4734 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices 

1These entities are opposing revocation of the 

order in part in this changed circumstances review; 

however, another petitioner, Southern Gardens 

Citrus Processing Corporation, has not joined these 

entities in opposing Tropicana’s request. 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 72 FR 

12183 (Mar. 9, 2006). 

On April 29, 2008, at the request of 

Tropicana Products, Inc. (Tropicana), a 

domestic producer of orange juice, the 

Department initiated a changed 

circumstances review of the order to 

consider partially revoking the order 

with respect to ULPOJ, pursuant to 

section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.216(b) and 351.222(g)(1)(i). See 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 23182 

(Apr. 29, 2008). On October 10, 2008, 

the Department published the 

preliminary results of this changed 

circumstances review. See Preliminary 

Results, 73 FR 60241. In the Preliminary 

Results, we found that there was 

sufficient interest on the part of the 

domestic OJ industry to justify 

maintaining the order with respect to 

ULPOJ. 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. In 

November 2008, we received case and 

rebuttal briefs from Tropicana and the 

petitioners in this case (i.e., Florida 

Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Inc. 

(doing business as Citrus Belle), and 

Citrus World, Inc.).1 Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have not changed the final results from 

those presented in the Preliminary 

Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain orange juice for transport and/or 

further manufacturing, produced in two 

different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice 

in a highly concentrated form, 

sometimes referred to as frozen 

concentrated orange juice for 

manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) 

pasteurized single-strength orange juice 

which has not been concentrated, 

referred to as not-from-concentrate 

(NFC). At the time of the filing of the 

petition, there was an existing 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from 

Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order; 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). 

Therefore, the scope of this order with 

regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by those 

companies which were excluded or 

revoked from the pre-existing 

antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil 

as of December 27, 2004. Those 

companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada; 

Coinbra-Frutesp S.A.; Sucocitrico 

Cutrale, S.A.; Fischer S.A. Comercio, 

Industria and Agricutura; and 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are reconstituted orange juice and 

frozen concentrated orange juice for 

retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange 

juice is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, by adding 

water, oils and essences to the orange 

juice concentrate. FCOJR is 

concentrated orange juice, typically at 

42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in 

retail-sized containers ready for sale to 

consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer 

product, is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk 

manufacturer’s product. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 

2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

These HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and for customs 

purposes only and are not dispositive. 

Rather, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Scope of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

The product subject to this changed 

circumstances review is ULPOJ, which 

is concentrated orange juice with a pulp 

content of two percent or less by 

weight/volume on an 11.8 degree brix 

equivalent base. This product is a form 

of FCOJM and is commonly used in the 

manufacture of soft drink concentrates. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this changed 

circumstances review, and to which we 

have responded, are listed in the 

Appendix to this notice and addressed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Decision Memo), which 

is adopted by this notice. 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 Central Records Unit, room 1117, of 

the main Department Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn/. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Decision Memo are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

More than 15 percent of the domestic 

industry has expressed opposition to 

excluding ULPOJ from the antidumping 

duty order on OJ from Brazil. As a 

result, we determine that producers 

accounting for substantially all of the 

production of the domestic like product 

have not expressed a lack of interest in 

maintaining the order with respect to 

ULPOJ. Thus, we find that changed 

circumstances sufficient to warrant 

revocation in part of the antidumping 

duty order on OJ from Brazil do not 

exist. The current requirements for the 

cash deposit of estimated antidumping 

duties on the subject merchandise will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APOs) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.216. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issue in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Issue: Whether the Department 

Should Include Growers in its Industry 

Support Determination. 

[FR Doc. E9–1586 Filed 1–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of Twelfth (2007) 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew McAllister or Brandon 

Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

1, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–1174 and (202) 482–0182, 

respectively. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices 4735 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a countervailing duty order 

on certain pasta from Italy. See Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Order and 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

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

FR 38543 (July 24, 1996). On July 28, 

2008, we received a request for review 

from F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San 

Martino S.p.A. (‘‘De Cecco’’) of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

pasta from Italy covering the period 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. On July 31, 2008, we received a 

request for review from De Matteis 

Agroalimentare S.p.A. (‘‘De Matteis’’). 

On July 31, 2008, we received a request 

for review from New World Pasta 

Company, American Italian Pasta 

Company, and Dakota Growers Pasta 

Company (‘‘petitioners’’) for De Matteis. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of the review on August 26, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

On December 22, 2008, De Cecco 

withdrew its request for review. No 

other party requested a review for De 

Cecco. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds four ounces 

or less, whether or not enriched or 

fortified or containing milk or other 

optional ingredients such as chopped 

vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, 

gluten, diastasis, 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 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. 

Also excluded are imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by the 

Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, 

Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International 

Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il 

Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, 

Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura 

Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, 

based on publicly available information, 

the Department has determined that, as 

of August 4, 2004, imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by 

Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from 

this order. See Memorandum from Eric 

B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, 

dated August 4, 2004, which is on file 

in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. In addition, based 

on publicly available information, the 

Department has determined that, as of 

March 13, 2003, imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by 

Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e 

Ambientale (ICEA) are also excluded 

from this order. See Memorandum from 

Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, 

dated February 28, 2006, entitled 

‘‘Recognition of Instituto per la 

Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) 

as a Public Authority for Certifying 

Organic Pasta from Italy’’ which is on 

file in the Department’s CRU. The 

merchandise subject to review is 

currently classifiable under items 

1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 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. 

Scope Rulings 

The Department has issued the 

following scope rulings to date: 

(1) On August 25, 1997, the 

Department issued a scope ruling that 

multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen 

display bottles of decorative glass that 

are sealed with cork or paraffin and 

bound with raffia, is excluded from the 

scope of the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders. See 

Memorandum from Edward Easton to 

Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 

1997, which is on file in the CRU. 

(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department 

issued a scope ruling finding that 

multipacks consisting of six one-pound 

packages of pasta that are shrinkwrapped into a single package are 

within the scope of the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders. See 

Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to 

Barbara P. Sidari, dated July 30, 1998, 

which is on file in the CRU. 

(3) On October 26, 1998, the 

Department self-initiated a scope 

inquiry to determine whether a package 

weighing over five pounds as a result of 

allowable industry tolerances is within 

the scope of the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 

1999, we issued a final scope ruling 

finding that, effective October 26, 1998, 

pasta in packages weighing or labeled 

up to (and including) five pounds four 

ounces is within the scope of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders. See Memorandum from John 

Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated 

May 24, 1999, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

(4) On April 27, 2000, the Department 

self-initiated an anti-circumvention 

inquiry to determine whether Pastificio 

Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.’s importation of 

pasta in bulk and subsequent 

repackaging in the United States into 

packages of five pounds or less 

constitutes circumvention with respect 

to the antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant 

to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.225(b). See Certain Pasta from 

Italy: Notice of Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On 

September 19, 2003, we published an 

affirmative finding of the anticircumvention inquiry. See AntiCircumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Affirmative Final Determinations of 

Circumvention of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders, 68 FR 

54888 (September 19, 2003). 

Rescission of Review 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review, in part, if the 

party that requested the review 

withdraws its request for review within 

90 days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

review, or withdraws its request at a 

later date if the Department determines 

that it is reasonable to extend the time 

limit for withdrawing the request. De 

Cecco withdrew its request for review 

on December 22, 2008, which is after 

the 90-day deadline. Nonetheless, the 

Department accepts the withdrawal 

request because it has not yet expended 

significant resources on the review of De 

Cecco. Therefore, the Department is 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to De Cecco. We are 

continuing to conduct an administrative 

review with respect to De Matteis. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days 

after publication of this rescission 

notice. The Department will instruct 

CBP to assess countervailing duties on 

all entries from De Cecco between 

January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, 

at the rates in effect at the time of entry. 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to an administrative 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6

4736 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 27, 2009 / Notices 

1See Memorandum to the File: Petitioners’ 

Representation of Domestic Industry (January 6, 

2009). 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return/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 is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: January 21, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–1718 Filed 1–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–904] 

Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Intent To Revoke Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On December 15, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a request for a 

changed circumstances review and a 

request to revoke in part the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

activated carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China with respect to 

certain parts of fish tank filters which 

contain no more than 500 grams of 

activated carbon, or a combination of 

activated carbon and zeolite, and are 

fitted to work with specific filters. 

Petitioners submitted a letter to the 

Department expressing lack of interest 

in antidumping duty relief from the 

imports of certain parts of fish tank 

filters as described below. Therefore, we 

are notifying the public of our intent to 

revoke, in part, the antidumping duty 

order as it relates to import of certain 

fish tank filters as described below. The 

Department invites interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC. 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3207. 

Background 

On April 27, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain activated carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China. See Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 

27, 2007). On December 15, 2008, the 

Department received a request on behalf 

of Rolf C. Hagen (USA), Corp. (‘‘Hagen’’) 

for a changed circumstances review and 

a request to revoke in part the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

activated carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China with respect to 

certain parts of fish tank filters which 

contain no more than 500 grams of 

activated carbon, or a combination of 

activated carbon and zeolite, and fitted 

to work with specific filters. On 

December 17, 2008, Petitioners 1, Calgon 

Carbon Corporation and Norit 

Americans Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’), submitted a response on 

the record and stated that they agree 

with Hagen’s request and agree with the 

specific proposed exclusion language 

from Hagen’s December 15, 2008, 

submission, as described below. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain activated carbon. Certain 

activated carbon is a powdered, 

granular, or pelletized carbon product 

obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and 

steam various materials containing 

carbon, including but not limited to coal 

(including bituminous, lignite, and 

anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive 

stones, and peat. The thermal and steam 

treatments remove organic materials and 

create an internal pore structure in the 

carbon material. The producer can also 

use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of 

steam in this process. The vast majority 

of the internal porosity developed 

during the high temperature steam (or 

CO2 gas) activated process is a direct 

result of oxidation of a portion of the 

solid carbon atoms in the raw material, 

converting them into a gaseous form of 

carbon. 

The scope of this order covers all 

forms of activated carbon that are 

activated by steam or CO2, regardless of 

the raw material, grade, mixture, 

additives, further washing or postactivation chemical treatment (chemical 

or water washing, chemical 

impregnation or other treatment), or 

product form. Unless specifically 

excluded, the scope of this order covers 

all physical forms of certain activated 

carbon, including powdered activated 

carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated 

carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized 

activated carbon. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are chemically activated carbons. The 

carbon-based raw material used in the 

chemical activation process is treated 

with a strong chemical agent, including 

but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc 

chloride sulfuric acid or potassium 

hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in 

the raw material, and results in the 

formation of water that is removed from 

the raw material by moderate heat 

treatment. The activated carbon created 

by chemical activation has internal 

porosity developed primarily due to the 

action of the chemical dehydration 

agent. Chemically activated carbons are 

typically used to activate raw materials 

with a lignocellulosic component such 

as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, 

paper mill waste and peat. 

To the extent that an imported 

activated carbon product is a blend of 

steam and chemically activated carbons, 

products containing 50 percent or more 

steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 

within this scope, and those containing 

more than 50 percent chemically 

activated carbons are outside this scope. 

This exclusion language regarding 

blended material applies only to 

mixtures of steam and chemically 

activated carbons. 

Also excluded from the scope are 

reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons 

are previously used activated carbons 

that have had adsorbed materials 

removed from their pore structure after 

use through the application of heat, 

steam and/or chemicals. 

Also excluded from the scope is 

activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon 

cloth is a woven textile fabric made of 

or containing activated carbon fibers. It 

is used in masks and filters and clothing 

of various types where a woven format 

is required. 

Any activated carbon meeting the 

physical description of subject 

merchandise provided above that is not 

expressly excluded from the scope is 

included within this scope. The 

products subject to the order are 

currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 

3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this order is 

dispositive. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES6