North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review, 33049-33050 [2017-15168]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
Department preliminarily determined
that critical circumstances did not exist
for the mandatory respondent
ARLANXEO Brasil or the exporters and
producers not individually investigated
(i.e., ‘‘all-others’’). In this final, the
Department continues to find that, in
accordance with 735(a)(3) of the Act,
critical circumstances do not exist for
ARLANXEO Brasil or the nonindividually examined companies
receiving the all-others rate in this
investigation. A discussion of the
determination can be found in the
‘‘Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances’’ section of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend
liquidation of all appropriate entries of
ESB rubber from Brazil as described in
Appendix I of this notice, which were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after February 24,
2017, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination of this
investigation in the Federal Register.
Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the
Department will instruct CBP to require
a cash deposit equal to the estimated
weighted-average dumping margin or
the estimated all-others rate, as follows:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the
respondents listed above will be equal
to the respondent-specific estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
determined in this final determination;
(2) if the exporter is not a respondent
identified above, but the producer is,
then the cash deposit rate will be equal
to the respondent-specific estimated
weighted-average dumping margin
established for that producer of the
subject merchandise; and (3) the cash
deposit rate for all other producers and
exporters will be equal to the all-others
estimated weighted-average dumping
margin.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose to
interested parties its calculations and
analysis performed in this final
determination within five days of any
public announcement or, if there is no
public announcement, within five days
of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
(ESBR) from Brazil and South Korea: Critical
Circumstances Allegation,’’ dated January 25, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, the Department will notify the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of
its final affirmative determination.
Because the final determination in this
proceeding is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the
ITC will make its final determination as
to whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of ESB rubber from
Brazil no later than 45 days after the
Department’s final determination. If the
ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist,
the proceeding will be terminated and
all securities posted will be refunded or
canceled. If the ITC determines that
such injury does exist, the Department
will issue an antidumping duty order
directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department,
antidumping duties on appropriate
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
the suspension of liquidation.
Notification to Regarding
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to an administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is
a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are
issued and published pursuant to
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
Dated: July 10, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the
product covered is cold-polymerized
emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB
rubber). The scope of the investigation
includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in
primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs,
pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc.
ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented
rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33049
rubbers, both of which contain at least one
percent of organic acids from the emulsion
polymerization process.
ESB rubber is produced and sold in
accordance with a generally accepted set of
product specifications issued by the
International Institute of Synthetic Rubber
Producers (IISRP). The scope of the
investigation covers grades of ESB rubber
included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series
of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are
light in color and are often described as
‘‘Clear’’ or ‘‘White Rubber.’’ The 1700 grades
are oil-extended and thus darker in color,
and are often called ‘‘Brown Rubber.’’
Specifically excluded from the scope of
this investigation are products which are
manufactured by blending ESB rubber with
other polymers, high styrene resin master
batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP
1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an
intermediate product).
The products subject to this investigation
are currently classifiable under subheadings
4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by
Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry
No. 9003–55–8. This CAS number also refers
to other types of styrene butadiene rubber.
Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS
registry number are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of this investigation
is dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Investigation
IV. Scope Comments
V. Final Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances
VI. Margin Calculations
VII. Discussion of the Issues
Comment 1: Level of Trade
Comment 2: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 3: Domestic Indirect Selling
Expense Clerical Error
VIII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2017–14954 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Review: Notice of Request for Panel
Review
United States Section, NAFTA
Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
A Request for Panel Review
was filed on behalf of Maquilacero S.A.
de C.V. with the United States Section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
33050
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
of the NAFTA Secretariat on July 12,
2017, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904.
Panel Review was requested of the
Department of Commerce’s final
determination regarding Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Mexico. The final results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
and final determination of no
shipments, 2014–2015, was published
in the Federal Register on June 13, 2017
(82 FR 27039). The NAFTA Secretariat
has assigned case number USA–MEX–
2017–1904–01 to this request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
E. Morris, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism
involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico. Following a
Request for Panel Review, a Binational
Panel is composed to review the trade
remedy determination being challenged
and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational
Panel Reviews, which were adopted by
the three governments for panels
requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of
NAFTA which requires Requests for
Panel Review to be published in
accordance with Rule 35. For the
complete Rules, please see https://
www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Textsof-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/
Article-1904.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may
challenge the final determination in
whole or in part by filing a Complaint
in accordance with Rule 39 within 30
days after the filing of the first Request
for Panel Review (the deadline for filing
a Complaint is August 11, 2017);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or
interested person that does not file a
Complaint but that intends to appear in
support of any reviewable portion of the
final determination may participate in
the panel review by filing a Notice of
Appearance in accordance with Rule 40
within 45 days after the filing of the first
Request for Panel Review (the deadline
for filing a Notice of Appearance is
August 28, 2017); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited
to the allegations of error of fact or law,
including challenges to the jurisdiction
of the investigating authority, that are
set out in the Complaints filed in the
panel review and to the procedural and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
substantive defenses raised in the panel
review.
Dated: July 14, 2017.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2017–15168 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–469–818]
Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
DATES: Applicable July 12, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Shore at (202) 482–2778, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petition
On June 22, 2017,1 the Department of
Commerce (Department) received a
countervailing duty (CVD) petition
concerning imports of ripe olives from
Spain, filed in proper form, on behalf of
the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe
Olives and its individual members, BellCarter Foods, Inc. and Musco Family
Olive Co. (collectively, the petitioner).
The CVD Petition was accompanied by
an antidumping duty (AD) Petition. The
petitioners are domestic producers of
processed olives, usually referred to as
‘‘ripe olives.’’
On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and
June 28, 2017, the Department requested
additional information and clarification
of certain aspects of the Petition.2 The
petitioner filed responses to these
requests on June 27, 2017, June 30,
2017, and July 3, 2017.3 On July 5, 2017,
1 The petition was filed with the U.S. Department
of Commerce (the Department) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC) on June 21,
2017, after 12:00 noon, and pursuant to 19 CFR
207.10(a), are deemed to have been filed on the next
business day, June 22, 2017. See Memorandum,
‘‘Decision Memorandum Concerning the Filing Date
of the Petition,’’ dated June 23, 2017.
2 See Department Letter re: General Issues
Supplemental Questions, dated June 23, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental); Department Letter
re: Second General Issues Supplemental Questions,
dated June 28, 2017 (Second General Issues
Supplemental); and Department Letter re:
Countervailing Duty Petition Supplement Question,
dated June 27, 2017.
3 See The petitioner’s July 3, 2017 Supplement to
the CVD Petition (CVD Supplement).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
´
Associacion de Exportadores e
Industiales de Aceitunas de Mesa
(ASEMESA), an interested party,
requested the Department poll the
domestic industry of olive growers and
the workers employed by them.4 On
July 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted
rebuttal comments to ASEMESA’s
polling request 5 final proposed scope
language. ASEMESA submitted an
additional argument and request for the
Department to poll the domestic
industry of olive growers on July 10,
2017.6 Also on July 10, 2017, the
Department held consultations with
respect to the CVD Petition, the
Government of Spain (GOS) and the
European Commission (EC) provided
comments on the countervailability of
the alleged programs and requested
clarification on the procedural
timelines. The GOS and the EC
submitted their comments in written
form that same day.7 On July 12, 2017,
Acorsa USA, Inc., Atalanta Corporation,
Mario Camacho Foods, LLC, Mitsui
Foods, Inc., and Schreiber Foods
International, Inc. revised and
resubmitted their July 11, 2017,
submission, which was previously
rejected. However, this new submission
was filed too late for us to consider.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
GOS and the European Union are
providing countervailable subsidies
within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of ripe olives
from Spain, and that imports of such
ripe olives are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an
industry in the United States.
Additionally, consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is
accompanied by information reasonably
available to the petitioner supporting its
allegations of subsidy programs in Spain
on which we are initiating a CVD
investigation.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because the
petitioner is an interested party, as
4 See ASEMESA’s July 5, 2017 Industry Support
Comments and Request to Poll Industry (July 5
ASEMESA Comments).
5 See The petitioner’s July 7, 2017 Final Scope
Language and Response to Industry Support
Comments (The petitioner’s Rebuttal Comments).
6 See ASEMESA’s July 10, 2017 Industry Support
Comments and Request to Poll Industry (July 10
ASEMESA Comments).
7 See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ‘‘Ripe Olives from
´
Spain Countervailing Duty Petition: Consultations
with Officials from Spain and European Union,’’
dated July 11, 2017. See, also European
Commission and the Government of Spain
Consultation Comments, dated July 10, 2017.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33049-33050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15168]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904
Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review
AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Maquilacero
S.A. de C.V. with the United States Section
[[Page 33050]]
of the NAFTA Secretariat on July 12, 2017, pursuant to NAFTA Article
1904. Panel Review was requested of the Department of Commerce's final
determination regarding Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Mexico. The final results of the antidumping duty administrative
review and final determination of no shipments, 2014-2015, was
published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2017 (82 FR 27039). The
NAFTA Secretariat has assigned case number USA-MEX-2017-1904-01 to this
request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Morris, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy
determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments
for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which
requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with
Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final
determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance
with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for
Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is August 11, 2017);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does
not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any
reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the
panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule
40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel
Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is August 28,
2017); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error
of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the
investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in
the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised
in the panel review.
Dated: July 14, 2017.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2017-15168 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P