Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 18518-18519 [2011-7793]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18518
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices
III. Method of Collection
A survey with a cover letter that
includes a brief description of, and
rationale for, the survey will be sent by
e-mail to potential respondents by the
first week of June of each year. A report
of the respondent’s expenditures of the
NIH award amounts, following the
proposed format for expenditure
categories included with the survey
form, will be requested to be completed
and submitted online no later than 120
days after mailing. Survey respondents
will be selected on the basis of award
levels, which determine the weight of
the respondent in the biomedical
research and development price index.
Potential respondents will include (1)
The top 100 organizations in total
awards, which account for about 59
percent of total awards; (2) 40 additional
organizations that are not primarily in
the ‘‘Research and Development (R&D)
contracts’’ category; and (3) 10
additional organizations that are
primarily in the ‘‘R&D contracts’’
category.
IV. Data
OMB Number: 0608–0069.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Universities or other
organizations that are NIH award
recipients.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
90.
Estimated Time per Response: 11
hours and 12 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
1,008 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
V. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the NIH, including
whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden (including hours
and cost) of the proposed collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:47 Apr 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: March 29, 2011.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Department published a notice of
initiation of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils from
Mexico. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of
Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274
(August 31, 2010).
International Trade Administration
Rescission of Review
[A–201–822]
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department will
rescind an administrative review, ‘‘in
whole or in part, if a party that
requested a review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of notice of initiation of the
requested review. The Secretary may
extend this time limit if the Secretary
decides that it is reasonable to do so.’’
On March 21, 2011, petitioners
withdrew their request for a review of
the order with respect to Mexinox.
Although the party submitted a letter
withdrawing their review request after
the 90-day regulatory deadline, the
Department finds it is reasonable to
extend the deadline for withdrawing the
review request because it has not yet
devoted significant time or resources to
the review.
Because of the withdrawal of the
request for review and because we
received no other requests for review,
we are rescinding the administrative
review of the order with respect to
Mexinox. This rescission is in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
[FR Doc. 2011–7804 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–EA–P
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
From Mexico: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
an interested party, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order covering
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils
from Mexico. The period of review is
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.
Based on the withdrawal of request for
review submitted by Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, North American Stainless,
and AK Steel Corporation (collectively
‘‘petitioners’’), we are now rescinding
this administrative review.
DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga
Carter, John Drury 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) 482–8221,
(202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–3019
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 1, 2010, the Department
published a notice announcing an
opportunity for interested parties to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils from
Mexico. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 30,
2010, petitioners filed a request that the
Department initiate an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils
from Mexico with respect to
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox, S.A. de C.V.
(‘‘Mexinox’’). Based on petitioners’
request, on August 31, 2010, the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For Mexinox, the
antidumping duties shall be assessed at
rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of this notice.
Notifications
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under
an APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the 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.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: March 28, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–7793 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–837]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan:
Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On February 22, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the final results
of the antidumping duty administrative
review of polyethylene terephthalate
film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from
Taiwan.1 The period of review (POR) is
July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. We
are amending the Final Results to
correct a ministerial error that was made
in the calculation of the antidumping
duty margin for Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), pursuant to
section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: (February 22,
2011)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9745 (February
22, 2011) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:47 Apr 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3586.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 8, 2011, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.224(c)(1), Nan Ya filed a timely
submission alleging ministerial errors
with respect to the Department’s use of
sales datasets and matching of
CONNUMs in the antidumping duty
margin calculation for Nan Ya in the
Final Results.2 On March 14, 2011,
DuPont Teijin Films; Mitsubishi
Polyester Film Inc.; SKC, Inc.; and
Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(collectively, Petitioners) provided
timely rebuttal comments to Nan Ya’s
model matching allegation.3
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the
antidumping order are all gauges of raw,
pretreated, or primed polyethylene
terephthalate film, whether extruded or
coextruded. Excluded are metallized
films and other finished films that have
had at least one of their surfaces
modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer more than 0.00001
inches thick. Imports of PET Film are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item number
3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Ministerial Error Allegation
A ministerial error is defined in
section 751(h) of the Act as ‘‘* * *
errors in addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical errors
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
type of unintentional error which the
administering authority considers
ministerial.’’ 4 In its Allegation of
Ministerial Errors, Nan Ya alleged that:
(1) The Department inadvertently used
the incorrect U.S. and home market
sales datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s
antidumping duty margin for the final
results; and (2) the Department
erroneously matched similar home
market subject merchandise to U.S.
sales where there was no identical sale
during the comparison period.5
2 See Nan Ya’s Letter to the Secretary of
Commerce dated March 8, 2011 (Allegation of
Ministerial Errors).
3 See Petitioners’ Letter to the Secretary of
Commerce dated March 14, 2011.
4 See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
5 See Allegation of Ministerial Errors at 1–3.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18519
Specifically, Nan Ya argues that the last
criteria in the Department’s model
matching hierarchy, surface treatment,
has a greater impact on the sales price
and the production costs of PET Film
compared to the other criteria in the
hierarchy, and that it should receive
more weight during the model matching
process. Petitioners commented only on
Nan Ya’s model matching allegation,
contending that the Department did not
commit a ministerial error. According to
Petitioners, the Department acted in
accordance with its well established
methodology with respect to model
matching.6
Analysis of Allegations
After analyzing the interested parties’
allegations and rebuttal comments, we
find, in accordance with section 751(h)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that
with respect to Nan Ya’s first allegation,
the Department did, indeed,
inadvertently use the incorrect sales
datasets to calculate Nan Ya’s
antidumping duty margin for the Final
Results. In its May 27, 2010
supplemental questionnaire to Nan Ya,
the Department requested that Nan Ya
and its three U.S. affiliates provide a
single, consolidated constructed export
price (CEP) sales dataset to report their
sales in the U.S. market.7 However, the
three U.S. affiliates stated that they are
not affiliated with Nan Ya, and each
submitted an individual CEP sales
dataset.8 Subsequently, the Department
requested that Nan Ya and its three U.S.
affiliates provide several revised sales
datasets for home market, export price
(EP) and CEP sales. While the correct
datasets were used for the CEP sales for
the Final Results, we erroneously used
an older version of the home market and
U.S. EP sales datasets submitted by Nan
Ya. Thus, the Department has
determined that the use of the wrong
datasets constitutes a ministerial error,
in accordance with section 751(h) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). For these
amended final results, we recalculated
Nan Ya’s antidumping duty margin
using the correct sales datasets.
Regarding Nan Ya’s second allegation
with respect to model matching, the
Department disagrees that it made a
ministerial error as defined by section
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
6 See
Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments at 1–3.
the Department’s Letter to Nan Ya dated
May 27, 2010 at 1.
8 See, e.g., Letters to the Secretary of Commerce
regarding the section C questionnaire responses of
Forplax LLC and Forplax Los Angeles, Inc. dated
July 7, 2010 at C–2, and Letter to the Secretary of
Commerce regarding the section C questionnaire
response of Rocheux International dated July 9,
2010 at C–1.
7 See
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18518-18519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7793]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-822]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order covering stainless steel sheet and
strip in coils from Mexico. The period of review is July 1, 2009,
through June 30, 2010. Based on the withdrawal of request for review
submitted by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless,
and AK Steel Corporation (collectively ``petitioners''), we are now
rescinding this administrative review.
DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Carter, John Drury 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) 482-8221, (202) 482-0195 or (202) 482-3019 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2010, the Department published a notice announcing an
opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in
coils from Mexico. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 (July 1, 2010). On July 30, 2010,
petitioners filed a request that the Department initiate an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
sheet and strip in coils from Mexico with respect to ThyssenKrupp
Mexinox, S.A. de C.V. (``Mexinox''). Based on petitioners' request, on
August 31, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
sheet and strip in coils from Mexico. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation
of Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 (August 31, 2010).
Rescission of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will
rescind an administrative review, ``in whole or in part, if a party
that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the
date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.
The Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that
it is reasonable to do so.'' On March 21, 2011, petitioners withdrew
their request for a review of the order with respect to Mexinox.
Although the party submitted a letter withdrawing their review request
after the 90-day regulatory deadline, the Department finds it is
reasonable to extend the deadline for withdrawing the review request
because it has not yet devoted significant time or resources to the
review.
Because of the withdrawal of the request for review and because we
received no other requests for review, we are rescinding the
administrative review of the order with respect to Mexinox. This
rescission is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For
Mexinox, the antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of
entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of
this notice.
Notifications
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
[[Page 18519]]
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the 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.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: March 28, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-7793 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
