[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51019-51020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25103]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International TradE Administration

[C-489-806]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Countervailing Duty 
Order on Certain Pasta From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: 
Countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2001, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on certain pasta (``pasta'') from Turkey (66 FR 29771) pursuant 
to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). 
On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate 
substantive comments filed on behalf of the domestic interested 
parties, and inadequate response (in this case, no response) from 
respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting an 
expedited (120-day) sunset review of this countervailing duty order. As 
a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable 
subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified in the Final 
Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Carole A. 
Showers, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5050 or (202) 482-3217, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreement Act 
(``URAA''). The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset 
reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year 
(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 
FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''), and in 19 CFR Part 
351 (2000) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues 
relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in 
the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3 Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope of Review

    The scope of this review covers 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. Pasta covered by this review is typically sold in the retail 
market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons or polyethylene or 
polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.
    Excluded from the order and 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 subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 
1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
review is dispositive.

Scope Ruling

    The Department has issued the following scope ruling:
    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 may be within the scope of the 
countervailing duty order.

[[Page 51020]]

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 
countervailing duty order. (See May 24, 1999, memorandum from John 
Brinkman to Richard Moreland, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU'') in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.)

Background

    On June 1, 2001, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
countervailing duty orders on pasta from Turkey, pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Act (66 FR 29771). The Department received a notice of 
intent to participate on behalf of New World Pasta, American Italian 
Pasta Company, Borden Foods Corporation, and Dakota Growers Pasta 
Company (collectively, ``the domestic interested parties''), on June 
15, 2001, within the applicable deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Pursuant to section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, the domestic interested parties claimed 
interested party status as producers of certain pasta. In addition, the 
domestic interested parties assert that most of the domestic interested 
parties participated in the original investigation and the scope 
clarification proceeding.\1\ On June 29, 2001, we received a request 
for extension of time to file substantive responses and rebuttal 
comments from the domestic interested parties.\2\ The Department 
received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested 
parties on July 16, 2001. The Department did not receive substantive 
responses from any respondent interested party in this proceeding.\3\ 
As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(ii)(C), the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, sunset review of the 
countervailing duty order on pasta from Turkey.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Substantive Response by the Domestic Industry, Sunset 
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Pasta from 
Turkey, July 2, 2001, at 4.
    \2\ On June 29, 2001, the Department received a letter on behalf 
of the domestic interested parties regarding request for additional 
time to file substantive and rebuttal comments in this sunset 
review. On June 29, 2001, the Department granted the extension to 
the domestic parties and to all participants. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.302(b), the deadline for all parties filing substantive 
responses was extended to July 16, 2001.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4), the time for filing rebuttal 
comments was therefore extended to July 23, 2001 for all parties. In 
this review, no rebuttal briefs were filed.
    \3\ On June 20, 2001, the Department received a letter from the 
Government of Turkey (``GOT'') regarding its interest in 
participating in the sunset proceeding regarding the countervailing 
duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. However, the Department did 
not receive a substantive response from the GOT.
    \4\ See July 23, 2001, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, Director, 
Office of Policy, to Lynn Featherstone, Director, Office of 
Investigations, International Trade Commission, regarding Pasta from 
Turkey: Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Decision Memorandum'') from 
Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to 
Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
October 1, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues 
discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of countervailing subsidies and the net 
subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. 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 B-099, of the main Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under 
the heading ``October 2001.'' The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on 
pasta from Turkey would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

                                 Turkey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net
            Manufacturer/producer/exporters              Countervailable
                                                             subsidy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz..................................................           3.87
Maktas.................................................          13.12
Oba....................................................          15.82
All Other (manufacturers/producers/exporters)..........           9.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature of the Subsidies

    Five of the programs included in the calculations of the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked 
fall within the definition of an export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of 
the Subsidies Agreement. They are: Pre-Shipment Export Loans, Pasta 
Export Grants, Free Wheat Program, Payment for Exports on Turkish 
Ships/State Aid for Exports, and Tax Exemption Based on Export 
Earnings.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
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 five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 1, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-25103 Filed 10-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P