4938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

CWASPP from the PRC which were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after July 10, 

2008, the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with 

sections 703(d) of the Act, we will be 

issuing instructions to CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after November 7, 2008, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of all entries from July 10, 2008 through 

November 6, 2008. 

We will issue a CVD order and 

reinstate the suspension of liquidation 

under section 706(a) of the Act if the 

ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above. If the 

ITC determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: January 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Reasonably Treated China as a 

Developed Country for CVD De Minimis 

Purposes 

Comment 2: Whether Winner HK 

Should be Treated as a PRC Entity for 

Purposes of Attribution 

Comment 3: Whether the Total Sales 

Figure Used as the Denominator in the 

Preliminary Determination and Interim 

Decision Memorandum is Correct 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Has the Legal Authority to Apply the 

CVD Law to the PRC While 

Simultaneously Treating the PRC as an 

NME in Parallel Antidumping 

Investigations 

Comment 5: Whether the Provision of 

SSC to SOEs Constitutes the Provision 

of a Good by a Government Authority 

Comment 6: Whether the Sale of HRS 

from Privately–Held Trading Companies 

Constitutes a Financial Contribution 

Under the Act 

Comment 7: Whether the Provision of 

SSC is Specific and the Applicability of 

the Department’s Use of AFA in its 

Determination of De Facto Specificity 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail the Provision of 

Land 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail FIE Tax Programs 

that are Industry, Regionally, or Export/ 

Domestic Use Neutral 

Comment 10: Whether the Department’s 

Prevailing Interest Rate Methodology 

Should be Used to Calculate any 

Subsidy in this Case 

Comment 11: Whether the Department’s 

Choice of Adverse Facts Applied to the 

Non–Cooperating Respondent is 

Contrary to Law 

Comment 12: Whether the Department’s 

Methodology for Determining the All– 

Others rate in its Amended Preliminary 

Results is Unreasonable 

[FR Doc. E9–1829 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–489–806] 

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Pasta from Turkey 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(‘‘Marsan’’) pursuant to section 751(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.216 and 

351.221(c)(3), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

initiating a changed circumstances 

review of the countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) order on certain pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) 

from Turkey. Marsan, a producer of 

pasta, claims that Gidasa Sabanci Gida 

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’) 

changed its corporate name to Marsan 

and, therefore, Marsan should be 

entitled to the same cash deposit rate as 

its predecessor company, Gidasa. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelly Atkinson, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0116. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on Pasta from Turkey. See 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

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

FR 38546 (July 24, 1996). Since then, 

the Department has completed two 

administrative reviews of this CVD 

order but is not currently conducting an 

administrative review. See Certain Pasta 

From Turkey: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 

2001); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 52774 

(September 7, 2006) (‘‘Pasta from 

Turkey: Results of Administrative 

Review’’). Also, with respect to Gidasa, 

in July 2003, the Department 

determined that Gidasa was the 

successor–in-interest to Maktas 

Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Maktas’’) 

and that Gidasa was entitled to the cash 

deposit rate assigned to Maktas in the 

most recently completed CVD 

administrative review. See Notice of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4939 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews: Certain Pasta 

From Turkey, 68 FR 41554 (July 14, 

2003); see also Certain Pasta from 

Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 

64398 (December 13, 2001). 

On December 3, 2008, Marsan filed a 

request for an expedited changed 

circumstances review to determine 

whether it is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa, in accordance with section 

751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 

for the antidumping (‘‘AD’’) and CVD 

orders on pasta from Turkey. Marsan 

submitted certain information in 

support of its claim that it is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa and 

argued that it should be entitled to 

Gidasa’s current CVD cash deposit rate 

of 0.0 percent. See Marsan’s December 

3, 2008 submission entitled Pasta From 

Turkey: Request for Expedited Changed 

Circumstances Review of AD/CVD 

Orders; see also Pasta from Turkey: 

Final Results of Administrative Review, 

71 FR at 52775. In response to Marsan’s 

request regarding the AD order, on 

January 7, 2009, the Department 

published its initiation of a changed 

circumstances review and stated that it 

will seek further information for the 

preliminary determination. See Notice 

of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 

Pasta From Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 

7, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds (or 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. 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Department will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

receipt of a request from an interested 

party, or receipt of information, 

concerning a CVD order which shows 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review of the order. On 

December 3, 2008, Marsan submitted its 

request for an expedited changed 

circumstances review. With its request, 

Marsan submitted certain information 

related to its claim including 

information describing the acquisition 

of Gidasa in March 2008 by MGS 

Marmara Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(‘‘MGS’’). Following the acquisition of 

Gidasa, in June 2008, MGS changed 

Gidasa’s name to Marsan. Based on the 

information Marsan submitted, the 

Department has determined that 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review exist. See 19 CFR 

351.216(d). Additionally, we note that 

there is no concurrent administrative 

review of Gidasa in which this name 

change could be examined. 

In the context of a changed 

circumstances review of an AD order 

based on a name change or a change in 

the company’s ownership or structure, 

the Department relies on its ‘‘successor– 

in-interest’’ analysis to determine 

whether the successor remains 

essentially the same entity as the 

predecessor so that it is appropriate to 

impose the existing AD cash deposit 

rate of the predecessor on the successor. 

However, the AD successor–in-interest 

test may not fully address whether it is 

appropriate to apply the CVD cash 

deposit rate of a previously examined 

company to its claimed successor. 

In Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils from the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006), the 

Department indicated that it intended to 

further consider the issue of whether 

alternative or additional successorship 

criteria, other than those the Department 

relies upon in an AD successor–ininterest analysis, would be more 

appropriate in a successorship–type 

CVD changed circumstances review 

context. Moreover, the Department 

stated that it anticipated issuing a 

Federal Register notice inviting the 

public to submit comments on the issue. 

Subsequently, the Department 

published Countervailing Duty Changed 

Circumstances Reviews; Request for 

Comment on Agency Practice, 72 FR 

3107 (January 24, 2007), in which the 

Department reiterated that the AD 

successor–in-interest analysis may not 

be entirely relevant in the CVD context, 

highlighted various considerations that 

distinguish CVD changed circumstances 

reviews from AD changed 

circumstances reviews, and provided 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on whether any changes to the 

Department’s practice regarding such 

reviews was warranted and, if so, what 

those changes should entail. 

In the instant changed circumstances 

review, we intend not to apply the AD 

successor–in-interest methodology to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa. The 

Department anticipates requesting 

additional information for this review 

and will publish in the Federal Register 

a notice of the preliminary results of the 

CVD changed circumstances review, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) 

and (4), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). 

That notice will set forth the factual and 

legal conclusions upon which our 

preliminary results are based and a 

description of any action proposed. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), 

interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results of review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the 

Department will issue the final results 

of its CVD changed circumstances 

review not later than 270 days after the 

date on which the review is initiated. 

Because the Department is not using 

the standard AD successor–in-interest 

methodology to examine this changed 

circumstances review and the 

Department will seek further 

information from Marsan, the 

Department has determined that it 

would be inappropriate to expedite this 

action by combining the preliminary 

results of review with this notice of 

initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(ii). Thus, the Department 

is not issuing the preliminary results of 

its CVD changed circumstances review 

at this time. 

The current requirement for a cash 

deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties on all subject merchandise will 

continue unless and until it is modified 

pursuant to the final results of this 

changed circumstances review. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(1). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1713 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade 

Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel 

Reviews; Request for Panel Review 

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel 

Review. 

SUMMARY: On January 16, 2009, Ivaco 

Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco 

Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire 

Group 2004 L.P. (collectively, ‘‘Ivaco’’), 

filed a First Request for Panel Review 

with the United States Section of the 

NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 

1904 of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement. Panel Review was requested 

of the Final Results of the 2006–2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review made by the International Trade 

Administration, respecting Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Canada. The determination was 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 77005) on December 18, 2008. The 

NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case 

Number USA–CDA–2009–1904–01 to 

this request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, 

NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th 

and Constitution Avenue, Washington, 

DC 20230. (202) 482–5432. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 

19 of the North American Free-Trade 

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) established a 

mechanism to replace domestic judicial 

review of final determinations in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

cases involving imports from a NAFTA 

country with review by independent 

binational panels. When a Request for 

Panel Review is filed, a panel is 

established to act in place of national 

courts to review expeditiously the final 

determination to determine whether it 

conforms with the antidumping or 

countervailing duty law of the country 

that made the determination. 

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, 

which came into force on January 1, 

1994, the Government of the United 

States, the Government of Canada, and 

the Government of Mexico established 

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). 

These Rules were published in the 

Federal Register on February 23, 1994 

(59 FR 8686). 

A first Request for Panel Review was 

filed with the United States Section of 

the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to 

Article 1904 of the Agreement, on 

January 16, 2009, requesting a panel 

review of the determination and order 

described above. 

The Rules provide that: 

(a) A Party or interested person may 

challenge the final determination in 

whole or in part by filing a Complaint 

in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 

days after the filing of the first Request 

for Panel Review (the deadline for filing 

a Complaint is February 17, 2009); 

(b) a Party, investigating authority or 

interested person that does not file a 

Complaint but that intends to appear in 

support of any reviewable portion of the 

final determination may participate in 

the panel review by filing a Notice of 

Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 

within 45 days after the filing of the first 

Request for Panel Review (the deadline 

for filing a Notice of Appearance is 

March 2, 2009); and 

(c) the panel review shall be limited 

to the allegations of error of fact or law, 

including the jurisdiction of the 

investigating authority, that are set out 

in the Complaints filed in panel review 

and the procedural and substantive 

defenses raised in the panel review. 

Dated: January 23, 2009. 

Valerie Dees, 

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. E9–1858 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–423–809] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Montoro at (202) 482–0238 or 

David Layton at (202) 482–0371; AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils from Belgium, 

covering the period January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2007. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order for 

which a review is requested and the 

final results of review within 120 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 

results are published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Due to the complex nature of the 

countervailable subsidy practices and a 

merger involving the respondent 

company, the Department requires 

additional time to review and analyze 

the information and to issue 

supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, 

it is not practicable to complete this 

review within the originally anticipated 

time limit, and the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results by 120 days 

to not later than May 31, 2009, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. However, May 31, 2009, falls on 

a Sunday and it is the Department’s 

long-standing practice to issue a 

determination the next business day 

when the statutory deadline falls on a 

weekend, federal holiday, or any other 

day when the Department is closed. See 

Notice of Clarification: Application of 

‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for 

Administrative Determination Deadlines 

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As 

Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

Accordingly, the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results is 

now no later than June 1, 2009. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES