 

focused on the extent to which a foreign 

producer or exporter has benefitted from 

subsidies. Therefore, the application of 

the AD ‘‘same business entity’’ criteria 

in a CVD CCR is, in this commenter’s 

view, clearly inappropriate. This is 

because, in the case of a change in 

ownership for payment of market value, 

some or all of a respondent’s previously 

received subsidies will no longer be 

countervailable, even where the 

company remains, after the change in 

ownership, the ‘‘same business entity’’ 

as it was before the transaction. 

According to this party, in these 

circumstances, the Department focus 

must be on the nature of the transaction 

and not the four factor ‘‘same business 

entity’’ test. This commenter believes 

that where, in a CVD CCR, the 

Department determines that a change in 

the company’s ownership or structure 

has effected a significant change in the 

level of countervailable subsidization, it 

is incumbent on the Department to 

recalculate the cash deposit rate to 

reflect the change effected by the change 

in structure or ownership. However, a 

full recalculation of all aspects of the 

respondent’s subsidies, to the extent 

that they are not directly related to the 

change in ownership or structure, is 

neither necessary nor appropriate. 

Finally, this commenter supported an 

expedited CVD CCR process where there 

is no indication that the level of 

subsidization has changed significantly 

as a result of the changed 

circumstances. 

After considering parties’ comments, 

and drawing on the Department’s past 

experience with CVD CCRs, we are now 

prepared to promulgate a new approach 

that the Department intends to apply in 

the current as well as in future CVD 

CCR proceedings. As background, we 

start by laying out certain broad 

principles relevant to this issue. First, 

we note that section 751(b)(1) of the Act 

directs the Department to conduct a 

review of a final affirmative CVD 

determination when it receives a request 

from an interest party ‘‘which shows 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review of such 

determination.’’ The statute does not 

define the term ‘‘changed 

circumstances.’’ 

Nor does the statute require that the 

standards and analysis the Department 

uses in finding changed circumstances 

in the CVD context be identical to those 

used in the AD context. What may 

constitute sufficient grounds for 

initiating an AD CCR may not be 

sufficient grounds for initiating a CVD 

CCR and vice versa. As we noted in the 

Request for Comment and as reflected in 

the second commenter’s arguments, 

above, to the extent that dumping is a 

matter of price discrimination and the 

AD CCR analysis is concerned with the 

pricing behavior of a successor 

company, such an analysis would not 

necessarily be relevant in the CVD 

context where subsidization, not price 

discrimination, is the analytical focus. 

In the context of a CVD CCR, the 

Department interprets the term 

‘‘changed circumstances’’ in a manner 

consistent with the purpose of the CVD 

statute. Thus, the findings in an AD CCR 

may be different from, and irrelevant to, 

the findings in a CVD CCR. 

Moreover, the limited purpose of a 

CVD CCR generally is to determine 

whether a company is essentially the 

same subsidized entity as the alleged 

predecessor company for cash deposit 

purposes. Accordingly, the Department 

decides whether the alleged predecessor 

company’s rate applies to the party 

being examined. In the context of a CVD 

CCR, the Department does not normally 

calculate a new subsidy rate, or revised 

rate where applicable, for the party 

being examined. Among other reasons, 

a complete analysis of a respondent’s 

subsidy rate (whether the respondent is 

a successor or not) would require, at a 

minimum, the submission and analysis 

of a full questionnaire response (and 

any supplemental responses), ample 

time for comment from interested 

parties, and possible verification. All 

this would not be feasible within the 

condensed time frame of a CCR. See 19 

CFR 351.216(e). Rather, the Department 

conducts such an analysis in an 

administrative review, which is the 

administrative procedure provided in 

the statute precisely for this purpose. 

With this in mind, our approach to 

CVD CCRs going forward will be as 

follows. As a general rule, in a CVD 

CCR, the Department will make an 

affirmative CVD successorship finding 

(i.e., that the respondent company is the 

same subsidized entity for CVD cash 

deposit purposes as the predecessor 

company) where there is no evidence of 

significant changes in the respondent’s 

operations, ownership, corporate or 

legal structure during the relevant 

period (i.e., the ‘‘look-back window’’) 3

that could have affected the nature and 

extent of the respondent’s subsidy 

levels. Where the Department makes an 

affirmative CVD successorship finding, 

the successor’s merchandise will be 

entitled to enter under the predecessor’s 

cash deposit rate. 

Structured in this manner, this CVD 

CCR analysis is intended to serve as a 

type of screening mechanism. 

Significant changes in the respondent’s 

operations, ownership, corporate or 

legal structure that potentially could 

affect the nature and extent of the 

company’s subsidization are a sufficient 

basis for reconsidering what constitutes 

the best estimate of the respondent’s 

existing subsidy levels. In the face of 

such changes, it normally would be 

inappropriate for the Department to 

affirm a cash deposit rate that had been 

calculated during a previous time 

period based on a significantly different 

factual pattern. The most appropriate 

CVD cash deposit rate in this instance 

is the rate under which the merchandise 

of a newly-renamed entity would 

normally be entered, i.e., the ‘‘all 

others’’ cash deposit rate. Conversely, 

where there have not been any such 

significant changes during the look-back 

window, it normally is appropriate and 

reasonable for the Department to reaffirm the existing ‘‘predecessor’’ duty 

deposit rate as the best estimate of the 

respondent’s existing rate of 

subsidization. 

For the sake of clarity, consistency, 

and predictability, we are identifying 

the following non-exhaustive list of the 

types of changes that we normally 

consider to be significant and would 

affect the nature and extent of the 

requesting party’s subsidization: 4 (1) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

involved, the extent to which the rate for the 

merged entity differs from either of the previous 

company’s rates could only be determined in a full 

administrative review. 

5This is not necessarily an exclusive list. 

6Routine or ‘‘technical’’ fluctuations in subsidy 

rates stemming from, e.g., declining allocable 

subsidy benefits under the Department’s declining 

balance methodology, ordinary fluctuations in sales 

denominators, or changing interest rates would not 

normally in themselves be a basis for a negative 

successorship finding. 

7 Generally, this means the ‘‘all others’’ cash 

deposit rate will apply. 

8We note that the last date to request an 

administrative review was July 31, 2009, which 

would cover the period of review for January 1, 

2008, to December 31, 2008. Therefore, based on 

our new policy, in this case the Department will 

examine changes that have occurred from January 

1, 2008, through the time that Gidasa/Marsan 

submitted its CCR Request. 

Changes in ownership, other than 

regular buying and selling of publicly 

owned shares held by a broad array of 

investors, (2) corporate mergers and 

acquisitions involving the respondent’s 

consolidated or cross-owned corporate 

family and outside companies, and (3) 

purchases or sales of significant 

productive facilities. 

Where a change has occurred in the 

respondent’s operations, ownership, 

corporate or legal structure that is not 

explicitly reflected in this nonexhaustive list, the Department will 

assess whether that change could affect 

the nature and extent of the 

respondent’s subsidization and, 

therefore, whether the respondent is the 

same subsidized entity as the 

predecessor for CVD purposes, with 

reference to one or more of the 

following objective criteria: 5 (1) 

Continuity in the cross-owned or 

consolidated respondent company’s 

financial assets and liabilities; (2) 

continuity in its production and 

commercial activities; and (3) continuity 

in the level of the government’s 

involvement in the respondent’s 

operations or financial structure (e.g., 

government ownership or control, the 

provision of inputs, loans, equity).6

We have adopted the particular 

criteria noted above because, in contrast 

to the factors examined in an AD CCR, 

these better reflect those aspects of a 

company that generally are most 

impacted by, the target of, or the vehicle 

for subsidy benefits. For example, 

stabilizing a company’s financial 

position, or facilitating investment in 

new productive capacity is often a goal 

of subsidization, and governments often 

achieve this subsidization through 

direct involvement in, or financial or 

‘‘in kind’’ provisions to, the company. 

Any party requesting a CVD CCR 

should provide, as part of its request, 

information sufficient to clearly identify 

and explain any significant changes in 

the respondent’s operations, ownership, 

or corporate or legal structure during the 

look-back window. At a minimum, the 

request should include a full narrative 

with supporting documentation 

regarding any changes similar to those 

items in the non-exhaustive list above as 

well as complete information addressing 

the three objective criteria enumerated 

above. The supporting information 

should also include, where available, 

the translated financial statements on a 

consolidated basis for the respondent 

for the years of and immediately prior 

to any changes related to the nonexhaustive list and the objective criteria. 

(For example, if the change in question 

occurred in May 2008, annual 

consolidated financial statements 

should be provided for years 2007 and 

2008). The requesting party should also 

identify in its request, to the extent of 

its knowledge, under what exporter/ 

producer name and CVD cash deposit 

rate the subject merchandise is currently 

entering into the United States. 

Upon receipt of a duly supported CVD 

CCR request containing the necessary 

information outlined above, the 

Department will initiate and conduct a 

CVD CCR, consistent with its 

regulations. In making a final CVD CCR 

finding, the Department will normally 

come to one of two conclusions: (1) The 

respondent company is the successor to 

the pre-change predecessor company 

and, therefore, the respondent’s 

merchandise may enter under the 

predecessor’s established duty deposit 

rate, or (2) the respondent company is 

not the successor, which means its 

merchandise is not entitled to enter 

under the claimed ‘‘predecessor’s’’ 

previously established cash deposit 

rate.7

Finally, we make the following 

general points about the application and 

likely implications of this new 

methodology. First, we reiterate that, for 

the reasons discussed above, our 

analysis will focus on whether a 

significant change occurred in the 

company’s operations, ownership, 

corporate or legal structure and not 

whether those changes, in fact, 

ultimately did affect the respondent’s 

subsidization or by how much. This 

latter question can only be decided 

based on a full analysis of a complete 

record compiled in the course of an 

administrative review and not on the 

limited facts or within the abbreviated 

time frame of a CVD CCR. 

Second, we recognize that CVD CCRs 

involving companies that have been 

excluded from the order is a unique 

situation that may require additional 

consideration and, potentially, a 

different analysis. As we are not 

presented with that fact pattern in this 

case, we will address the issue of 

excluded companies in CVD CCRs, and 

articulate appropriate standards and 

analyses for such instances, where and 

when those circumstances arise. 

Third, we will not initiate a CVD CCR 

if the question of the appropriate cash 

deposit rate can otherwise be addressed 

in an ongoing or, where appropriate, an 

impending administrative review. 

Initiating an additional CVD CCR in 

these circumstances poses an 

unnecessary burden on parties and on 

the Department’s resources, and an 

ongoing administrative review generally 

provides an opportunity for a fuller 

record to be developed and for greater 

participation by interested parties. 

Finally, for reasons discussed above, 

findings regarding successorship under 

an AD CCR are not necessarily relevant 

to a CVD CCR, and vice versa. 

Analysis of Responses 

On August 14, 2007, MGS Marmara 

Gida (‘‘MGS’’), a Turkish holding 

company, was formed by five 

individuals for the purpose of acquiring 

the respondent, Gidasa. The agreement 

to transfer Gidasa from its former owner 

to MGS was signed on the same day 

MGS incorporated, and the transfer was 

completed on March 3, 2008. On June 

5, 2008, MGS changed Gidasa’s legal 

corporate name to Marsan. 

Subsequently, in its submissions dated 

December 3, 2008, and May 1, 2009, 

Marsan informed the Department that a 

change in ownership occurred, and that 

MGS acquired all of Gidasa’s assets, 

including its facilities and brand names. 

Accordingly, we find that significant 

changes have occurred during the 

relevant ‘‘look-back’’ window, 

beginning January 1, 2008, in Gidasa’s/ 

Marasan’s ownership and corporate 

structure.8 New investors and a new 

corporate entity now own and control 

the production of subject merchandise 

and such significant changes could 

impact the nature and extent of the 

respondent’s subsidization. As stated 

above in our new policy, we are not 

going to analyze whether Marsan’s rate 

of subsidization matches that of Gidasa 

(i.e., whether the level of subsidization 

has actually changed at some point on 

or after March 3, 2008, when significant 

changes occurred) or recalculate a new 

CVD cash deposit rate for Marsan. This 

type of analysis is more appropriately 

done in the context of an administrative 

review. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47229 

Since significant changes in Marsan’s 

ownership and corporate structure have 

occurred that could potentially affect 

the nature and extent of the company’s 

subsidization, pursuant to our new 

policy outlined above, we are finding 

that Marsan’s merchandise is not 

entitled to enter under the CVD cash 

deposit rate previously established in 

the last CVD administrative review of 

Gidasa. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that Marsan’s merchandise 

should continue to enter under the ‘‘all 

others’’ CVD rate. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 10 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held no later than 19 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, or 

the first workday thereafter. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Case briefs from interested 

parties may be submitted not later than 

10 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

the issues raised in those comments, 

may be filed not later than 17 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309. 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. The Department 

will publish the final results of this CCR 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written comments. 

The current requirement for a cash 

deposit of estimated CVD duties on all 

subject merchandise at issue will 

continue unless and until it is modified 

pursuant to the final results of this CCR. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

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: September 9, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–22192 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Information Collection; Submission for 

OMB Review, Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public 

information collection request (ICR) 

entitled the Application Instructions for 

State Administrative Funds, Program 

Development Assistance and Training, 

and Disability Placement to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 

35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation, may be 

obtained by calling the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Ms. 

Amy Borgstrom at (202) 606–6930. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 565–2799 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern 

time, Monday through Friday. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by the title of the 

information collection activity, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: Ms. Katherine Astrich, 

OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation 

for National and Community Service, by 

any of the following two methods 

within 30 days from the date of 

publication in this Federal Register: 

(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974, 

Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Corporation for National 

and Community Service; and 

(2) Electronically by e-mail to: 

smar@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Propose ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

• Propose ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Comments 

A 60-day public comment Notice was 

published in the Federal Register 

onJuly 8, 2009. This comment period 

ended September 8, 2009. One public 

comment was received from this Notice. 

The commenter made suggestions for 

minor edits, and requested additional 

guidance on the provision in the Serve 

America Act which requires making 

recommendations to their State agency 

on aging. The commenter also requested 

clarification and additional guidance on 

how to implement the Serve America 

Act provision will requires Disability 

funding to be used to provide 

reasonable accommodation to Senior 

Corps and Learn and Serve America 

grantees as well as AmeriCorps State 

and National grantees. The Corporation 

will provide additional clarification and 

guidance in both respects. 

Description: The Corporation is 

seeking approval of the Application 

Instructions for State Administrative 

Funds, Program Development 

Assistance and Training, and Disability 

Placement which will be used by State 

commissions to apply for funds to 

support activities related to 

administration, training, and access for 

people with disabilities. 

Type of Review: Renewal. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: Application Instructions for 

State Administrative Funds, Program 

Development Assistance and Training, 

and Disability Placement. 

OMB Number: 3049–0099. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: State commissions. 

Total Respondents: 54. 

Frequency: Every three (3) years. 

Average Time per Response: 24 hours. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1296 

hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): None. 

Dated: September 9, 2009. 

Lois Nembhard, 

Director, AmeriCorps State and National. 

[FR Doc. E9–22130 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Meeting of the Department of Defense 

Military Family Readiness Council 

(MFRC) 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a), 

Public Law 92–463, as amended, notice 

is hereby given of a forthcoming 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES