Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico, 71072-71075 [2010-29384]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71072
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
On or after the date of publication of
the ITC’s notice of final determination
in the Federal Register, CBP must
require, pursuant to section 736(a)(3) of
the Act, at the same time as importers
would normally deposit estimated
duties on this merchandise, a cash
deposit equal to the estimated weightedaverage margins listed above.
This notice constitutes the
antidumping duty orders with respect to
copper pipe and tube from Mexico and
the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of
the Act. Interested parties may contact
the Department’s Central Records Unit,
Room 7046 of the main Commerce
building, for copies of an updated list of
antidumping duty orders currently in
effect.
These antidumping duty orders and
amended final determination are issued
and published in accordance with
sections 736(a), 735(e), and 777(i)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b) and
351.224(e).
Dated: November 18, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–29528 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
[Docket No.: PTO–P–2010–0087]
Extension of the Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) provides a
basis (the Patent Application Backlog
Reduction Stimulus Plan) under which
an applicant may have an application
accorded special status for examination
if the applicant expressly abandons
another copending unexamined
application. The Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan allows
applicants having multiple applications
currently pending before the USPTO to
have greater control over the priority
with which their applications are
examined while also stimulating a
reduction of the backlog of unexamined
patent applications pending before the
USPTO. The USPTO is extending the
Patent Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan until December 31, 2011.
DATES: Effective Date: November 22,
2010. The Patent Application Backlog
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Reduction Stimulus Plan became
effective on November 27, 2009, and
was modified on June 24, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pinchus M. Laufer, Office of Patent
Legal Administration, Office of the
Associate Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy, by telephone at
571–272–7726; or via e-mail addressed
to Pinchus.Laufer@uspto.gov; or by mail
addressed to: Box Comments Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
USPTO published a notice in the
Federal Register providing an
additional temporary basis (the Patent
Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan) under which a small
entity applicant may have an
application accorded special status for
examination if the applicant expressly
abandons another copending
unexamined application. See Patent
Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan, 74 FR 62285 (Nov. 27,
2009), 1349 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 304 (Dec.
22, 2009) (notice). The Patent
Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan allowed small entity
applicants having multiple applications
currently pending before the USPTO to
have greater control over the priority
with which their applications are
examined while also stimulating a
reduction of the backlog of unexamined
patent applications pending before the
USPTO. The USPTO indicated that the
plan would last for a period ending on
February 28, 2010, but may be extended
for an additional time period thereafter.
See Patent Application Backlog
Reduction Stimulus Plan, 74 FR at
62287, 1349 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. at 306.
The USPTO extended the plan for an
additional four months to June 30, 2010.
See Extension of the Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan, 75 FR
5041 (February 1, 2010), 1351 Off. Gaz.
Pat. Off. 202 (February 23, 2010).
Subsequently, the USPTO expanded the
plan to eliminate the small entity
requirement and further extended its
duration to expire at the earlier of the
December 31, 2010 date, or the date that
10,000 applications have been accorded
special status under this plan. See
Expansion and Extension of the Patent
Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan, 75 FR 36063 (June 24,
2010), 1356 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 173 (July
20, 2010).
The USPTO is extending the Patent
Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan until December 31, 2011.
Accordingly, the Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan will
run until 10,000 petitions have been
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
granted or until December 31, 2011,
whichever occurs earlier. The USPTO
may further extend this plan (on either
a temporary or permanent basis), or may
also discontinue the plan after
December 31, 2011, if 10,000 petitions
have not been granted, depending upon
the results of the plan. Information
concerning the number of petitions that
have been filed and granted under the
Patent Application Backlog Reduction
Stimulus Plan is available on the
USPTO’s Internet Web site at https://
www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/
PatentStimulusPlan.jsp. For a petition
under 37 CFR 1.102 to be granted under
the procedure for the Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan, the
petition under 37 CFR 1.102 and the
letter of express abandonment and its
accompanying statement must be filed
on or before December 31, 2011 (unless
the Patent Application Backlog
Reduction Stimulus Plan is extended by
a subsequent notice).
Dated: November 16, 2010.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2010–29360 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–805]
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From Mexico
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request for an
expedited changed circumstances
review from Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de
C.V. (TUNA) and Lamina y Placa
Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina y
Placa), the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is initiating a changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
(CWP) from Mexico pursuant to section
751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216
and 351.221(c)(3). We have
preliminarily concluded that Lamina y
Placa is the successor-in-interest to
TUNA and, as a result, should be
accorded the same treatment previously
given to TUNA with respect to the
antidumping duty order on CWP from
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
Mexico. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 22,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6312 or
(202) 482–0649, respectively.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Department published an
antidumping duty order on CWP from
Mexico on November 2, 1992. See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of
Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela,
and Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453
(November 2, 1992).
On May 17, 2010, both TUNA and
Lamina y Placa filed a request for a
changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on CWP from
Mexico. TUNA and Lamina y Placa
claim that Lamina y Placa is the
successor-in-interest to TUNA in
accordance with section 751(b) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and provided
documentation supporting its assertion.
On June 30, 2010, the Department
issued a questionnaire to TUNA and
Lamina y Placa seeking additional
information related to their request for
a changed circumstances review. On
July 28, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y
Placa filed their response to the
questionnaire. On August 31, 2010, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to TUNA and Lamina y
Placa.
On September 10, 2010, TUNA and
Lamina y Placa submitted their
supplemental questionnaire response.
On September 21, 2010 and September
27, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
provided further information clarifying
the ownership structure and legal status
of both entities as requested by the
Department. See Memorandum to the
File, dated October 14, 2010.
In response to TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s request, the Department is
initiating a changed circumstances
review of this order.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is circular welded non-alloy steel
pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(16 inches) in outside diameter,
regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or
end finish (plain end, beveled end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled).
These pipes and tubes are generally
known as standard pipes and tubes and
are intended for the low-pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,
and other liquids and gases in plumbing
and heating systems, air conditioning
units, automatic sprinkler systems, and
other related uses, and generally meet
ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard
pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence
tubing, and as structural pipe tubing
used for framing and support members
for reconstruction or load-bearing
purposes in the construction,
shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment,
and related industries. Unfinished
conduit pipe is also included in this
order. All carbon steel pipes and tubes
within the physical description outlined
above are included within the scope of
this order, except line pipe, oil country
tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical
tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and
finished conduit. Standard pipe that is
dual or triple certified/stenciled that
enters the United States as line pipe of
a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is
also not included in this order.
Imports of the products covered by
this order are currently classifiable
under the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.
Initiation of Antidumping 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 an antidumping duty order
which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review of the
order. On May 17, 2010, TUNA and
Lamina y Placa submitted their request
for a changed circumstances review,
claiming Lamina y Placa is the
successor-in-interest to TUNA. In its
submission, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
explain that a majority of TUNA’s assets
were transferred to an affiliated
company, Temple de Monterrey, S.A. de
C.V. (Temple de Monterrey) on
September 30, 2009. TUNA and Lamina
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71073
y Placa state Temple de Monterrey was
subsequently acquired by Lamina y
Placa on December 28, 2009. See
TUNA’s and Lamina y Placa’s
submission, dated May 17, 2010 at 3
and Exhibits 1 and 2. As a result of the
asset transfer and corporate merger,
TUNA and Lamina y Placa clarify that
all of TUNA’s assets previously
transferred to Temple de Monterrey are
now held by Lamina y Placa. Id.
However, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
also maintain that the merger did not
dissolve TUNA as a legal entity, and
while TUNA does not currently have
manufacturing or selling activities, it
does retain ownership of certain
buildings and land. See TUNA’s and
Lamina y Placa’s submission, dated
September 27, 2010 at 2 and Exhibit 1.
No other interested parties
commented on TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s submissions. Based on the
information submitted by TUNA and
Lamina y Placa, the Department has
determined that changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a review exist. See
19 CFR 351.216(d). The Department also
finds that expedited action is warranted
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii), and therefore we are
publishing a notice of initiation and
preliminary results for this changed
circumstances review concurrently. See
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
Japan: Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Changed-Circumstances
Review, 71 FR 14679 (March 23, 2006).
Preliminary Results
In antidumping duty changed
circumstances reviews involving a
successor-in-interest determination, the
Department typically examines several
factors including, but not limited to: (1)
Management; (2) production facilities;
(3) supplier relationships; and (4)
customer base. See Brass Sheet and
Strip from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13,
1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847
(May 3, 2005) (Plate from Romania).
While no single factor or combination of
factors will necessarily be dispositive,
the Department generally will consider
the new company to be the successor to
the predecessor if the resulting
operations are essentially the same as
those of the predecessor company. See,
e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from
Israel: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994),
and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847.
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
71074
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
Thus, if the record evidence
demonstrates the new company operates
as the same business entity as the
predecessor company with respect to
the production and sale of the subject
merchandise, the Department may
assign the new company the cash
deposit rate of its predecessor. See, e.g.,
Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from
Norway: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979,
9980 (March 1, 1999).
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily
determine that Lamina y Placa is the
successor-in-interest to TUNA. In its
submissions, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
provide documentation showing the
transfer of production and sales
operations from TUNA to Lamina y
Placa resulted in little or no change in
management, production facilities,
supplier relationships, or customer base.
In its initial submission, dated May
17, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
state: (1) The production of subject
merchandise at Lamina y Placa is
managed by the same individuals who
previously managed production
operations of subject merchandise at
TUNA prior to the merger; (2) subject
merchandise produced by Lamina y
Placa is in the same location and at the
same capacity as produced by TUNA
before the merger; (3) Lamina y Placa
consumes the same material inputs as
TUNA did, sourced from the same major
suppliers; and (4) Lamina y Placa sells
merchandise to the same customer base
to which TUNA made sales.
TUNA and Lamina y Placa further
explain that the ultimate ownership of
the production facilities remain the
same, and did not change as a result of
the transfer of a majority of TUNA’s
assets to Temple de Monterrey, and the
latter’s eventual merger with Lamina y
Placa. Additionally, TUNA and Lamina
y Placa point out that the Department
has previously collapsed both
companies into a single producer entity
in the 1998–1999 administrative review
of this order (i.e., the most recently
completed administrative review of
TUNA). See TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s submission, dated May 17, 2010
at 6, citing Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 65 FR 77560, 77562 (December
20, 2000) (1998–1999 Preliminary
Results); unchanged in Circular Welded
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 21311
(April 30, 2001) and unchanged in
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
From Mexico: Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 37454 (July 18, 2001).
In performing our analysis, we first
examined the organization charts
showing the management structure and
ownership information for TUNA,
Lamina y Placa and Temple de
Monterrey both prior to and after the
merger of Temple de Monterrey into
Lamina y Placa. See TUNA’s and
Lamina y Placa’s submissions, dated
May 17, 2010 (Exhibit 3), July 28, 2010
(Exhibit 4), September 10, 2010 (Exhibit
1) and September 21, 2010 (Exhibits 1
and 2). TUNA and Lamina y Placa note
that the management of TUNA’s pipe
facility did not change between TUNA’s
asset transfer to Temple de Monterrey
and Temple de Monterrey’s merger into
Lamina y Placa. The only significant
changes involve transfers of personnel
from other affiliated entities, the
promotion of Lamina y Placa employees
to higher positions and the creation of
new positions. As such, Lamina y
Placa’s management structure after the
merger of Temple de Monterrey, for the
most part, resembles its previous
management structure. See TUNA’s and
Lamina y Placa’s submissions, dated
July 28, 2010 at 5–6 and Exhibit 4.
Second, we reviewed production data
of subject merchandise from production
facilities of both Lamina y Placa and
TUNA covering periods prior to and
following the asset transfer and
corporate merger. Data show both
entities maintained the same production
capacity. See TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s submissions, dated May 17, 2010
and July 28, 2010 at Exhibits 4 and 5,
respectively.
Third, we examined the list of major
input suppliers to TUNA for the
production of subject merchandise prior
to the transfer of a majority of its assets
to Temple de Monterrey. We compared
this to the list of suppliers of major
inputs to Lamina y Placa for the
production of subject merchandise
following the transfer of TUNA’s assets
and found both lists were identical. See
TUNA’s and Lamina y Placa’s
submission, dated May 17, 2010 at
Exhibit 5. Meanwhile, TUNA and
Lamina y Placa clarified that Lamina y
Placa also maintained relationships
with additional suppliers for other
material, finished goods and services.
See TUNA’s and Lamina y Placa’s
submission, dated July 28, 2010 at
Exhibit 6.
Fourth, we reviewed the customer
lists for TUNA’s sales of subject
merchandise prior to the transfer of its
assets to Temple de Monterrey and
Lamina y Placa’s customers following
its merger with Temple de Monterrey.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
TUNA and Lamina y Placa explained
that prior to the asset transfer and
corporate merger, Lamina y Placa did
not operate any facilities for the
production of subject merchandise.
However, TUNA and Lamina y Placa
add that TUNA was involved as a toller
for Lamina y Placa, wherein Lamina y
Placa placed orders with TUNA for
certain subject and non-subject
merchandise and paid TUNA a monthly
sum for the volume of merchandise
produced. TUNA and Lamina y Placa
state this arrangement served as a basis
for the Department’s treatment of
Lamina y Placa as a producer in the
1998–1999 Preliminary Results
(unchanged in the final results and
amended final results) and its decision
to collapse both companies as a single
entity.1 See TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s submission, dated July 28, 2010
at 1 and 2. As a result, Lamina y Placa
claim that prior to the asset transfer and
corporate merger, it sold merchandise to
its own customers, while TUNA sold
merchandise to only a few direct
customers. See TUNA’s and Lamina y
Placa’s submission, dated July 28, 2010
at 7–8 and Exhibit 7. However, since the
asset transfer and corporate merger,
Lamina y Placa explains it has
maintained the same customer base
while also absorbing TUNA’s former
direct customers. Id. at 7–8. Therefore,
based on record information, we
preliminarily find that Lamina y Placa’s
customers include those of TUNA’s
prior to the asset transfer and corporate
merger.
For the reasons described above, we
preliminarily find that Lamina y Placa
is the successor-in-interest to TUNA in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(i). As such, Lamina y
Placa is entitled to TUNA’s cash-deposit
rate with respect to entries of subject
merchandise. Should our final results
remain the same as these preliminary
results, effective the date of publication
of the final results we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assign
entries of merchandise produced or
exported by Lamina y Placa the
antidumping duty cash-deposit rate
applicable to TUNA.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 15 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 22
days after the date of publication of this
notice or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit
1 The Department also collapsed a third affiliated
company, Lamina y Placa Monterrey, which
engaged in similar tolling operations.
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
case briefs not later than 15 days after
the date of publication of this notice.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues
raised in case briefs, may be filed not
later than 20 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this changed circumstances review are
requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue;
and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Consistent with 19 CFR
351.216(e), we will issue the final
results of this changed-circumstances
review no later than 270 days after the
date on which this review was initiated,
or within 45 days of publication of these
preliminary results if all parties agree to
our preliminary finding.
During the course of this antidumping
duty changed circumstances review, the
cash deposit requirements for the
subject merchandise exported and
manufactured by Lamina y Placa will
continue to be the all-others rate
established in the investigation. See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of
Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela,
and Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453
(November 2, 1992).
This notice of initiation and
preliminary results is published in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216
and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: November 15, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–29384 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Regulations and Procedures Technical
Advisory Committee; Notice of
Partially Closed Meeting
The Regulations and Procedures
Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC)
will meet December 8, 2010, 9 a.m.,
Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover
Building, 14th Street between
Constitution and Pennsylvania
Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The
Committee advises the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration on implementation of
the Export Administration Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(EAR) and provides for continuing
review to update the EAR as needed.
Public Session
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by Bureau of
Industry and Security.
3. Export Enforcement update.
4. Regulations update.
5. Working group reports.
6. Automated Export System (AES)
update.
7. Presentation of papers or comments
by the Public.
Closed Session
8. Discussion of matters determined to
be exempt from the provisions
relating to public meetings found in
5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and
10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible
via teleconference to 20 participants on
a first come, first serve basis. To join the
conference, submit inquiries to Ms.
Yvette Springer at
Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than
December 1, 2010.
A limited number of seats will be
available for the public session.
Reservations are not accepted. To the
extent that time permits, members of the
public may present oral statements to
the Committee. The public may submit
written statements at any time before or
after the meeting. However, to facilitate
the distribution of public presentation
materials to the Committee members,
the Committee suggests that presenters
forward the public presentation
materials prior to the meeting to Ms.
Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for
Administration, with the concurrence of
the delegate of the General Counsel,
formally determined on November 3,
2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that
the portion of the meeting dealing with
matters the disclosure of which would
be likely to frustrate significantly
implementation of an agency action as
described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall
be exempt from the provisions relating
to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C.
app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The
remaining portions of the meeting will
be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette
Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Dated: November 17, 2010.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–29374 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P
Frm 00009
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Agenda
PO 00000
71075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd., a/k/a
Anvik Technologies; Babak Jafarpour,
a/k/a Bob Jefferson
Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd., a/k/a
Anvik Technologies
Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered,
30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala
Lumpur 50250, Malaysia
Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan
Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450,
Malaysia
Level 19, Two International Finance
Centre, 8 Finance Street Central
Hong Kong
155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor,
Chicago, IL 60606; and
Babak Jafarpour, a/k/a Bob Jefferson
Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered,
30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala
Lumpur 50250, Malaysia
Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan
Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450,
Malaysia
Level 19, Two International Finance
Centre, 8 Finance Street Central
Hong Kong
155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor,
Chicago, IL 60606
Respondents.
Order Temporarily Denying Export
Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’ or the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 the
Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’),
U.S. Department of Commerce, through
its Office of Export Enforcement
(‘‘OEE’’), has requested that I issue an
Order temporarily denying, for a period
of 180 days, the export privileges under
the EAR of:
1. Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd. a/k/a
Anvik Technologies.
Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered,
30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala
Lumpur 50250, Malaysia.
Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan
Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450,
Malaysia.
Level 19, Two International Finance
Centre, 8 Finance Street Central
1 The EAR is currently codified at 15 CFR parts
730–774 (2010). The EAR are issued under the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50
U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘EAA’’). Since
August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the
President, through Executive Order 13222 of August
17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which
has been extended by successive presidential
notices, the most recent being that of August 12,
2010 (75 FR 50681 (Aug. 16, 2010)), has continued
the Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
et seq.) (‘‘IEEPA’’).
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71072-71075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29384]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From
Mexico
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request for an expedited changed
circumstances review from Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (TUNA) and
Lamina y Placa Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina y Placa), the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe (CWP) from Mexico pursuant to section 751(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3). We have preliminarily concluded that Lamina y Placa is
the successor-in-interest to TUNA and, as a result, should be accorded
the same treatment previously given to TUNA with respect to the
antidumping duty order on CWP from
[[Page 71073]]
Mexico. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on CWP from
Mexico on November 2, 1992. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic
of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992).
On May 17, 2010, both TUNA and Lamina y Placa filed a request for a
changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on CWP from
Mexico. TUNA and Lamina y Placa claim that Lamina y Placa is the
successor-in-interest to TUNA in accordance with section 751(b) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and provided documentation supporting its
assertion.
On June 30, 2010, the Department issued a questionnaire to TUNA and
Lamina y Placa seeking additional information related to their request
for a changed circumstances review. On July 28, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y
Placa filed their response to the questionnaire. On August 31, 2010,
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to TUNA and Lamina y
Placa.
On September 10, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa submitted their
supplemental questionnaire response. On September 21, 2010 and
September 27, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa provided further
information clarifying the ownership structure and legal status of both
entities as requested by the Department. See Memorandum to the File,
dated October 14, 2010.
In response to TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's request, the Department
is initiating a changed circumstances review of this order.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is circular welded non-alloy
steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled).
These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes
and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard
pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for
fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and
support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the
construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order. All
carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined
above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe,
oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and
tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit.
Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters
the United States as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines
is also not included in this order.
Imports of the products covered by this order are currently
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and
7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.
Initiation of Antidumping 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 an antidumping
duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review of the order. On May 17, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa submitted
their request for a changed circumstances review, claiming Lamina y
Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA. In its submission, TUNA and
Lamina y Placa explain that a majority of TUNA's assets were
transferred to an affiliated company, Temple de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V.
(Temple de Monterrey) on September 30, 2009. TUNA and Lamina y Placa
state Temple de Monterrey was subsequently acquired by Lamina y Placa
on December 28, 2009. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submission, dated
May 17, 2010 at 3 and Exhibits 1 and 2. As a result of the asset
transfer and corporate merger, TUNA and Lamina y Placa clarify that all
of TUNA's assets previously transferred to Temple de Monterrey are now
held by Lamina y Placa. Id. However, TUNA and Lamina y Placa also
maintain that the merger did not dissolve TUNA as a legal entity, and
while TUNA does not currently have manufacturing or selling activities,
it does retain ownership of certain buildings and land. See TUNA's and
Lamina y Placa's submission, dated September 27, 2010 at 2 and Exhibit
1.
No other interested parties commented on TUNA's and Lamina y
Placa's submissions. Based on the information submitted by TUNA and
Lamina y Placa, the Department has determined that changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist. See 19 CFR
351.216(d). The Department also finds that expedited action is
warranted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), and therefore we
are publishing a notice of initiation and preliminary results for this
changed circumstances review concurrently. See Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof from Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679 (March 23, 2006).
Preliminary Results
In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a
successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines
several factors including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2)
production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer
base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13,
1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania:
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) (Plate from
Romania). While no single factor or combination of factors will
necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the
new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting
operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor
company. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944,
6945 (February 14, 1994), and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847.
[[Page 71074]]
Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates the new company operates as
the same business entity as the predecessor company with respect to the
production and sale of the subject merchandise, the Department may
assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See,
e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR
9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily
determine that Lamina y Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA. In
its submissions, TUNA and Lamina y Placa provide documentation showing
the transfer of production and sales operations from TUNA to Lamina y
Placa resulted in little or no change in management, production
facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base.
In its initial submission, dated May 17, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y
Placa state: (1) The production of subject merchandise at Lamina y
Placa is managed by the same individuals who previously managed
production operations of subject merchandise at TUNA prior to the
merger; (2) subject merchandise produced by Lamina y Placa is in the
same location and at the same capacity as produced by TUNA before the
merger; (3) Lamina y Placa consumes the same material inputs as TUNA
did, sourced from the same major suppliers; and (4) Lamina y Placa
sells merchandise to the same customer base to which TUNA made sales.
TUNA and Lamina y Placa further explain that the ultimate ownership
of the production facilities remain the same, and did not change as a
result of the transfer of a majority of TUNA's assets to Temple de
Monterrey, and the latter's eventual merger with Lamina y Placa.
Additionally, TUNA and Lamina y Placa point out that the Department has
previously collapsed both companies into a single producer entity in
the 1998-1999 administrative review of this order (i.e., the most
recently completed administrative review of TUNA). See TUNA's and
Lamina y Placa's submission, dated May 17, 2010 at 6, citing Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR
77560, 77562 (December 20, 2000) (1998-1999 Preliminary Results);
unchanged in Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 21311 (April
30, 2001) and unchanged in Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From
Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 37454 (July 18, 2001).
In performing our analysis, we first examined the organization
charts showing the management structure and ownership information for
TUNA, Lamina y Placa and Temple de Monterrey both prior to and after
the merger of Temple de Monterrey into Lamina y Placa. See TUNA's and
Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated May 17, 2010 (Exhibit 3), July 28,
2010 (Exhibit 4), September 10, 2010 (Exhibit 1) and September 21, 2010
(Exhibits 1 and 2). TUNA and Lamina y Placa note that the management of
TUNA's pipe facility did not change between TUNA's asset transfer to
Temple de Monterrey and Temple de Monterrey's merger into Lamina y
Placa. The only significant changes involve transfers of personnel from
other affiliated entities, the promotion of Lamina y Placa employees to
higher positions and the creation of new positions. As such, Lamina y
Placa's management structure after the merger of Temple de Monterrey,
for the most part, resembles its previous management structure. See
TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated July 28, 2010 at 5-6 and
Exhibit 4.
Second, we reviewed production data of subject merchandise from
production facilities of both Lamina y Placa and TUNA covering periods
prior to and following the asset transfer and corporate merger. Data
show both entities maintained the same production capacity. See TUNA's
and Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated May 17, 2010 and July 28, 2010
at Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
Third, we examined the list of major input suppliers to TUNA for
the production of subject merchandise prior to the transfer of a
majority of its assets to Temple de Monterrey. We compared this to the
list of suppliers of major inputs to Lamina y Placa for the production
of subject merchandise following the transfer of TUNA's assets and
found both lists were identical. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's
submission, dated May 17, 2010 at Exhibit 5. Meanwhile, TUNA and Lamina
y Placa clarified that Lamina y Placa also maintained relationships
with additional suppliers for other material, finished goods and
services. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submission, dated July 28,
2010 at Exhibit 6.
Fourth, we reviewed the customer lists for TUNA's sales of subject
merchandise prior to the transfer of its assets to Temple de Monterrey
and Lamina y Placa's customers following its merger with Temple de
Monterrey. TUNA and Lamina y Placa explained that prior to the asset
transfer and corporate merger, Lamina y Placa did not operate any
facilities for the production of subject merchandise. However, TUNA and
Lamina y Placa add that TUNA was involved as a toller for Lamina y
Placa, wherein Lamina y Placa placed orders with TUNA for certain
subject and non-subject merchandise and paid TUNA a monthly sum for the
volume of merchandise produced. TUNA and Lamina y Placa state this
arrangement served as a basis for the Department's treatment of Lamina
y Placa as a producer in the 1998-1999 Preliminary Results (unchanged
in the final results and amended final results) and its decision to
collapse both companies as a single entity.\1\ See TUNA's and Lamina y
Placa's submission, dated July 28, 2010 at 1 and 2. As a result, Lamina
y Placa claim that prior to the asset transfer and corporate merger, it
sold merchandise to its own customers, while TUNA sold merchandise to
only a few direct customers. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's
submission, dated July 28, 2010 at 7-8 and Exhibit 7. However, since
the asset transfer and corporate merger, Lamina y Placa explains it has
maintained the same customer base while also absorbing TUNA's former
direct customers. Id. at 7-8. Therefore, based on record information,
we preliminarily find that Lamina y Placa's customers include those of
TUNA's prior to the asset transfer and corporate merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department also collapsed a third affiliated company,
Lamina y Placa Monterrey, which engaged in similar tolling
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons described above, we preliminarily find that Lamina
y Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(i). As such, Lamina y Placa is entitled to TUNA's cash-
deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. Should our
final results remain the same as these preliminary results, effective
the date of publication of the final results we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assign entries of merchandise produced
or exported by Lamina y Placa the antidumping duty cash-deposit rate
applicable to TUNA.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 15 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 22 days after the date of publication of this
notice or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may
submit
[[Page 71075]]
case briefs not later than 15 days after the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be
limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than 20
days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstances review are
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue;
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Consistent with 19 CFR
351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed-
circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which
this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these
preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.
During the course of this antidumping duty changed circumstances
review, the cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise
exported and manufactured by Lamina y Placa will continue to be the
all-others rate established in the investigation. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453
(November 2, 1992).
This notice of initiation and preliminary results is published in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: November 15, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-29384 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
