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 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 http:// 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