Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 27706-27708 [2010-11866]
Download as PDF
27706
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices
results will now be due no later than
June 18, 2010.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act.
Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary
Results
Dated: May 11, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–11868 Filed 5–17ndash;10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–843), (A–570–901]
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India and People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limits for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–
3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
On October 26, 2009, the U.S.
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of
initiation of both the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain lined paper products (CLPP)
from India, and the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on CLPP from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC), covering the period
September 1, 2008, to August 31, 2009.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 54956 (October 26, 2009).
The preliminary results of these reviews
are currently due no later than June 9,
2010.1
1 As explained in the memorandum from the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, the Department has exercised its
discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the
closure of the Federal Government from February
5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines
in this segment of the proceeding have been
extended by seven days. The revised deadline for
the preliminary results of these antidumping duty
administrative reviews is now June 9, 2010. See
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires that the Department make a
preliminary determination within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of an order for which a review
is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act further states that if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period specified, the
administering authority may extend the
245-day period to issue its preliminary
results to up to 365 days.
We determine that completion of the
preliminary results of these two reviews
within the 245-day period is not
practicable for the following reasons.
Specifically, the CLPP from India
review covers two mandatory
respondents, one of which has not been
individually examined previously.
Given the complexity of the issues
associated with this case, the
Department needs additional time to
address these issues with the new
respondent. The CLPP from the PRC
review covers four respondents. The
Department needs additional time to
analyze issues regarding affiliation for
one respondent, and another
respondent’s claim of no shipments
during the period of review. Further, the
Department needs additional time to
gather and analyze a significant amount
of information associated with
affiliation, companies’ sales practices,
the manufacturing costs regarding one
respondent, and the customs entry data
regarding another respondent. Finally,
domestic interested parties have raised
other issues in the CLPP from the PRC
review which require the collection of
additional information. Given the
number and complexity of issues in
these cases, and in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are
fully extending the time period for
issuing the preliminary results of these
reviews by 120 days. Therefore, the
preliminary results are now due no later
than October 7, 2010. The final results
continue to be due 120 days after
publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration,
regarding ≥Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As
a Result of the Government Closure During the
Recent Snowstorm, ‘‘dated February 12, 2010.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: May 12, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–11872 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–475–059]
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2010.
SUMMARY: On February 22, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) preliminarily determined
that Evotape S.p.A was the successor-ininterest to Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A.
(Tyco), and that Evotape Packaging S.r.l.
(Evotape Packaging) and Evotape
Masking S.r.l. (Evotape Masking) are
both successors-in-interest to Evotape
S.p.A for purposes of determining
antidumping liability. See Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
75 FR 8925 (February 26, 2010)
(Preliminary Results). We confirm our
preliminary determination in these final
results of changed circumstances
review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca
Trainor, 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) 482–1280
and (202) 482–4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2009, Evotape Packaging
requested that the Department conduct
an expedited changed circumstances
review to determine that it is the
successor-in-interest to Tyco for
purposes of determining antidumping
liability.1 On September 10, 2009, the
Department initiated a changed
circumstances review but did not
expedite the review, as requested by
Evotape Packaging, because questions
remained as to the factual claims
1 The cash deposit rate currently applicable to
Tyco is zero percent. The all-others rate is 10
percent.
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices
forming the basis of the change
circumstances review request. See
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from
Italy: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 74 FR 47555
(September 16, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
On February 22, 2010, the Department
preliminarily determined that Evotape
S.p.A was the successor-in-interest to
Tyco, and that Evotape Packaging and
Evotape Masking were both successorsin-interest to Evotape S.p.A. As the
ultimate successors-in-interest
producing in-scope merchandise, we
preliminarily found that Evotape
Packaging and Evotape Masking should
be assigned the antidumping duty cash
deposit rate that is currently in effect for
Tyco. See Preliminary Results.
On March 12, 2010, we received
comments from 3M Company (3M), a
U.S. producer of the domestic like
product and an interested party in this
review. On March 18, 2010, we received
rebuttal comments from Evotape
Packaging and its affiliates Evotape
Masking and Evotape S.p.A (collectively
Evotape). For further discussion, see
‘‘Analysis of Comments Received’’
section below.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Finding
The product covered by the finding is
pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSP
Tape) measuring over one and threeeighths inches in width and not
exceeding four mils in thickness,
currently classifiable under subheadings
3919.10.20 and 3919.90.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes.
The written description remains
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
3M argues that because Evotape
Masking has stated on the record that it
does not ship or sell the subject
merchandise to the United States, and
has no future plans to do so, this
changed circumstances review has been
a purely theoretical exercise, and the
Department has wasted its resources by
granting a meaningless changed
circumstances review request. On the
other hand, 3M argues, if Evotape is
indeed interested in the U.S. market,
and has misled the Department
regarding its intentions, the credibility
of the information on the record is
called into question. Under either
scenario, according to 3M, there appears
to be no reason to grant Evotape’s
changed circumstances request at this
time. (See Pressure Sensitive Tape from
Italy: Comments of 3M Company on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
Preliminary Results of the Changed
Circumstances Review (March 12,
2010)).
Evotape asserts that 3M has not
challenged any of the Department’s
preliminary findings, but opposes
Evotape’s changed circumstances
request at this late date based solely on
the representation of Evotape Masking
that it has no intention to ship subject
merchandise to the United States.
Evotape asserts further that Evotape
Packaging originally requested the
changed circumstances review because
it is the entity that intends to ship PSP
Tape to the United States. Evotape
contends, however, that it was
appropriate, as a matter of law, for the
Department to have ruled as it did with
regard to both Evotape Packaging and
Evotape Masking, even though Evotape
Masking has no intention to export
subject merchandise to the United
States, because both companies are
successors-in-interest to Evotape S.p.A.
Evotape adds that, unlike in an annual
administrative review which requires
U.S. entry of a respondent’s
merchandise during the review period
for that respondent to have standing to
request the review, there is no
requirement in the statute or in the
Department’s regulations mandating
that an applicant for a changed
circumstances review possess a present
or future intention to ship subject
merchandise to the United States.
Evotape argues that the only
requirement is that the applicant be an
interested party, which is defined to
include a ‘‘foreign manufacturer,
producer, or exporter * * * of the
subject merchandise.’’ See sections
771(9)(A) and 751(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.216. Evotape concludes that
because both Evotape Packaging and
Evotape Masking are producers of inscope merchandise, a fact which is
undisputed, either or both of these
companies were entitled to file a
changed circumstances review request.
Accordingly, it argues, 3M’s opposition
is without merit. As there has been no
challenge to the substance of the
Department’s preliminary
determination, Evotape requests that the
Department issue its final
determination, consistent with its
preliminary determination. (See
Evotape’s Reply to 3M’s PostPreliminary Determination Comments:
Changed Circumstances Review in
Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy Case
No. A–475–059 (March 18, 2010)).
The Department’s Position
As stated in the Initiation Notice, the
Department initiated this changed
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27707
circumstances review because Evotape
presented sufficient information to
warrant doing so under section 751(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 (see
Initiation Notice, 74 FR 47555). We
agree with Evotape that neither the
statute nor the Department’s regulations
make the initiation and conduct of a
changed circumstances review
contingent upon an interested party’s
intent to export the subject merchandise
to the United States. Notwithstanding
this fact, however, we note that at this
time both Evotape Packaging and
Evotape Masking are interested parties
under section 771(9)(A) of the Act, as
both produce PSP Tape, and Evotape
Packaging exports it to the United
States. Therefore, we have properly
conducted this changed circumstances
review in accordance with the statute
and our regulations, and have
concluded it based on the successor-ininterest analysis set out in the
Preliminary Results.
Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review
For the reasons stated in the
Preliminary Results, we continue to find
that Evotape S.p.A is the successor-ininterest to Tyco, and that Evotape
Packaging and Evotape Masking are
both successors-in-interest to Evotape
S.p.A. Thus, Evotape Packaging and
Evotape Masking should receive the
same antidumping duty rate with
respect to PSP Tape as Tyco. The cash
deposit determination from this
changed circumstances review will
apply to all shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of the final
results of this changed circumstances
review. This deposit rate shall remain in
effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review
in which Evotape participates.
Notification
This notice 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 these
final results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and
(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3).
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
27708
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices
Dated: May 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[FR Doc. 2010–11866 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
RIN 0648–XV36
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
The National Institute of Standards
and Technology Performance Review
Board (NIST PRB) reviews performance
appraisals, agreements, and
recommended actions pertaining to
employees in the Senior Executive
Service and ST–3104 employees. The
Board makes recommendations to the
appropriate appointing authority
concerning such matters so as to ensure
the fair and equitable treatment of these
individuals.
This notice lists the membership of
the NIST PRB and supersedes the list
published in Federal Register Vol. 73,
No. 164, pages 49646–49647, on August
22, 2008:
Michael Culpepper (C), Chief Human
Capital Officer, National Institute of
Standards & Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Appointment Expires: 12/31/12.
Robert Dimeo (C), Deputy Director,
NIST Center for Neutron Research,
National Institute of Standards &
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Appointment Expires: 12/31/12.
Stella Fiotes (C), (Alternate) Chief
Facilities Management Officer,
National Institute of Standards &
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Appointment Expires: 12/31/12.
Ellen Herbst (C), Senior Advisor for
Policy and Program Integration, Office
of the Deputy Secretary, Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Appointment Expires: 12/31/2012.
Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder (C), (Alternate)
Director, Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, National Institute of
Standards & Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Appointment Expires: 12/31/10.
Dated: May 11, 2010.
Katharine Gebbie,
Director, Physics Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2010–11843 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am]
Notice; correction.
SUMMARY: NMFS and FWS published a
notice in the Federal Register on April
12, 2010, announcing the availability of
the Stanford University Habitat
Conservation Plan (Plan), the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for Authorization of Incidental Take and
Implementation of the Plan, and the
Implementing Agreement (IA) for public
review and comment. The document
contained incorrect dates and contact
information.
This correction is effective May
18, 2010.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Stern, 707–575–6060; or Sheila Larsen,
916–414–6600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for Correction
In the Federal Register of April 12,
2010, in FR Doc. 2010-8300, on page
18483, in the first column, correct the
‘‘DATES’’ paragraph to read:
DATES: Written comments on the DEIS,
Plan, and IA, must be received by 5 p.m.
Pacific Time on July 15, 2010.
In the same Federal Register notice,
on page 18483, in the first column,
correct the ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT’’ paragraph to read:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1)
Ms. Sheila Larsen, Senior Staff
Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
at 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, California 95825; telephone
916–414–6600; or (2) Gary Stern, San
Francisco Bay Region Supervisor,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 777
Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa,
CA 95404 ; telephone 707–575–6060.
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
BILLING CODES 3510–22–S, 4310–55–S
AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior (DOI).
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: May 11, 2010.
Alexandra Pitts,
Acting Deputy Region Director, Pacific
Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–11852 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am]
Stanford University Habitat
Conservation Plan
National Institute of Standards and
Technology Performance Review
Board Membership
Dated: May 11, 2010.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XV09
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Open Water
Marine Survey Program in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas, Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS received an
application from Shell Offshore Inc.
(Shell) for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to
a proposed open water marine survey
program in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas, Alaska, between July and October
2010. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an IHA to Shell to take, by Level
B harassment only, eight species of
marine mammals during the specified
activity.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than June 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910. The mailbox address for
providing e-mail comments is PR1.0648XV09@noaa.gov. NMFS is not
responsible for e-mail comments sent to
addresses other than the one provided
here. Comments sent via e-mail,
including all attachments, must not
exceed a 10-megabyte file size.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27706-27708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11866]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-059]
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2010.
SUMMARY: On February 22, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) preliminarily determined that Evotape S.p.A was the
successor-in-interest to Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. (Tyco), and that
Evotape Packaging S.r.l. (Evotape Packaging) and Evotape Masking S.r.l.
(Evotape Masking) are both successors-in-interest to Evotape S.p.A for
purposes of determining antidumping liability. See Pressure Sensitive
Plastic Tape from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 75 FR 8925 (February 26, 2010)
(Preliminary Results). We confirm our preliminary determination in
these final results of changed circumstances review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca
Trainor, 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) 482-1280 and (202) 482-4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2009, Evotape Packaging requested that the Department
conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that it
is the successor-in-interest to Tyco for purposes of determining
antidumping liability.\1\ On September 10, 2009, the Department
initiated a changed circumstances review but did not expedite the
review, as requested by Evotape Packaging, because questions remained
as to the factual claims
[[Page 27707]]
forming the basis of the change circumstances review request. See
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 74 FR 47555 (September
16, 2009) (Initiation Notice). On February 22, 2010, the Department
preliminarily determined that Evotape S.p.A was the successor-in-
interest to Tyco, and that Evotape Packaging and Evotape Masking were
both successors-in-interest to Evotape S.p.A. As the ultimate
successors-in-interest producing in-scope merchandise, we preliminarily
found that Evotape Packaging and Evotape Masking should be assigned the
antidumping duty cash deposit rate that is currently in effect for
Tyco. See Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cash deposit rate currently applicable to Tyco is zero
percent. The all-others rate is 10 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2010, we received comments from 3M Company (3M), a
U.S. producer of the domestic like product and an interested party in
this review. On March 18, 2010, we received rebuttal comments from
Evotape Packaging and its affiliates Evotape Masking and Evotape S.p.A
(collectively Evotape). For further discussion, see ``Analysis of
Comments Received'' section below.
Scope of the Finding
The product covered by the finding is pressure sensitive plastic
tape (PSP Tape) measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width
and not exceeding four mils in thickness, currently classifiable under
subheadings 3919.10.20 and 3919.90.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
3M argues that because Evotape Masking has stated on the record
that it does not ship or sell the subject merchandise to the United
States, and has no future plans to do so, this changed circumstances
review has been a purely theoretical exercise, and the Department has
wasted its resources by granting a meaningless changed circumstances
review request. On the other hand, 3M argues, if Evotape is indeed
interested in the U.S. market, and has misled the Department regarding
its intentions, the credibility of the information on the record is
called into question. Under either scenario, according to 3M, there
appears to be no reason to grant Evotape's changed circumstances
request at this time. (See Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy: Comments
of 3M Company on the Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances
Review (March 12, 2010)).
Evotape asserts that 3M has not challenged any of the Department's
preliminary findings, but opposes Evotape's changed circumstances
request at this late date based solely on the representation of Evotape
Masking that it has no intention to ship subject merchandise to the
United States. Evotape asserts further that Evotape Packaging
originally requested the changed circumstances review because it is the
entity that intends to ship PSP Tape to the United States. Evotape
contends, however, that it was appropriate, as a matter of law, for the
Department to have ruled as it did with regard to both Evotape
Packaging and Evotape Masking, even though Evotape Masking has no
intention to export subject merchandise to the United States, because
both companies are successors-in-interest to Evotape S.p.A. Evotape
adds that, unlike in an annual administrative review which requires
U.S. entry of a respondent's merchandise during the review period for
that respondent to have standing to request the review, there is no
requirement in the statute or in the Department's regulations mandating
that an applicant for a changed circumstances review possess a present
or future intention to ship subject merchandise to the United States.
Evotape argues that the only requirement is that the applicant be an
interested party, which is defined to include a ``foreign manufacturer,
producer, or exporter * * * of the subject merchandise.'' See sections
771(9)(A) and 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.216. Evotape concludes that because both Evotape
Packaging and Evotape Masking are producers of in-scope merchandise, a
fact which is undisputed, either or both of these companies were
entitled to file a changed circumstances review request. Accordingly,
it argues, 3M's opposition is without merit. As there has been no
challenge to the substance of the Department's preliminary
determination, Evotape requests that the Department issue its final
determination, consistent with its preliminary determination. (See
Evotape's Reply to 3M's Post-Preliminary Determination Comments:
Changed Circumstances Review in Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy Case
No. A-475-059 (March 18, 2010)).
The Department's Position
As stated in the Initiation Notice, the Department initiated this
changed circumstances review because Evotape presented sufficient
information to warrant doing so under section 751(b)(1) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.216 (see Initiation Notice, 74 FR 47555). We agree with
Evotape that neither the statute nor the Department's regulations make
the initiation and conduct of a changed circumstances review contingent
upon an interested party's intent to export the subject merchandise to
the United States. Notwithstanding this fact, however, we note that at
this time both Evotape Packaging and Evotape Masking are interested
parties under section 771(9)(A) of the Act, as both produce PSP Tape,
and Evotape Packaging exports it to the United States. Therefore, we
have properly conducted this changed circumstances review in accordance
with the statute and our regulations, and have concluded it based on
the successor-in-interest analysis set out in the Preliminary Results.
Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review
For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Results, we continue to
find that Evotape S.p.A is the successor-in-interest to Tyco, and that
Evotape Packaging and Evotape Masking are both successors-in-interest
to Evotape S.p.A. Thus, Evotape Packaging and Evotape Masking should
receive the same antidumping duty rate with respect to PSP Tape as
Tyco. The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances
review will apply to all shipments of the subject merchandise entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review.
This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review in which Evotape
participates.
Notification
This notice 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 these final results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
[[Page 27708]]
Dated: May 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-11866 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P