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
<![CDATA[
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
