33406 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Notices 

1 Day 30 falls on a Saturday. Therefore, interested 

parties have until Monday, July 20, 2009, to request 

a hearing and submit case briefs to the Department. 

NRCS Web site: http:// 

www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ 

draftstandards.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

343 of the Federal Agriculture 

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 

states that revisions made after 

enactment of the law to NRCS State 

technical guides used to carry out 

highly erodible land and wetland 

provisions of the law shall be made 

available for public review and 

comment. For the next 30 days, the 

NRCS in Virginia will receive comments 

relative to the proposed changes. 

Following that period, a determination 

will be made by the NRCS in Virginia 

regarding disposition of those comments 

and a final determination of change will 

be made to the subject standards. 

Dated: July 1, 2009. 

W. Ray Dorsett, 

Assistant State Conservationist for 

Operations, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Richmond, Virginia. 

[FR Doc. E9–16500 Filed 7–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–201–836 

Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from Mexico; Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the final results 

of this changed circumstances review 

within the original time frame as it 

would be impossible to consider the 

parties comments and to complete the 

final results of this changed 

circumstances review within the 

original time frame. Accordingly, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

changed circumstances review by 31 

days to August 17, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Brian Davis, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482– 

7924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 27, 2008, the Department 

published its notice of initiation of 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 73 FR 63686 (October 27, 2008) 

(Notice of Initiation). On June 18, 2009, 

the Department preliminarily 

determined that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa and 

should be treated as such for 

antidumping duty cash deposit 

purposes. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 74 FR 28887 (June 18, 2009) 

(Preliminary Results). 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

The antidumping statute does not 

provide for a specific time limit for 

completing a changed circumstances 

review. However, under 19 CFR 

351.216(e), the Department will issue 

the final results of a changed 

circumstances review within 270 days 

after the date on which the Department 

initiates the changed circumstances 

review. Currently, the final results of the 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review, which cover 

Hylsa, a producer/exporter of light– 

walled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Mexico, and its successor Ternium, are 

due by July 17, 2009. 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that interested parties could request a 

hearing and submit case briefs to the 

Department no later than 30 days after 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Results, and submit rebuttal briefs, 

limited to the issues raised in those case 

briefs, five days subsequent to the case 

briefs’ due date. As comments are 

currently due no later than July 20, 

2009,1 and the final results are currently 

due July 17, 2009, it would be 

impossible to consider the parties 

comments and to complete the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review within the original time frame. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.302(b), the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review by 31 days to August 17, 2009. 

See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Notice of Extension of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 46871 

(August 12, 2008) and Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip 

from the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limit for Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 6931 

(February 6, 2008). 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16648 Filed 7–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–827] 

Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain cased pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China, covering the 

period December 1, 2006, through 

November 30, 2007. See Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China; Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 673 

(January 7, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We gave the interested parties 

an opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. After reviewing the 

interested parties’ comments, we made 

changes to our calculations for the final 

results of the review. The final dumping 

margin for this review is listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Layton or Alexander Montoro, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0371 or (202) 482– 

0238, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Notices 33407 

1Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd. 

(‘‘Dixon’’), Oriental International Holding Shanghai 

Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘SFTC’’), Guangdong 

Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & 

Export Corporation (‘‘Guangdong’’), Tianjin Custom 

Wood Processing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin’’), and Anhui 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anhui’’). 

Background 

The Department published the 

Preliminary Results on January 7, 2009. 

On January 12, 2009, the Department 

sent supplemental questionnaires to 

mandatory respondents China First 

Pencil Co., Ltd. (‘‘China First’’), 

Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry 

Corp. (‘‘Three Star’’), and Shandong 

Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Rongxin’’) (collectively, ‘‘the 

respondents’’), and received responses 

from China First and Three Star on 

February 2, 2009, a response from 

Rongxin on January 29, 2009, and an 

addendum to Rongxin’s response on 

February 18, 2009. The Department sent 

a supplemental questionnaire to Three 

Star on February 20, 2009, and received 

a response on February 23, 2009. China 

First, Three Star, and the petitioners, 

Sanford L.P., Musgrave Pencil 

Company, RoseMoon Inc., and General 

Pencil Company (collectively, ‘‘the 

petitioners’’), submitted comments on 

Three Star’s February 23, 2009, 

supplemental response on February 25, 

2009. Additional supplemental 

questionnaires were sent to Rongxin, 

China First, and Three Star on March 

25, and April 21, 2009, respectively, and 

responses were received from Rongxin 

on April 3, 2009, and from China First 

and Three Star on April 28, 2009. 

China First, Three Star, and the 

petitioners, submitted surrogate value 

comments on February 10, 2009. On 

February 9 and 10, 2009, the petitioners 

submitted factual information, and 

China First and Three Star issued a 

rebuttal to that factual information on 

February 12, 2009. 

From February 16 through February 

28, 2009, we conducted verification of 

the questionnaire responses submitted 

by China First and Three Star. The 

Department released its verification 

reports for China First and Three Star to 

interested parties on May 22, 2009. 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

five respondents subject to this review 

were not selected as mandatory 

respondents.1 We issued separate rate 

applications and certifications to all five 

of these companies. We are rescinding 

one of these respondents, Dixon, as 

requested, on the basis that it had no 

shipments in the POR, as discussed 

below. SFTC filed its separate rate 

certification on July 24, 2008. In our 

analysis of the information on the 

record regarding SFTC, we found no 

information indicating the existence of 

government control of SFTC’s export 

activities. See SFTC’s submission of July 

24, 2008. Consequently, we determine 

that SFTC has met the criteria for the 

application of a separate rate. The 

remaining three non–mandatory 

respondents did not submit either a 

separate rates certification or 

application. One of these three 

companies, Tianjin, qualified for a 

separate rate in an earlier administrative 

review. See Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 43082, 43084 (July 21, 

2003). However, because Tianjin did not 

submit a separate rate certification in 

the instant review, it will now be treated 

as part of the PRC–wide entity. 

Consequently, Anhui, Guangdong, and 

Tianjin have not satisfied the criteria for 

separate rates for the POR and are 

considered as being part of the PRC– 

wide entity. 

The petitioners and the respondents 

submitted case briefs on June 2, 2009 

and rebuttal briefs on June 8, 2009. 

None of the parties requested a hearing. 

Final Partial Rescission 

On July 3, 2008, Beijing Dixon 

Stationery Company Ltd. (‘‘Dixon’’) 

requested that the Department rescind 

the administrative review with respect 

to Dixon and certified that it had no 

exports, sales or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the Period of Review (‘‘POR’’). We 

reviewed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) import data and 

found no evidence that Dixon had any 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. In addition, on July 17, 

2008, we made a ‘‘No Shipments 

Inquiry’’ to CBP to confirm that there 

were no exports of subject merchandise 

by Dixon during the POR. We asked 

CBP to notify us within ten days if CBP 

‘‘has contrary information and is 

suspending liquidation’’ of subject 

merchandise exported by Dixon. CBP 

did not reply with contrary information. 

See Memorandum from Alexander 

Montoro to the File, entitled ‘‘Intent to 

Rescind in Part the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ August 7, 2008 (‘‘Intent to 

Rescind Memo’’). The Department 

provided interested parties in this 

review until August 14, 2008, to submit 

comments on the Intent to Rescind 

Memo. No interested party submitted 

any comments. Accordingly, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

Dixon. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain cased pencils of 

any shape or dimension (except as 

described below) which are writing and/ 

or drawing instruments that feature 

cores of graphite or other materials, 

encased in wood and/or man–made 

materials, whether or not decorated and 

whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, 

etc.) in any fashion, and either 

sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils 

subject to the order are currently 

classifiable under subheading 

9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from 

the scope of the order are mechanical 

pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non– 

cased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, 

chalks, and pencils produced under 

U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from 

paper infused with scents by the means 

covered in the above–referenced patent, 

thereby having odors distinct from those 

that may emanate from pencils lacking 

the scent infusion. Also excluded from 

the scope of the order are pencils with 

all of the following physical 

characteristics: (1) length: 13.5 or more 

inches; (2) sheath diameter: not less 

than one–and-one quarter inches at any 

point (before sharpening); and (3) core 

length: not more than 15 percent of the 

length of the pencil. 

In addition, pencils with all of the 

following physical characteristics are 

excluded from the scope of the order: 

novelty jumbo pencils that are octagonal 

in shape, approximately ten inches long, 

one inch in diameter before sharpening, 

and three–and-one eighth inches in 

circumference, composed of turned 

wood encasing one–and-one half inches 

of sharpened lead on one end and a 

rubber eraser on the other end. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the 2006–2007 

Administrative Review of Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is dated 

concurrently with and hereby adopted 

by this notice. A list of the issues which 

parties raised and to which we 

responded in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 1117 in the main 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

33408 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Notices 

Department building, and is accessible 

on the web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made the 

following changes in calculating 

dumping margins: (1) we adjusted the 

surrogate value for slats to reflect wood 

loss in producing slats from lumber; (2) 

we corrected the World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’) data, which we used as 

surrogate values, for certain exclusions 

and errors made in the Preliminary 

Results; (3) we made corrections to 

certain clerical errors. In addition, we 

have calculated separate antidumping 

margins for China First and Three Star. 

See Comment 1 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. For further 

details, see ‘‘Analysis for the Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Shanghai Three Star Stationery 

Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ ‘‘Analysis for the 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: China First Pencil Co., Ltd.,’’ 

‘‘Analysis for the Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Shandong Rongxin Import & Export 

Co.’’ and ‘‘2006–2007 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuation for 

the Final Results’’ memoranda, all dated 

July 6, 2009. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average dumping 

margin exists for the period December 1, 

2006, through November 30, 2007: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) 

China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (which includes its affiliates 

China First Pencil 

Fang Zheng Co., 

Shanghai First Writing 

Instrument Co., Ltd., 

and Shanghai Great 

Wall Pencil Co., Ltd.) 26.32 

Shanghai Three Star 

Stationery Industry 

Corp. ......................... 60.91 

Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 11.48 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) 

Orient International 

Holding Shanghai 

Foreign Trade Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 32.90 

PRC–wide Entity2 ......... 114.90 

2The PRC-wide entity includes Anhui Import 

Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anhui’’), Guangdong Provincial Stationery and Sporting Goods Import Export Corporation (‘‘Guangdong’’), and Tianjin 

Custom Wood Processing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin‘‘). 

A review was requested for these three 

companies. 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section of this notice, SFTC qualifies for 

a separate rate in this review. Moreover 

as stated above in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section of this notice, we did not select 

SFTC as a mandatory respondent in this 

review. Therefore, SFTC is being 

assigned a dumping margin based on 

the calculated margins of mandatory 

respondents which are not de minimis 

or based on adverse facts available, in 

accordance with Department practice. 

Accordingly, we have assigned SFTC 

the simple–average of the dumping 

margins assigned to the China First, 

Three Star, and Rongxin. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department has determined, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

For China First, Three Star, and 

Rongxin, we calculated customer– 

specific antidumping duty assessment 

amounts for subject merchandise based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales of subject merchandise 

to the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold in these transactions. 

We calculated these per unit assessment 

amounts in this fashion, as opposed to 

calculating import–specific ad valorem 

rates in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212 (b)(1), because the entered 

values and importers of record for China 

First’s, Three Star’s, and Rongxin’s 

reported U.S. sales are not on the 

record. Where the customer–specific 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess the 

customer–specific rate uniformly on the 

entered customs value of all POR entries 

of subject merchandise sold to the 

customer. To determine whether the 

per–unit duty assessment rates were de 

minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent ad 

valorem), in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106 

(c) (2), we calculated customer–specific 

ad valorem ratios based on the export 

prices. 

For SFTC, the company which was 

not selected for individual review and 

met the separate application status, we 

calculated an assessment rate based on 

the weighted–average margin calculated 

for the mandatory respondents, which 

are not de minimis or based on adverse 

facts available, in accordance with 

Department practice. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on 

this company’s entries equal to the 

margin this company has received in the 

final results, regardless of the importer 

of, or customer who purchased its 

subject merchandise. 

The other three companies for whom 

a review was requested, Anhui, 

Guangdong, and Tianjin, did not 

provide separate rate information. 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

they are not entitled to a separate rate. 

As a result, these three companies will 

be considered part of the PRC–wide 

entity. We will instruct CBP to liquidate 

entries for all companies in the PRC– 

wide entity at the PRC–wide rate of 

114.90 percent. 

For entries of the subject merchandise 

during the POR from companies not 

subject to this review, we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate them at the cash 

deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. 

The final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will apply to all 

shipments of certain cased pencils from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’): (1) the cash deposit rates for the 

reviewed companies named above will 

be the rates for those firms established 

in the final results of this administrative 

review; (2) for any previously reviewed 

or investigated PRC or non–PRC 

exporter, not covered in this review, 

with a separate rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the company–specific rate 

established in the most recent segment 

of this proceeding; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 

the PRC–wide rate established in the 

final results of this review which is 

114.90 percent; and (4) the cash–deposit 

rate for any non–PRC exporter of subject 

merchandise from the PRC will be the 

rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Notices 33409 

1Collapsed entities are treated as one producer/ 

exporter. 

2These companies are: (1) Bayou Shrimp 

Processors, Inc.; (2) Biloxi Freezing & Processing 

Co.; (3) CF Gollot and Son Seafood, Inc.; (4) Carson 

and Co., Inc.; (5) Custom Pack, Inc.; (6) Deep Sea 

Foods Inc./Jubilee Foods; (7) Dominick’s Seafood, 

Inc.; (8) Dunamis Towing, Inc., (9) Fisherman’s Reef 

Shrimp Co., Inc.; (10) Golden Gulf Coast Pkg. Co., 

Inc; (11) Gollott’s Oil Dock and Ice House, Inc.; (12) 

Graham Fisheries; (13) Gulf Crown Seafood Co., 

Inc., (14) Gulf Fish, Inc.; (15) Gulf Pride Enterprises, 

Inc.; (16) Gulf Island Shrimp & Seafood, LLC; (17) 

Hi Seas of Dulac, Inc.; (18) JBS Packing Co., Inc.; 

(19) Lafitte Frozen Foods Corp.; (20) Louisiana 

Newpack Shrimp Co., Inc.; (21) Louisiana Shrimp 

& Packing Co., Inc.; (22) M&M Seafood; (23) Ocean 

Springs Seafood, Market, Inc.; (24) Pascagoula Ice 

& Freezer Co., Inc.; (25) Paul Piazza and Son, Inc.; 

(26) Pearl, Inc. d/b/a Indian Ridge Shrimp Co.; (27) 

Price Seafood, Inc.; (28) RA Lesso Brokerage Co., 

Inc.; (29) Sea Pearl Seafood Company, Inc., (30) 

Tidelands Seafood Co., Inc.; (31) Vincent Piazza Jr., 

& Sons Seafood, Inc.; and (32) Woods Fisheries and 

Country, Inc. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

supplied that exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to the 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under the APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely written notification of the return 

or destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice of final results is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: July 6, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

Appendix Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Collapsing Analysis 

Comment 2: Three Star’s Responses and 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

a. Market Economy Purchase Claims 

b. Alleged Failure to Report Certain 

Information Warrants Application 

of AFA 

Comment 3: Appropriate Labor Rate 

Comment 4: Surrogate Values 

a. Slats 

b. Cores and Lacquer 

c. Castor Oil, Kaolin Clay, and 

Packing 

d. Steam Coal 

Comment 5: Adjustment of the Pencil 

Slat Surrogate Value to Account for 

Wood Loss 

Comment 6: Whether Certain WTA Data 

Are Aberrational 

Comment 7: Correction of Clerical 

Errors 

Comment 8: Use of Wrong Surrogate 

Value for ‘‘Shell Card’’ 

[FR Doc. E9–16511 Filed 7–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From India: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

India. This review covers 156 

producers/exporters 1 of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008. 

After analyzing the comments 

received, we have made no changes in 

the margin calculations. Therefore, the 

final results do not differ from the 

preliminary results. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

reviewed firms are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 

0049, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers 156 producers/ 

exporters. The respondents which the 

Department selected for individual 

review are Devi Sea Foods Limited 

(Devi) and Falcon Marine Exports 

Limited (Falcon). The respondents 

which were not selected for individual 

review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section of this notice. 

On March 9, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on shrimp from India. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9991 

(Mar. 9, 2009) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. In April 

2009, we received case and rebuttal 

briefs from the petitioner (i.e., the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee), a 

group of 32 U.S. shrimp processors,2

and the two respondents selected for 

individual examination (i.e., Devi and 

Falcon). 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,3

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES