Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 22211-22212 [2016-08787]
Download as PDF
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices
current zone includes the following
sites: Site 1 (534 acres)—Oneida County
Airport Industrial Park, Oneida County
Airport, Oriskany; Site 2 (412 acres)—
West Rome Industrial Park, 1 Success
Dr, Rome; Site 2a (100 acres)—Griffiss
Business & Technology Park Hanger
Road, Rome; Site 3 (100 acres)—
Boonville Industrial Park, Industrial
Road, Boonville; Site 4 (82 acres)—Utica
Business Park, Business Park Drive,
Utica; and, Site 5 (52 acres)—East
Arterial Industrial Park, Dwyer Avenue,
Utica. The zone also includes Subzone
172A (Oneida Ltd.) with three sites in
Sherrill and Oneida, New York.
The grantee’s proposed service area
under the ASF would be Oneida
County, New York, as described in the
application. If approved, the grantee
would be able to serve sites throughout
the service area based on companies’
needs for FTZ designation. The
application indicates that the proposed
service area is within and adjacent to
the Syracuse, New York Customs and
Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority
to renumber existing Site 2a as Site 6
and to include the renumbered Site 6 as
a ‘‘magnet’’ site, as well as to remove
Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Subzone 172A.
The ASF allows for the possible
exemption of one magnet site from the
‘‘sunset’’ time limits that generally
apply to sites under the ASF, and the
applicant proposes that Site 6 be so
exempted. The applicant is also
requesting approval of the following
magnet site: Proposed Site 7 (316.5
acres)—Marcy Nanocenter at SUNYIT,
5737 Marcy-SUNYIT Parkway, Marcy,
Oneida County.
In accordance with the FTZ Board’s
regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
evaluate and analyze the facts and
information presented in the application
and case record and to report findings
and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is June
14, 2016. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
June 29, 2016.
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 FTZ
Board’s Web site, which is accessible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further
information, contact Elizabeth
Whiteman at Elizabeth.Whiteman@
trade.gov or (202) 482–0473.
Dated: April 12, 2016.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–08791 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–823–805]
Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Notice
of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten,
AD/CVD Operations, Office I,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0665,
and (202) 482–1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On August 3, 2015, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published
in the Federal Register a notice of
‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review’’ of the antidumping duty order
on silicomanganese from Ukraine for the
period of review (POR), August 1, 2014,
through July 31, 2015.1 On September 3,
2015, we received an untimely-filed
request 2 for an administrative review
from two Ukrainian producers and/or
exporters of silicomanganese, JSC
Zaporizhya Ferroalloy Plant (ZFP) and
JSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant (NFP),
requesting an administrative review of
exports of subject merchandise for the
period of September 1, 2014, through
August 31, 2015. On September 21,
2015, we received comments from a
domestic interested party, Eramet
Marietta, Inc. (Eramet), objecting to
initiation and placing on the record
certain import statistics stating that
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 80 FR 45952
(August 3, 2015) (August 2015 Opportunity Notice).
2 The Ukrainian producers’ September 3, 2015,
request for an administrative review was untimely
under 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 19 CFR 351.302(d)
because we did not receive it during the anniversary
month of August 2015, as required by the
regulations and specified in the August 2015
Opportunity Notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22211
there were no entries of subject
merchandise from Ukraine during the
period of review.
On October 6, 2015, the Department
initiated the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Ukraine with
respect to ZFP and NFP for the POR,
August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015,3
notwithstanding the untimely nature of
the Ukrainian producers’ request for
review.
In accordance with our practice, we
requested information from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
concerning imports of subject
merchandise from these companies
during the POR. We received the
requested CBP information, which
showed that neither ZFP nor NFP had
suspended entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. On
October 6, 2015, we documented this
finding and invited comments from
interested parties regarding this CBP
query result.4
On October 19, 2015, we received
comments from domestic interested
parties, Eramet and Felman Production,
LLC (collectively, U.S. producers). On
October 20, 2015, we received
comments from ZFP and NFP
(Ukrainian producers). ZFP’s and NFP’s
October 20, 2015, submission contained
documentation establishing that both
companies made both a sale and an
entry of subject merchandise in August
2015.
Because there is no evidence that
there were entries of subject
merchandise into the United States from
Ukraine during the POR, on November
17, 2015, the Department placed a
memorandum on the record notifying
interested parties of its intent to rescind
the 2014–2015 administrative review of
silicomanganese from Ukraine, and
invited comments.5 In its November 17,
2015, memorandum, the Department
rejected the Ukrainian producers’
arguments that the Department provided
defective or inadequate notice
concerning the correct anniversary
month of the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Ukraine, and
found no basis to alter the POR to
capture the Ukrainian producers’ entries
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR
60356 (October 6, 2015).
4 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Silicomanganese
from Ukraine—U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) Data’’ dated October 6, 2015.
5 See Memorandum to James Maeder, Senior
Director for AD/CVD Operations, Office I, ‘‘2014–
2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Silicomanganese from Ukraine; Intent to Rescind
Administrative Review’’ dated November 17, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
22212
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices
of subject merchandise made after the
POR.6
On November 24, 2015, we received
comments from ZFP and NFP. On
November 30, 2015, we received
rebuttal comments from U.S. producers.
Rescission of Review
It is the Department’s practice to
rescind an administrative review
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) when
there are no suspended entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
from the country in question.7 At the
end of an administrative review, all
suspended entries during the POR for
the parties under review are liquidated
at the assessment rate computed in the
final results of review.8 Therefore, since
the purpose of an administrative review
is to assess antidumping duties, there
must be a suspended AD/CVD entry to
be liquidated at the newly calculated
assessment rate. As discussed in the
Decision Memorandum accompanying
this notice,9 we find that, because there
were no entries of subject merchandise
during the POR from Ukraine, we are
rescinding the 2014–2015
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Ukraine, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by parties in this
administrative review are addressed in
the accompanying Decision
Memorandum, which is adopted by this
notice. The Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov, and to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed and electronic versions of
the Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6 Id.
7 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From Brazil: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 32498 (June 1,
2012).
8 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(l).
9 See Memorandum to James Maeder, Senior
Director for AD/CVD Operations, Office I, ‘‘2014–
2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Silicomanganese from Ukraine; Rescission of
Administrative Review’’ dated concurrently with
this notice (Decision Memorandum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Apr 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
This notice is published in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: April 7, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
merchandise is currently classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 2922.49.4020. The HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes only; the written
product description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.2
[FR Doc. 2016–08787 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
Methodology
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
The Department is conducting this
review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). For a full
description of the methodology
underlying our conclusions, see
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
This memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
access.trade.gov and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
frn/. The signed and the electronic
versions of the memorandum are
identical in content.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–836]
Glycine From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2014–2015
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on glycine from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The period of review (POR) is March 1,
2014, through February 28, 2015. This
review covers five companies, Baoding
Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd.
(Baoding Mantong), Nutracare
International (Nutracare), Ravi
Industries (Ravi), Kumar Industries
(Kumar), and Rudraa International
(Rudraa). The Department preliminarily
finds that these five companies did not
have reviewable entries during the POR.
We invite interested parties to comment
on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dena Crossland or Brian Davis, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–
7924, respectively.
AGENCY:
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the
antidumping duty order is glycine,
which is a free-flowing crystalline
material, like salt or sugar.1 The subject
1 See ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China; 2014–2015’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently
with this notice (Preliminary Decision
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On April 30, 2015, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative
review.3 For a detailed background
discussion, see Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that Baoding Mantong,
Kumar, Nutracare, Ravi, and Rudraa did
not have reviewable transactions of
subject merchandise during the POR.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results and
may submit case briefs and/or written
comments, filed electronically using
ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case
Memorandum), for a complete description of the
scope of the order.
2 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Antidumping Duty Order, 60 FR 16116
(March 29, 1995).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR
24233 (April 30, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22211-22212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08787]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-823-805]
Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665, and (202)
482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Ukraine for the period of review (POR), August 1,
2014, through July 31, 2015.\1\ On September 3, 2015, we received an
untimely-filed request \2\ for an administrative review from two
Ukrainian producers and/or exporters of silicomanganese, JSC Zaporizhya
Ferroalloy Plant (ZFP) and JSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant (NFP),
requesting an administrative review of exports of subject merchandise
for the period of September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015. On
September 21, 2015, we received comments from a domestic interested
party, Eramet Marietta, Inc. (Eramet), objecting to initiation and
placing on the record certain import statistics stating that there were
no entries of subject merchandise from Ukraine during the period of
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 80 FR 45952 (August 3, 2015) (August 2015 Opportunity
Notice).
\2\ The Ukrainian producers' September 3, 2015, request for an
administrative review was untimely under 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 19
CFR 351.302(d) because we did not receive it during the anniversary
month of August 2015, as required by the regulations and specified
in the August 2015 Opportunity Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2015, the Department initiated the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Ukraine
with respect to ZFP and NFP for the POR, August 1, 2014, through July
31, 2015,\3\ notwithstanding the untimely nature of the Ukrainian
producers' request for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 60356 (October 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with our practice, we requested information from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) concerning imports of subject
merchandise from these companies during the POR. We received the
requested CBP information, which showed that neither ZFP nor NFP had
suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On October 6,
2015, we documented this finding and invited comments from interested
parties regarding this CBP query result.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Silicomanganese from Ukraine--
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Data'' dated October 6,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2015, we received comments from domestic interested
parties, Eramet and Felman Production, LLC (collectively, U.S.
producers). On October 20, 2015, we received comments from ZFP and NFP
(Ukrainian producers). ZFP's and NFP's October 20, 2015, submission
contained documentation establishing that both companies made both a
sale and an entry of subject merchandise in August 2015.
Because there is no evidence that there were entries of subject
merchandise into the United States from Ukraine during the POR, on
November 17, 2015, the Department placed a memorandum on the record
notifying interested parties of its intent to rescind the 2014-2015
administrative review of silicomanganese from Ukraine, and invited
comments.\5\ In its November 17, 2015, memorandum, the Department
rejected the Ukrainian producers' arguments that the Department
provided defective or inadequate notice concerning the correct
anniversary month of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from
Ukraine, and found no basis to alter the POR to capture the Ukrainian
producers' entries
[[Page 22212]]
of subject merchandise made after the POR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to James Maeder, Senior Director for AD/CVD
Operations, Office I, ``2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Silicomanganese from Ukraine; Intent to Rescind
Administrative Review'' dated November 17, 2015.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 24, 2015, we received comments from ZFP and NFP. On
November 30, 2015, we received rebuttal comments from U.S. producers.
Rescission of Review
It is the Department's practice to rescind an administrative review
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) when there are no suspended entries of
subject merchandise during the POR from the country in question.\7\ At
the end of an administrative review, all suspended entries during the
POR for the parties under review are liquidated at the assessment rate
computed in the final results of review.\8\ Therefore, since the
purpose of an administrative review is to assess antidumping duties,
there must be a suspended AD/CVD entry to be liquidated at the newly
calculated assessment rate. As discussed in the Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice,\9\ we find that, because there were no
entries of subject merchandise during the POR from Ukraine, we are
rescinding the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on silicomanganese from Ukraine, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77
FR 32498 (June 1, 2012).
\8\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(l).
\9\ See Memorandum to James Maeder, Senior Director for AD/CVD
Operations, Office I, ``2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Silicomanganese from Ukraine; Rescission of Administrative
Review'' dated concurrently with this notice (Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by parties in this administrative review are
addressed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by
this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on
file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and
to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: April 7, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-08787 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P