Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54023 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

results and received comments from 

Marsan on September 24, 2009. We did 

not receive any rebuttal comments. 

Scope of Review 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds (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 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. 

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

For the final results, we are hereby 

adopting our methodology and findings 

from the Preliminary Results. We 

continue to find 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 determine that 

Marsan’s merchandise should continue 

to enter under the ‘‘all others’’ CVD cash 

deposit rate of 9.38 percent. 

All issues raised in the case brief filed 

by Marsan are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review on 

Certain Pasta from Turkey (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an appendix is a list of the 

issues which the interested party raised 

and to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit in Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Notification 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to parties to administrative protective 

orders (‘‘APO’s) of their responsibility 

concerning the disposition of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Failure to timely notify 

the Department in writing of the return/ 

destruction of APO material is a 

sanctionable violation. 

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: October 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether the Facts of the 

Case Warrant a Finding of 

Successorship 

Comment 2: Whether Marsan was 

Denied Procedural Due Process 

Comment 3: Whether the Department’s 

New Policy Furthers the Goals of the 

Statute 

[FR Doc. E9–25344 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

(Docket 43–2009) 

Foreign-Trade Zone 174 Tucson, 

Arizona, Application for Expansion and 

Reorganization under Alternative Site 

Framework 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign–Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by Tucson Regional 

Economic Opportunities, Inc., grantee of 

FTZ 174, requesting authority to expand 

the zone and reorganize under the 

alternative site framework (ASF) 

adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 01/ 

12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09). 

The ASF is an option for grantees for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

general–purpose zones and can permit 

significantly greater flexibility in the 

designation of new ‘‘usage–driven’’ FTZ 

sites for operators/users located within 

a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context 

of the Board’s standard 2,000–acre 

activation limit for a general–purpose 

zone project. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the provisions of 

the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 

400). It was formally filed on October 

13, 2009. 

The grantee’s proposed service area 

under the ASF would be the County of 

Pima, Arizona. If approved, the grantee 

would be able to serve sites throughout 

the service area based on companies’ 

needs for FTZ designation. The 

proposed service area is adjacent to or 

within the Tucson Customs and Border 

Protection port of entry. 

FTZ 174 was approved by the Board 

on January 30, 1991 (Board Order 508, 

56 FR 4595, 02/05/91) and expanded on 

August 9, 2000 (Board Order 1114, 65 

FR 50177, 08/17/00). The applicant is 

requesting to include its current six sites 

as ‘‘magnet sites’’. The applicant 

proposes that Site 2 be exempt from 

‘‘sunset’’ time limits that otherwise 

apply to sites under the ASF. The 

applicant is also requesting approval of 

the following initial ‘‘usage–driven’’ 

site: Proposed Site 7 (97.71 acres) - the 

Target Corporation Distribution Center, 

8940 East Rita Park Drive, in Tucson. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Christopher Kemp of the 

FTZ staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and to report findings 

and recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address listed below. The closing period 

for their receipt is December 21, 2009. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 

subsequent 15-day period (to January 4, 

2010) 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room 

2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

website, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Christopher Kemp 

at christopherlkemp@ita.doc.gov or 

(202) 482–0862. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

1November 3, 2009, is twenty calendar days from 

the signature date of this notice. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Elizabeth Whiteman 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–25341 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–962 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21,2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry at (202) 482–7906, 

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: 

The Petition 

On September 24, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a petition 

concerning imports of certain sodium 

and potassium phosphate salts (‘‘certain 

phosphate salts’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in 

proper form by ICL Performance 

Products LP (‘‘ICL’’) and Prayon, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 24, 

2009 (‘‘Petition’’). On September 30, 

2009, the Department issued an 

additional request for information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners timely filed 

additional general information 

pertaining to the Petition on October 5, 

2009, and additional information 

pertaining to the antidumping portion of 

the Petition on October 6, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition’’). The period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2009. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports 

of certain phosphate salts from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are an interested party, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that Petitioners are 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petition’’ section below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain phosphate salts 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by November 3, 

2009.1Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

certain phosphate salts to be reported in 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

merchandise under consideration in 

order to more accurately report the 

relevant factors and costs of production, 

as well as to develop appropriate 

product comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

1) general product characteristics; and 

2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe certain 

phosphate salts, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by November 3, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 10, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES