17154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

3See 19 CFR 351.310. 

4See 19 CFR 351.309. 

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 scope of this 

review 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 changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for review of, 

an antidumping duty 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–in-interest to Gidasa. 

Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) 

of the Act, the Department initiated a 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability with respect to imports of 

certain pasta from Turkey. 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

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

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

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

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992). While no single factor 

or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

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

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

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

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

determine that Marsan is the successor– 

in-interest to Gidasa. In its December 3, 

2008, and March 16, 2009, submissions 

Marsan provided evidence supporting 

its claim to be the successor–in-interest 

to Gidasa. Documentation attached to 

Marsan’s December 3, 2008, submission 

shows that the acquisition of Gidasa by 

MGS Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (‘‘MGS’’) and the following name 

change to Marsan resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation 

consists of: (1) organizational charts of 

both Marsan and Gidasa; (2) the 

documentation of the name change from 

Gidasa to Marsan; (3) a list of products 

before and after the acquisition of 

Gidasa by MGS; (4) a list of suppliers 

before and after the name change from 

Gidasa to Marsan; (5) a list of home 

market and U.S. customers before and 

after the name change from Gidasa to 

Marsan; (6) MGS’s articles and notice of 

incorporation; (7) MGS’s 2007 

management report to shareholders; and 

(8) MGS’s 2008 draft income statement 

and balance sheet. The documentation 

described above demonstrates that there 

was little to no change in management 

structure, supplier relationships, 

production facilities, or customer base 

and, thus, the operations of Marsan are 

essentially the same as the operations of 

Gidasa. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that 

Marsan is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa and, thus, should receive the 

same antidumping duty treatment with 

respect certain pasta from Turkey as the 

former Gidasa. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held no later than 44 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, or 

the first workday thereafter.3 Case briefs 

from interested parties may be 

submitted not later than 30 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 37 days after the date of 

publication of this notice.4 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 

changed circumstances review 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 antidumping duties 

on all subject merchandise will 

continue unless and until it is modified 

pursuant to the final results of this 

changed circumstances review. 

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: April 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8498 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–932] 

Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), the Department is issuing an 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

threaded rod (‘‘STR’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On April 6, 

2009, the ITC notified the Department of 

its affirmative determination of material 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17155 

1See April 3, 2009, Memorandum to the File, 

From Toni Dach, International Trade Analyst, 

Regarding: Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: CBP Request to Include 

Additional HTSUS. 

injury to a U.S. industry. See Steel 

Threaded Rod from China (Investigation 

No. 731–TA–1145 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4070, April 2009). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bobby Wong or Toni Dach, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0409, or (202) 

482–1655, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with sections 735(d) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’), on February 27, 

2009, the Department published its final 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value in the antidumping investigation 

of STR from the PRC. See Certain Steel 

Threaded Rod from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 

8907 (February 27, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is steel threaded rod. Steel 

threaded rod is certain threaded rod, 

bar, or studs, of carbon quality steel, 

having a solid, circular cross section, of 

any diameter, in any straight length, that 

have been forged, turned, cold–drawn, 

cold–rolled, machine straightened, or 

otherwise cold–finished, and into which 

threaded grooves have been applied. In 

addition, the steel threaded rod, bar, or 

studs subject to this order are non– 

headed and threaded along greater than 

25 percent of their total length. A 

variety of finishes or coatings, such as 

plain oil finish as a temporary rust 

protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, 

whether by electroplating or hot– 

dipping), paint, and other similar 

finishes and coatings, may be applied to 

the merchandise. 

Included in the scope of this order are 

steel threaded rod, bar, or studs, in 

which: (1) iron predominates, by 

weight, over each of the other contained 

elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 

percent or less, by weight; and (3) none 

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 

• 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

• 1.50 percent of silicon, or 

• 1.00 percent of copper, or 

• 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

• 1.25 percent of chromium, or 

• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

• 0.40 percent of lead, or 

• 1.25 percent of nickel, or 

• 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

• 0.012 percent of boron, or 

• 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

• 0.10 percent of niobium, or 

• 0.41 percent of titanium, or 

• 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

• 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Steel threaded rod is currently 

classifiable under subheading 

7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and 

7318.15.2095 of the United States 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are: (a) threaded rod, bar, or studs which 

are threaded only on one or both ends 

and the threading covers 25 percent or 

less of the total length; and (b) threaded 

rod, bar, or studs made to American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(‘‘ASTM’’) A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 

Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or 

ASTM A320 Grade L7. 

Scope–HTSUS Modification 

On April 1, 2009, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) requested 

that the Department add HTSUS 

category 7318.15.2095 as an HTSUS 

category under which steel threaded rod 

may be classifiable. Therefore, the 

Department has modified the scope to 

reflect the new HTSUS category.1

Antidumping Duty Order 

On April 6, 2009, in accordance with 

section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC 

notified the Department of its final 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of less– 

than-fair–value imports of subject 

merchandise from the PRC. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of 

the Act, the Department will direct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value of the merchandise 

exceeds the export price (or constructed 

export price) of the merchandise for all 

relevant entries of STR from the PRC. 

These antidumping duties will be 

assessed on all unliquidated entries of 

STR from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from the warehouse, for 

consumption on or after October 8, 

2008, the date on which the Department 

published its preliminary 

determination. See Certain Steel 

Threaded Rod from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 (October 8, 

2008). 

Section 733(d) of the Act states that 

instructions issued pursuant to an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

may not remain in effect for more than 

four months except where exporters 

representing a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise 

request the Department to extend that 

four–month period to no more than six 

months. At the request of exporters that 

account for a significant proportion of 

STR exports, we extended the four– 

month period to no more than six 

months. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

73 FR 63693 (October 27, 2008). In this 

investigation, the six–month period 

beginning on the date of the publication 

of the preliminary determination ended 

on April 8, 2009. Furthermore, section 

737 of the Act states that definitive 

duties are to begin on the date of 

publication of the ITC’s final injury 

determination. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Act and our 

practice, we will instruct CBP to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

and to liquidate, without regard to 

antidumping duties, unliquidated 

entries of STR from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 8, 2009, 

and before the date of publication of the 

ITC’s final injury determination in the 

Federal Register. Suspension of 

liquidation will resume on or after the 

date of publication of the ITC’s final 

injury determination in the Federal 

Register. 

Effective on the date of publication of 

the ITC’s final affirmative injury 

determination in the Federal Register, 

CBP, pursuant to section 735(c)(3) of the 

Act, will require, at the same time as 

importers would normally deposit 

estimated duties on this merchandise, a 

cash deposit equal to the estimated 

weighted–average antidumping duty 

margins as listed below. The ‘‘PRC– 

wide’’ rate applies to all exporters of 

subject merchandise not specifically 

listed. The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

17156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

CERTAIN STEEL THREADED ROD FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Margin 

RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (‘‘RMB/IFI Group’’) Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. (aka Jiaxing Brother 

Standard Parts Co., Ltd.) 

55.16% 

Ningbo Yinzhou Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. ..................................... Zhejiang Guorui Industry Co., Ltd.; or Ningbo Daxie 

Chuofeng Industrial Development Co. Ltd. 

206.00% 

Shanghai Recky International Trading Co., Ltd. ......................... Shanghai Xiangrong International Trading Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai Xianglong International Trading Co., Ltd.; 

Pighu City Zhapu Screw Cap Factory; or Jiaxing Xinyue 

Standard Part Co., Ltd. 

55.16% 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. .......................................................... Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd.; or Haiyan 

County No. 1 Fasteners Factory 

55.16% 

Hangzhou Grand Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. ...................................... Zhapu Creative Standard Parts Material Co., Ltd. 55.16% 

Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd. ........................................... Haiyan Yida Fasteners Co., Ltd.; or Jiaxing Xinyue 

Standard Part Co., Ltd. 

55.16% 

Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. ....................................... Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. 55.16% 

Certified Products International Inc. ............................................ Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; or Jiaxing 

Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. 

55.16% 

Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. ................................... Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. 55.16% 

Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. ........................... Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 55.16% 

Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. ................................................ Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. 55.16% 

PRC–wide Entity .......................................................................... ............................................................................................ 206.00% 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

STR from the PRC pursuant to section 

736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may 

contact the Department’s Central 

Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 

Commerce building, for copies of an 

updated list of antidumping duty orders 

currently in effect. 

This order is published in accordance 

with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.211. 

Dated: April 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8630 Filed 4–10–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has received 

information sufficient to warrant 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot 

Fullerton or Jerry Huang, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

202–482–1386 or 202–482–4047, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The antidumping duty order for 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam was published 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) 

(‘‘Order’’). As part of the Order, Can Tho 

Agricultural and Animal Products 

Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’), 

received an antidumping duty cash 

deposit rate of 4.57 percent. Id. In the 

first administrative review, the 

Department initiated a review on 

CATACO. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Deferral of 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 

(April 5, 2006). However, the review of 

CATACO was subsequently rescinded. 

See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Partial Rescission of the First 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 42628, 

42629 (July 27, 2006). As part of the 

final results of the second 

administrative review, in which 

CATACO was reviewed, the company 

received an antidumping duty cash 

deposit rate of 4.57 percent. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275–52276 

(September 9, 2008). 

On March 13, 2009, CATACO filed a 

submission requesting that the 

Department conduct a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam 

and requesting that the Department find 

that Can Tho Import Export Fishery 

Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’) is the 

successor-in-interest to CATACO’s 

shrimp processing operations. See 

CATACO’s submission to the 

Department regarding Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: 

Request for Changed Circumstances 

Review, (Case No. A–552–802) (March 

13, 2009). 

In its submission, CATACO provided 

information regarding the events leading 

to the spin-off of its shrimp processing 

operations as CAFISH. Additionally, 

CATACO provided documentation 

relating to its change in corporate 

structure from a state owned enterprise 

to a separate joint stock company, 

Cantho Import-Export Seafood Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘CASEAMEX’’), which 

was later again spun off into CAFISH. In 

addition, CATACO provided 

documentation comparing CAFISH’s 

current management, facility and 

equipment, supplier relationships, and 

customer base to that of the original 

CATACO. As part of its submission, 

CATACO requested that the Department 

conduct an expedited review.