55498 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 

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

record 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 predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the new 

company the cash deposit rate 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, 9980 (March 1, 

1999). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

determine that India Steel is the 

successor–in-interest to Isibars. In its 

August 4, 2008, submission, India Steel 

provided evidence supporting its claim 

to be the successor–in-interest to Isibars. 

The documentation attached to India 

Steel’s August 4, 2008, submission 

shows that the change of corporate 

name from Isibars Limited to India Steel 

Works Limited resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation 

consists of: 

(1) the minutes of a September 29, 

2007, General Meeting showing the 

name change was voted upon and 

approved unanimously; 

(2) a certified copy of a ‘‘Fresh 

Certificate of Incorporation Consequent 

upon Change of Name,’’ dated October 

22, 2007, issued by the Government of 

India, which shows the name change; 

(3) a list of the stockholders and board 

of directors before and after the name 

change, showing that they are identical; 

(4) an organizational chart before and 

after the name change showing India 

Steel has the same organization 

structure as Isibars; 

(5) lists of suppliers and customers 

before and after the name change 

indicating that they are identical; 

(6) samples of letters and e mails sent 

to customers announcing the name 

change; 

(7) documentation demonstrating that 

India Steel has the same taxpayer 

identification number (called the 

‘‘permanent account number’’ in India) 

as Isibars; 

(8) a detailed description of the 

production facilities that existed before 

and after the name change indicating 

that India Steel has the same production 

facilities as Isibars; 

(9) documentation demonstrating that 

India Steel maintains the same bank 

account as Isibars; and 

(10) certificates of importer and 

exporter codes for Isibars and India 

Steel, issued by the Government of 

India, showing that the codes are 

identical before and after the name 

change. 

In sum, India Steel has presented 

evidence to establish a prima facie case 

of its successorship status. Isibars’s 

name change to India Steel has not 

changed the operations of the company 

in a meaningful way. India Steel’s 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base are substantially unchanged from 

those of Isibars. The record evidence 

demonstrates that the new entity 

essentially operates in the same manner 

as the predecessor company. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that India Steel should be 

assigned the same antidumping duty 

treatment as Isibars, i.e., a 2.01 percent 

antidumping duty cash deposit rate. See 

Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 72 FR 51595 (September 

10, 2007). 

The cash deposit determination from 

this changed circumstances review will 

apply to all entries of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 

25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review in which India 

Steel is reviewed. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Written comments may be submitted no 

later than 14 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such comments, may 

be filed no later than 21 days after the 

date of publication. The Department 

will issue the final results of this 

changed circumstances review, which 

will include the results of its analysis 

raised in any such written comments, 

no later than 270 days after the date on 

which this review was initiated, or 

within 45 days if all parties agree to our 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.216(e). 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 

and 351.221. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22552 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–808] 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless 

Steel Wire Rods from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) received a request for 

initiation of a changed–circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) 

from India from India Steel Works 

Limited (India Steel). After reviewing 

this request, we preliminarily determine 

that India Steel is the successor–ininterest to Isibars Limited (Isibars) and 

should therefore be accorded the same 

treatment previously accorded to Isibars 

with respect to the antidumping duty 

order on wire rods from India. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3931 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 1993, the Department 

published an antidumping duty order 

on wire rods from India. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 

FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On 

August 4, 2008, the Department 

received a request for a changed– 

circumstances review of this order from 

India Steel to determine if, for purposes 

of the antidumping law, India Steel is 

the successor–in-interest to Isibars. 

Sales of wire rods from India 

produced by Isibars were last examined 

by the Department in the administrative 

review of the order covering the period 

December 1, 2002, through November 

30, 2003. As a result of this review, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 55499 

Isibars received a cash–deposit rate of 

30.10 percent. See Stainless Steel Wire 

Rod From India: Amended Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 47177 (August 12, 2005) 

(Amended Final Results). 

Scope of the Review 

The merchandise under review is 

wire rods, which are hot–rolled or hot– 

rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, 

squares, octagons, hexagons or other 

shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of 

alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 

percent or less of carbon and 10.5 

percent or more of chromium, with or 

without other elements. These products 

are only manufactured by hot–rolling 

and are normally sold in coiled form, 

and are of solid cross section. The 

majority of wire rods sold in the United 

States are round in cross-section shape, 

annealed, and pickled. The most 

common size is 5.5 millimeters in 

diameter. 

The wire rods subject to this order are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 

7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to the order is 

dispositive of whether the merchandise 

is covered by the order. 

Initiation and 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. The 

Department finds that the 

documentation that India Steel 

submitted with its August 4, 2008, 

request constitutes sufficient evidence 

of changed circumstances to warrant 

such a review. Thus, in accordance with 

section 751(b) of the Act, the 

Department is initiating a changed– 

circumstances review to determine 

whether India Steel is the successor–ininterest to Isibars for purposes of 

determining antidumping duty liability 

with respect to imports of wire rods 

from India. 

Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) 

permits the Department to combine the 

notice of initiation of a changed– 

circumstances review and the notice of 

preliminary results for the review in a 

single notice if the Department 

concludes that expedited action is 

warranted. As explained below, we find 

that the evidence provided by India 

Steel is sufficient to preliminarily 

determine that this company is the 

successor–in-interest to Isibars. 

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, 

20461 (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) (Salmon from Norway); 

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 

1994). Thus, if the record 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 predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the new 

company the cash deposit rate of its 

predecessor. See, e.g., Salmon from 

Norway, 64 FR at 9980. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, 

we preliminarily determine that India 

Steel is the successor–in-interest to 

Isisbars. In its August 4, 2008, 

submission, India Steel provided 

evidence supporting its claim to be the 

successor–in-interest to Isibars. 

Specifically, it provided the following 

documentation: 

(1) the minutes of the September 29, 

2007, annual general meeting of Isibars, 

showing that the name change was 

voted upon and approved unanimously; 

(2) a certified copy of a ‘‘Fresh 

Certificate of Incorporation Consequent 

upon Change of Name,’’ dated October 

22, 2007, and issued by the Indian 

Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which 

shows the name change; 

(3) a list of the stockholders and board 

of directors before and after the name 

change, showing that they are identical; 

(4) an organizational chart before and 

after the name change, showing that 

India Steel has the same organizational 

structure as Isibars; 

(5) lists of suppliers and customers 

before and after the name change, 

indicating that they are identical; 

(6) samples of letters and e–mails sent 

to customers announcing the name 

change; 

(7) documentation demonstrating that 

India Steel has the same 1permanent 

account number’, or taxpayer 

identification number, as Isibars; 

(8) a detailed description of the 

production facilities that existed before 

and after the name change indicating 

that India Steel has the same production 

facilities as Isibars; 

(9) documentation demonstrating that 

India Steel maintains the same bank 

account as Isibars; and 

(10) certificates of importer and 

exporter codes for Isibars and India 

Steel, issued by the Government of India 

showing that the codes are identical 

before and after the name change. 

In summary, India Steel has presented 

evidence to establish a prima facie case 

of its successorship status. Isibars’s 

name change to India Steel has not 

changed the operations of the company 

in a meaningful way. India Steel’s 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base are substantially unchanged from 

those of Isibars. The record evidence 

demonstrates that the new entity 

essentially operates in the same manner 

as the predecessor company. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that India Steel should be 

assigned the same antidumping duty 

treatment as Isibars, i.e., a 30.10 percent 

antidumping duty cash–deposit rate. 

See Amended Final Results. 

The cash deposit determination from 

this changed–circumstances review will 

apply to all entries of the subject 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed–circumstances 

review. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 

25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review in which India 

Steel is reviewed. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

55500 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 

Written comments may be submitted no 

later than 14 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such comments, may 

be filed no later than 21 days after the 

date of publication. The Department 

will issue the final results of this 

changed–circumstances review, which 

will include the results of its analysis 

raised in any such written comments, 

no later than 270 days after the date on 

which this review was initiated, or 

within 45 days if all parties agree to our 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.216(e). 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 

and 351.221. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22551 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Notice of Solicitation of Applications 

for Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas on 

the Imports of Certain Cotton Shirting 

Fabric to Persons Who Cut and Sew 

Men’s and Boys’ Cotton Shirts in the 

United States 

AGENCY: Department of Commerce, 

International Trade Administration. 

ACTION: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is soliciting 

applications for an allocation of the 

2009 tariff rate quotas on certain cotton 

woven fabric to persons who cut and 

sew men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the 

United States. 

SUMMARY: The Department hereby 

solicits applications from persons 

(including firms, corporations, or other 

legal entities) who cut and sew men’s 

and boys’ cotton shirts in the United 

States for an allocation of the 2009 tariff 

rate quotas on certain cotton woven 

fabric. Interested persons must submit 

an application on the form provided to 

the address listed below by October 27, 

2008. The Department will cause to be 

published in the Federal Register its 

determination to allocate the 2009 tariff 

rate quotas, will notify applicants of 

their respective allocation, and will 

issue licenses to eligible applicants 

within 60 days of that date. 

DATES: To be considered, applications 

must be received or postmarked by 5 

p.m. on October 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Applications must be 

submitted to the Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, Room 3100, United States 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). 

Application forms may be obtained from 

that office (via facsimile or mail) or from 

the following Internet address: http://

web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/cottontrq.nsf/

TRQApp. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-3400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 9, 2006, President Bush 

signed into law the Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act of 2006 (HR 6406/HR 

6111) (‘‘the Act’’). Section 406(b)(1) of 

the Act requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to fairly allocate tariff rate 

quotas on the import of certain cotton 

woven fabrics through December 31, 

2009. Section 406 (b)(1) authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses 

to eligible manufacturers under 

headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, specifying the 

restrictions under each such license on 

the quantity of cotton woven fabrics that 

may be entered each year on behalf of 

the manufacturer. The Act created an 

annual tariff rate quota providing for 

temporary reductions through December 

31, 2009 in the import duties of cotton 

woven fabrics suitable for making cotton 

shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTS’’) headings 

9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 

9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 

9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 

9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 

9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is 

limited to 85 percent of the total square 

meter equivalents of all imported woven 

fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent 

or more by weight cotton used by 

manufacturers in cutting and sewing 

men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in the 

United States and purchased by such 

manufacturer during calendar year 

2000. 

The Act requires that the tariff rate 

quotas be allocated to persons 

(including firms, corporations, or other 

legal entities) who, during calendar year 

2000, were manufacturers cutting and 

sewing men’s and boys’ cotton shirts in 

the United States from imported woven 

fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent 

or more by weight cotton of the kind 

described in HTS 9902.52.08 through 

9902.52.19 purchased by such 

manufacturer during calendar year 

2000. On July 10, 2008, the Department 

published a final rule establishing 

procedures for allocating the tariff rate 

quota. See Imports of Certain Cotton 

Shirting Fabric: Implementation of 

Tariff Rate Quota Established Under the 

Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, 

73 FR 39585 (July 10, 2008), 15 CFR 

336. In order to be eligible for an 

allocation, an applicant must submit an 

application on the form provided at 

http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/cotton.nsf/

TRQApp to the address listed above by 

5 p.m. on October 27, 2008 in 

compliance with the requirements of 15 

CFR 336. Any business confidential 

information that is marked business 

confidential will be kept confidential 

and protected from disclosure to the full 

extent permitted by law. 

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

R. Matthew Priest, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and 

Apparel. 

[FR Doc. E8–22576 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Announcement of Padilla Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve Revised 

Management Plan 

AGENCY: Estuarine Reserves Division, 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Approval and 

Availability of the Final Revised 

Management Plan for the Padilla Bay 

National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office 

of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

Department of Commerce has approved 

the revised management plan for the 

Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve. 

The Padilla Bay Reserve was 

designated in 1980 pursuant to Section 

315 of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1461. The reserve has been operating 

under a management plan approved in 

1980. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 

921.33(c), a state must revise their 

management plan every five years. The 

submission of this plan brings the 

reserve into compliance with this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES