Foreign-Trade Zone 141-Rochester, NY, Application for Manufacturing Authority, Firth Rixson, Inc. d/b/a Firth Rixson Monroe, Comment Period on Revised Preliminary Recommendation, 2657-2658 [2013-00587]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Notices Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 54,600. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2 million. Respondents Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., Section 182. IV. 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 agency, including whether the information shall have 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. 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. Dated: January 9, 2013. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2013–00550 Filed 1–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–12–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S–2–2013] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with Foreign-Trade Zone 196—Fort Worth, TX, Foreign-Trade Subzone 196A—TTI, Inc.; Application for Additional Subzone Site An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Alliance Corridor, Inc., grantee of FTZ 196, requesting an additional site for Subzone 196A located in Fort Worth, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 4, 2013. Subzone 196A was approved on September 6, 2012 (S–102–2012) with a site located at 2601 Sylvania Cross Drive in Fort Worth (Site 1, 13 acres) subject to a three-year ASF sunset provision to September 30, 2015. An additional site located at 2441 Northeast Parkway in Fort Worth was approved on a temporary basis on December 13, 2012 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 (S–139–2012) (Temporary Site 2, 14.419 acres, expires 6/30/2013). The applicant is now requesting authority to include Temporary Site 2 in Subzone 196A on a longer-term basis. The proposed subzone site would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 196 and to the existing sunset provision applicable to Site 1 of the subzone. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. In accordance with the Board’s regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 25, 2013. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 11, 2013. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at Camille.Evans@trade.gov or (202) 482– 2350. Dated: January 4, 2013. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–00584 Filed 1–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 30–2011] Foreign-Trade Zone 141—Rochester, NY, Application for Manufacturing Authority, Firth Rixson, Inc. d/b/a Firth Rixson Monroe, Comment Period on Revised Preliminary Recommendation On April 29, 2011, an application was submitted by Monroe County, New York, grantee of FTZ 141, requesting authority on behalf of Firth Rixson, Inc. d/b/a Firth Rixson Monroe (Firth Rixson) to manufacture aircraft turbine components under FTZ procedures within FTZ 141 (76 FR 25300–25301, 5/ 4/2011). In January 2012, the applicant PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2657 was notified of the FTZ Board staff examiner’s preliminary recommendation for approval of the request with a restriction requiring that foreign-origin titanium be admitted to Firth Rixson’s FTZ operation in privileged foreign status (19 CFR § 146.63) (absent that restriction, at the time that U.S. customs entry is made on aircraft turbine components produced in the FTZ incorporating foreign-sourced titanium, Firth Rixson would be able to apply to the foreign-sourced titanium the lower duty rates applicable to aircraft turbine components—an ‘‘inverted tariff’’ benefit). In June 2012, the applicant submitted new evidence and information in response to the factors considered in the preliminary recommendation. Firth Rixson’s June 2012 submission was the subject of a Federal Register notice (77 FR 43572– 43573, 7/25/2012) inviting public comment. Firth Rixson subsequently made a rebuttal submission in response to comments received during the comment period. After a full review of the evidence and information on the record to date (including all submissions by the applicant and other parties) in the context of the applicable criteria from the FTZ Board’s regulations (15 CFR part 400), the examiner issued a revised preliminary recommendation on December 28, 2012. The examiner’s revised preliminary recommendation is to approve the requested authority—i.e., to allow unrestricted FTZ benefits on foreign titanium used in production for the U.S. market and export—for a period of five years. Any authority beyond the five year period would require an additional application to the FTZ Board. The examiner’s revised preliminary recommendation also includes a requirement for Firth Rixson to provide data on an ongoing basis to enable the FTZ Staff to conduct enhanced monitoring of the actual impact of Firth Rixson’s FTZ use. If there were to be evidence of negative effects resulting from the company’s FTZ use, the FTZ Board could review the activity and determine whether negative public interest impacts existed that warranted the imposition of a prohibition or restriction (see 15 CFR § 400.49). The examiner’s analysis indicates that allowing unrestricted FTZ benefits on foreign titanium used in production for the U.S. market and export for an initial five-year period should result in significant public benefits—such as maintained or increased U.S. employment—without negative economic effects (e.g., would not result in increased imports of titanium alloy that otherwise would not have E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM 14JAN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 2658 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Notices occurred). In particular, the revised preliminary recommendation is based on an assessment that the requested authority is unlikely to have a negative impact on related domestic industry— such as reduced purchases of U.S.produced titanium products—because key customers’ contracts with Firth Rixson involve ‘‘directed buys’’ wherein the customer dictates the specific supplier of the titanium to be used by Firth Rixson in the production of its aircraft turbine components for the customer’s use. ‘‘Directed buy’’ contracts enable the customer to retain tight control over the specifications and quality of the titanium used to produce components for that customer. Key ‘‘directed buy’’ contractual provisions include a designated source (i.e., the actual supplier of the titanium alloy to be processed by Firth Rixson) and a transaction price(s) (i.e., unit price(s) for titanium alloy pre-established by negotiations solely involving Firth Rixson’s customer and the producer of the titanium alloy selected by that customer). Under longstanding ‘‘directed buy’’ practices within the aerospace industry, Firth Rixson does not control the sourcing of titanium alloy and the price of that material for key contracts. What Firth Rixson does control in that situation is whether the production will occur at a company facility in the United States or abroad. The examiner’s analysis indicates that, given that certain ‘‘directed buy’’ contracts mandate the use of titanium from a specific foreign producer, the competitiveness of Firth Rixson’s Rochester plant would be improved (relative to Firth Rixson’s plants offshore and to competitors’ plants abroad) through unrestricted FTZ benefits on its processing of foreignorigin titanium. (In that situation, because Firth Rixson’s potential ‘‘directed buy’’ customer is seeking a company to process the specific, foreign-produced titanium already selected by the customer, there should be no impact on U.S. titanium producers.) In the absence of FTZ benefits, Firth Rixson would be more likely to need to conduct significant portions of its activity at one of its overseas plants in order to secure or retain a contract to process the specific foreign-origin titanium mandated by a potential customer. This would ultimately produce negative effects on employment at the U.S. plant and potentially on the plant’s overall viability. FTZ authority should reduce the apparent risk of loss of that activity (and associated employment) to foreign locations. Further, helping to maintain VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:53 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 Firth Rixson’s production and employment at the Monroe County plant through FTZ authority would likely promote positive secondary economic effects (particularly through maintained or increased purchases of titanium alloy from U.S. mills for contracts that do not mandate the use of specific, foreign-produced titanium alloy). Public comment is invited through February 13, 2013, on the revised preliminary recommendation and its underlying bases. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until February 28, 2013. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002. For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or (202) 482–1378. Dated: January 9, 2013. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–00587 Filed 1–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from Mexico for the period October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran at 202–482–1503 or Eric Greynolds at 202–482–6071, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On October 1, 2012, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico for the period of review, October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012.1 On October 31, 2012, Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’) requested that the Department conduct a review of Deacero S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Deacero’’), Ternium S.A, (including Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V. and Hylsa S.A. de C.C.) (collectively ‘‘Ternium’’), and ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. and its affiliate, ArcelorMittal International America LLC (collectively ‘‘AMLT’’), or any of their affiliates.2 On December 3, 2012, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico covering Deacero, Ternium, and AMLT.3 On December 18, 2012, Nucor withdrew its request for an administrative review.4 Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice initiating the review. Nucor withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline. No other interested party requested an administrative review of Deacero, Ternium, and AMLT, or any other entity. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all entries of wire rod from Mexico 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 the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review. 1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 77 FR 59894 (October 1, 2012). 2 See Letter from Nucor Corporation, ‘‘Request for Administrative Review’’ (October 31, 2012). 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 71575 (December 3, 2012). 4 See Letter from Nucor Corporation, ‘‘Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review’’ (December 18, 2012). E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM 14JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2657-2658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00587]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 30-2011]


Foreign-Trade Zone 141--Rochester, NY, Application for 
Manufacturing Authority, Firth Rixson, Inc. d/b/a Firth Rixson Monroe, 
Comment Period on Revised Preliminary Recommendation

    On April 29, 2011, an application was submitted by Monroe County, 
New York, grantee of FTZ 141, requesting authority on behalf of Firth 
Rixson, Inc. d/b/a Firth Rixson Monroe (Firth Rixson) to manufacture 
aircraft turbine components under FTZ procedures within FTZ 141 (76 FR 
25300-25301, 5/4/2011). In January 2012, the applicant was notified of 
the FTZ Board staff examiner's preliminary recommendation for approval 
of the request with a restriction requiring that foreign-origin 
titanium be admitted to Firth Rixson's FTZ operation in privileged 
foreign status (19 CFR Sec.  146.63) (absent that restriction, at the 
time that U.S. customs entry is made on aircraft turbine components 
produced in the FTZ incorporating foreign-sourced titanium, Firth 
Rixson would be able to apply to the foreign-sourced titanium the lower 
duty rates applicable to aircraft turbine components--an ``inverted 
tariff'' benefit). In June 2012, the applicant submitted new evidence 
and information in response to the factors considered in the 
preliminary recommendation. Firth Rixson's June 2012 submission was the 
subject of a Federal Register notice (77 FR 43572-43573, 7/25/2012) 
inviting public comment. Firth Rixson subsequently made a rebuttal 
submission in response to comments received during the comment period.
    After a full review of the evidence and information on the record 
to date (including all submissions by the applicant and other parties) 
in the context of the applicable criteria from the FTZ Board's 
regulations (15 CFR part 400), the examiner issued a revised 
preliminary recommendation on December 28, 2012. The examiner's revised 
preliminary recommendation is to approve the requested authority--i.e., 
to allow unrestricted FTZ benefits on foreign titanium used in 
production for the U.S. market and export--for a period of five years. 
Any authority beyond the five year period would require an additional 
application to the FTZ Board.
    The examiner's revised preliminary recommendation also includes a 
requirement for Firth Rixson to provide data on an ongoing basis to 
enable the FTZ Staff to conduct enhanced monitoring of the actual 
impact of Firth Rixson's FTZ use. If there were to be evidence of 
negative effects resulting from the company's FTZ use, the FTZ Board 
could review the activity and determine whether negative public 
interest impacts existed that warranted the imposition of a prohibition 
or restriction (see 15 CFR Sec.  400.49).
    The examiner's analysis indicates that allowing unrestricted FTZ 
benefits on foreign titanium used in production for the U.S. market and 
export for an initial five-year period should result in significant 
public benefits--such as maintained or increased U.S. employment--
without negative economic effects (e.g., would not result in increased 
imports of titanium alloy that otherwise would not have

[[Page 2658]]

occurred). In particular, the revised preliminary recommendation is 
based on an assessment that the requested authority is unlikely to have 
a negative impact on related domestic industry--such as reduced 
purchases of U.S.-produced titanium products--because key customers' 
contracts with Firth Rixson involve ``directed buys'' wherein the 
customer dictates the specific supplier of the titanium to be used by 
Firth Rixson in the production of its aircraft turbine components for 
the customer's use. ``Directed buy'' contracts enable the customer to 
retain tight control over the specifications and quality of the 
titanium used to produce components for that customer. Key ``directed 
buy'' contractual provisions include a designated source (i.e., the 
actual supplier of the titanium alloy to be processed by Firth Rixson) 
and a transaction price(s) (i.e., unit price(s) for titanium alloy pre-
established by negotiations solely involving Firth Rixson's customer 
and the producer of the titanium alloy selected by that customer). 
Under longstanding ``directed buy'' practices within the aerospace 
industry, Firth Rixson does not control the sourcing of titanium alloy 
and the price of that material for key contracts. What Firth Rixson 
does control in that situation is whether the production will occur at 
a company facility in the United States or abroad.
    The examiner's analysis indicates that, given that certain 
``directed buy'' contracts mandate the use of titanium from a specific 
foreign producer, the competitiveness of Firth Rixson's Rochester plant 
would be improved (relative to Firth Rixson's plants offshore and to 
competitors' plants abroad) through unrestricted FTZ benefits on its 
processing of foreign-origin titanium. (In that situation, because 
Firth Rixson's potential ``directed buy'' customer is seeking a company 
to process the specific, foreign-produced titanium already selected by 
the customer, there should be no impact on U.S. titanium producers.) In 
the absence of FTZ benefits, Firth Rixson would be more likely to need 
to conduct significant portions of its activity at one of its overseas 
plants in order to secure or retain a contract to process the specific 
foreign-origin titanium mandated by a potential customer. This would 
ultimately produce negative effects on employment at the U.S. plant and 
potentially on the plant's overall viability. FTZ authority should 
reduce the apparent risk of loss of that activity (and associated 
employment) to foreign locations. Further, helping to maintain Firth 
Rixson's production and employment at the Monroe County plant through 
FTZ authority would likely promote positive secondary economic effects 
(particularly through maintained or increased purchases of titanium 
alloy from U.S. mills for contracts that do not mandate the use of 
specific, foreign-produced titanium alloy).
    Public comment is invited through February 13, 2013, on the revised 
preliminary recommendation and its underlying bases. Rebuttal comments 
may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until February 
28, 2013. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive 
Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002.
    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov 
or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00587 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.