Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Final Results of the First Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 4865-4866 [2011-1797]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices
them in a visually intuitive graphical
format.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Frequency: On Occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra,
(202) 395–3123.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to, OMB Desk Officer, Jasmeet
Seehra, FAX Number (202) 395–5167, or
Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: January 24, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–1798 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 1736]
Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone
104 Under Alternative Site Framework
Savannah, GA
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the
following Order:
Whereas, the Board adopted the
alternative site framework (ASF) in
December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09;
correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09; 75 FR
71069–71070, 11/22/10) as an option for
the establishment or reorganization of
general-purpose zones;
Whereas, the Savannah Airport
Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade
Zone 104, submitted an application to
the Board (FTZ Docket 51–2010, filed
8/26/2010) for authority to reorganize
under the ASF with a service area of the
Georgia counties of Bulloch, Bryan,
Chatham, Effingham, Evans, Liberty,
Long, and Screven in and adjacent to
the Savannah Customs and Border
Protection port of entry; FTZ 104’s
existing, new, and renumbered Sites 1,
2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 would
be categorized as magnet sites; and the
grantee proposes three initial usagedriven sites (Sites 9, 10, and 13);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Jan 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (75 FR 53637–53638, 9/1/2010)
and the application has been processed
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s
regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendation of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and
Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
that the proposal is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to reorganize FTZ 104
under the alternative site framework is
approved, subject to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard
2,000-acre activation limit for the
overall general-purpose zone project, to
a five-year ASF sunset provision for
magnet sites that would terminate
authority for Sites 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12,
14, 15, and 16 if not activated by
January 31, 2016, and to a three-year
ASF sunset provision for usage-driven
sites that would terminate authority for
Sites 9, 10, and 13 if no foreign-status
merchandise is admitted for a bona fide
customs purpose by January 31, 2014.
4865
Preliminary Results of the First Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping
Duty Order, 75 FR 60084 (September 29,
2010) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We
provided interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our
Preliminary Results. The Department
did not receive comments from either
domestic or respondent interested
parties. As a result of this review, the
Department continues to find that that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order with respect to CMC from Mexico
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels
listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dena Crossland or Angelica Mendoza,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–
3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
International Trade Administration
On September 29, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of preliminary results
of the full sunset review of antidumping
duty order on CMC from Mexico,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
See Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. In
our Preliminary Results, we found that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order with respect to CMC from Mexico
would likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins
determined in the final determination of
the original investigation. Id. We
provided interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our
Preliminary Results. Id. We did not
receive comments from either domestic
or respondent interested parties.
[A–201–834]
Scope of the Order
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From
Mexico: Final Results of the First FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping
Duty Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is all purified CMC, sometimes also
referred to as purified sodium CMC,
polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum,
which is a white to off-white, non-toxic,
odorless, biodegradable powder,
comprising sodium CMC that has been
refined and purified to a minimum
assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does
not include unpurified or crude CMC,
CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions,
and CMC that is cross-linked through
heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC
that has undergone one or more
purification operations, which, at a
minimum, reduce the remaining salt
and other by-product portion of the
product to less than ten percent. The
Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of
January 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–1767 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published a notice of
preliminary results of the full sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on purified carboxymethylcellulose
(‘‘CMC’’) from Mexico pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
4866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices
merchandise subject to the order is
currently classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 3912.31.00.1
This tariff classification is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes;
however, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Final Results of Review
International Trade Administration
Proposed Methodology for
Implementation of Section 772(c)(2)(B)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended,
In Certain Non-Market Economy
Antidumping Proceedings; Request for
Comment
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) seeks public
comment on its proposed
methodological change to reduce the
export price or constructed export price
in certain non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
antidumping proceedings by the amount
Weightedof an export tax, duty, or other charge,
average
Manufacturer/producer/exporter
pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(B) of the
margin
percentage Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
DATES: To be assured of consideration,
Quimica Amtex .........................
12.61 comments must be received no later
All Others ..................................
12.61 than February 28, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In accordance with section 752(c)(3)
Albert Hsu, Senior Economist, Office of
Policy, Import Administration, U.S.
of the Act, we will notify the
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
International Trade Commission of the
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
final results of this full sunset review.
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
This notice also serves as the only
482–4491.
reminder to parties subject to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
Background
return or destruction of proprietary
Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(B) of the
information disclosed under APO in
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
accordance with section 351.305 of the
‘‘Act’’), the Department is instructed to
Department’s regulations. Timely
reduce the export price or constructed
notification of the return or destruction
export price used in the dumping
of APO materials or conversion to
margin calculation by ‘‘the amount, if
judicial protective order is hereby
included in such price, of any export
requested. Failure to comply with the
tax, duty, or other charge imposed by
the exporting country on the exportation
regulations and terms of an APO is a
of the subject merchandise to the United
violation which is subject to sanction.
States, other than an export tax, duty, or
We are issuing and publishing this
other charge described in section
notice in accordance with sections
771(6)(C) {of the Act}.’’ However, the
751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Department’s administrative practice
Dated: January 20, 2011.
has been that it cannot apply section
772(c)(2)(B) in NME antidumping
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
proceedings because pervasive
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
government intervention in NMEs
Administration.
precluded proper valuation of taxes
[FR Doc. 2011–1797 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am]
paid by NME respondents to NME
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
governments. This practice originated in
the less-than-fair-value investigations of
1 Although HTSUS number 3912.31.00.10 may be
pure magnesium and magnesium alloy
more specific to subject merchandise, it was not
from the Russian Federation, which the
created until 2005. As such, we are relying on
Department then considered to be an
HTSUS number 3912.31.00 for purposes of this
sunset review because in determining whether
NME. See Pure Magnesium and Alloy
revocation of an order would likely lead to
Magnesium from the Russian
continuation or recurrence of dumping, the
Federation, 60 FR 16440 (Mar. 30, 1995)
Department considers the margins established in
(final determination of sales at less than
the investigation and/or reviews conducted during
fair value) (‘‘Russian Magnesium’’)
the sunset review period as well as the volume of
imports for the periods before and after the issuance (Comment 10). In those investigations,
of the order. See section 752(c)(1) of the Act.
the Department determined not to
We have made no changes to our
Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. We
continue to find that revocation of the
antidumping duty order with respect to
CMC from Mexico would likely lead to
a continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following percentage weightedaverage margins:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Jan 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reduce the NME respondents’ U.S.
prices based upon an export tax paid to
the NME government, the Russian
Federation. Id.
The Russian Magnesium petitioners
subsequently challenged this
determination before the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), and the CIT
granted the Department’s request for a
voluntary remand to further explain its
reasoning. See Magnesium Corp. of
America v. United States, 20 CIT 1092,
1113–14 (1996) (‘‘Mag. Corp. I’’). In its
remand results, the Department
explained its ‘‘uniform approach’’ to
transfers between NME governments
and NME companies. The Department
stated, in relevant part:
The {NME} is governed by a presumption
of widespread intervention and influence in
the economic activities of enterprises. An
export tax charged for one purpose may be
offset by government transfers provided for
another purpose. * * *
To make a deduction for export taxes
imposed by a NME government would
unreasonably isolate one part of the web of
transactions between government and
producer. The Department’s uniform
approach to intra-NME transfers can be seen
in its policy regarding transfers (or
‘‘subsidies’’) paid by a NME government to a
NME producer. The Department—with the
approval of the Court of Appeals—has
declined to find such transfers to be
subsidies given the nature of a {NME}. Such
an economy is riddled with distortions, with
the government influencing prices and cost
structures, regulating investment, wages and
private ownership, and allocating credit.
Attempts to isolate individual government
interventions in this setting—whether they
be transfers from the government or from
exporters to the government—make no sense.
See Remand Redetermination:
Magnesium Corp. of America, et al. v.
United States, at 6–8, dated Oct. 28,
1996 (‘‘Remand Redetermination’’)
(available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/
index.html).
The CIT upheld the Department’s
remand results. See Magnesium Corp. of
America v. United States, 20 CIT 1464,
1466 (1996) (‘‘Mag. Corp. II’’). The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
then affirmed the CIT’s decision, stating
that it agreed with the reasoning put
forward in the Department’s Remand
Redetermination. See Magnesium Corp.
of America, 166 F.3d 1364, 1370–71
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (‘‘Mag. Corp. III’’).
However, since Mag. Corp. III, the
Department has changed its practice
with respect to application of the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) law to
subsidized merchandise from China and
Vietnam, which the Department
continues to designate as NMEs. As
explained in the countervailing duty
investigations of Coated Free Sheet
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4865-4866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1797]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-834]
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Final Results of the
First Five-Year (``Sunset'') Review of Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on purified
carboxymethylcellulose (``CMC'') from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Preliminary Results of the First
Five-year (``Sunset'') Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 60084
(September 29, 2010) (``Preliminary Results''). We provided interested
parties an opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Results. The
Department did not receive comments from either domestic or respondent
interested parties. As a result of this review, the Department
continues to find that that revocation of the antidumping duty order
with respect to CMC from Mexico would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Angelica Mendoza,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3362 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 29, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of
antidumping duty order on CMC from Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. In our Preliminary
Results, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty order with
respect to CMC from Mexico would likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins determined in the final
determination of the original investigation. Id. We provided interested
parties an opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Results. Id. We
did not receive comments from either domestic or respondent interested
parties.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is all purified CMC, sometimes
also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or
cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless,
biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and
purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not
include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and
CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC
that has undergone one or more purification operations, which, at a
minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the
product to less than ten percent. The
[[Page 4866]]
merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheading 3912.31.00.\1\ This tariff classification is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes; however, the written description of
the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although HTSUS number 3912.31.00.10 may be more specific to
subject merchandise, it was not created until 2005. As such, we are
relying on HTSUS number 3912.31.00 for purposes of this sunset
review because in determining whether revocation of an order would
likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department
considers the margins established in the investigation and/or
reviews conducted during the sunset review period as well as the
volume of imports for the periods before and after the issuance of
the order. See section 752(c)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
We have made no changes to our Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. We
continue to find that revocation of the antidumping duty order with
respect to CMC from Mexico would likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average
margins:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin
percentage
----------------------------------------------------
Quimica Amtex.......................... 12.61
All Others............................. 12.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we will notify the
International Trade Commission of the final results of this full sunset
review.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the
Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-1797 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
