Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49437 

1The Department determined that Lamina is the 

successor-in-interest to TUNA. See Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded 

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico, 75 FR 82374 

(December 30, 2010). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Billfish Tagging Report. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0009. 

Form Number(s): NOAA 88–162. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 1,000. 

Average Hours Per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Burden Hours: 83. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection. 

The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

operates a billfish tagging program. 

Tagging supplies are provided to 

volunteer anglers. When anglers catch 

and release a tagged fish they submit a 

brief report on the fish and the location 

of the tagging. The information obtained 

is used in conjunction with tag returns 

to determine billfish migration patterns, 

mortality rates, and similar information 

useful in the management of the billfish 

fisheries. This program is authorized 

under 16 U.S.C. 760(e), Study of 

migratory game fish; waters; research; 

purpose. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: OIRA 

Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20286 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–805] 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 

from Mexico. This administrative 

review covers mandatory respondents 

Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. 

de C.V. (Mueller), Southland Pipe 

Nipples Company, Inc. (Southland), 

Lamina y Placa Comercial, S.A. de C.V. 

(Lamina), and Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de 

C.V. (TUNA).1 The period of review 

(POR) is November 1, 2009, through 

October 31, 2010. 

The respondents provided 

certifications of no shipments. We 

sought further clarification of a specific 

entry indicated by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) data and 

analyzed parties’ explanations of this 

entry. The Department’s review of 

import data supports the claims of the 

respondents. We preliminarily 

determine that the respondents did not 

have reviewable sales, shipments, or 

entries during the POR. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, 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) 482–6312 or (202) 482– 

0469, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 1992, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe from Mexico. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and 

Amendment to Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 

Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) 

(Antidumping Duty Order). On 

November 1, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review in the 

Federal Register. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 67079 (November 1, 2010). On 

November 30, 2010, the Department 

received multiple requests for 

administrative review. Mueller 

requested a review of itself and 

Southland. Southland requested a 

review of itself and Mueller. U.S. Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel) requested 

reviews of Mueller, Southland, TUNA, 

and Lamina. Wheatland Tube Company 

(Wheatland) requested reviews of 

Mueller and Southland. Allied Tube 

and Conduit and TMK IPSCO Tubulars 

(Allied/TMK) requested reviews of 

Mueller, Southland, TUNA, and 

Lamina. On December 28, 2010, the 

Department published a Federal 

Register notice initiating an 

antidumping administrative review. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). The Department 

stated in its initiation of this review that 

it intended to rely on CBP data to select 

respondents if respondent selection was 

considered appropriate. See Initiation 

Notice. For the purpose of potential 

respondent selection, we made a data 

inquiry to CBP and placed certain 

documents from this data query on the 

record. See memorandum from Mark 

Flessner to the File entitled, ‘‘Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Carbon 

Steel Pipe from Mexico: Customs and 

Border Protection Documents,’’ dated 

March 17, 2011 (CBP Documents 

Memorandum). For further discussion 

of these documents, see the ‘‘No 

Shipments Claims’’ section below. 

On January 25, 2011, Wheatland 

requested that the Department conduct 

a duty absorption inquiry with regard to 

Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium 

Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

Mueller responded to this request on 

February 22, 2011. 

On January 26, 2011, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping 

questionnaire to Mueller and Southland 

(both represented by the same counsel) 

and to Lamina (at the time, the 

successor-in-interest to TUNA). 

On February 16, 2011, Lamina 

claimed that it and TUNA (on whose 

behalf it was responding) had made no 

shipments or entries for consumption of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. On February 25, 

2011, Mueller claimed that it had made 

no shipments or entries for 

consumption of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR, 

providing documentation in support of 

its claim. On March 11, 2011, Mueller 

provided additional documentation in 

support of its claim. 

On April 7, 2011, Wheatland 

requested that the Department conduct 

verifications of both Mueller and 

Lamina. On April 8, 2011, Lamina 

responded to Wheatland’s verification 

request. 

On April 13, 2011, Wheatland 

submitted comments concerning the 

CBP data contained in the March 17, 

2011, memorandum cited above. On 

April 19, 2011, U.S. Steel placed the 

verification report from the previous 

segment of this proceeding on the 

record of the instant segment. 

On May 19, 2011, we sent a ‘‘No 

Shipments Inquiry’’ to CBP to confirm 

that there were no shipments or entries 

of certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe from Mexico by Mueller 

during the POR. On July 19, 2011, we 

sent additional such inquiries to CBP to 

confirm that there were no shipments or 

entries of certain circular welded nonalloy steel pipe from Mexico by TUNA, 

Lamina, and Southland during the POR. 

On July 19, 2011, Southland submitted 

a clarification of its February 25, 2011, 

submission; it stated specifically that 

Southland (as an entity distinct from 

Mueller) neither produced nor exported 

any subject merchandise during the 

POR. We received no information from 

CBP to contradict the statements of 

Mueller, Southland, and Lamina 

(including TUNA) and the results of our 

data query that there were no shipments 

or entries of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are circular welded non-alloy steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters 

(16 inches) in outside diameter, 

regardless of wall thickness, surface 

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or 

end finish (plain end, beveled end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled). 

These pipes and tubes are generally 

known as standard pipes and tubes and 

are intended for the low pressure 

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, 

and other liquids and gases in plumbing 

and heating systems, air conditioning 

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and 

other related uses, and generally meet 

ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard 

pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence 

tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 

used for framing and support members 

for reconstruction or load-bearing 

purposes in the construction, 

shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, 

and related industries. Unfinished 

conduit pipe is also included in these 

orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes 

within the physical description outlined 

above are included within the scope of 

this order, except line pipe, oil country 

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical 

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 

redraws, finished scaffolding, and 

finished conduit. Standard pipe that is 

dual or triple certified/stenciled that 

enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind 

used for oil or gas pipelines is also not 

included in this order. 

The merchandise covered by the order 

and subject to this review are currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of these proceedings is 

dispositive. 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

A. No Shipments Claims 

As noted above, the respondents 

submitted letters to the Department 

indicating that they made no shipments 

or entries of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR that are 

subject to this administrative review. In 

response to the Department’s query, 

CBP data showed that a single entry of 

subject merchandise may have entered 

for consumption into the United States 

during the POR. See CBP Documents 

Memorandum at Attachment 1. In its 

February 25, 2011, claim of no 

shipments, Mueller and Southland 

addressed the status of this single entry, 

providing additional documentation on 

March 11, 2011. The documentation 

submitted by Mueller and Southland 

demonstrated that the single entry in 

question had been mischaracterized as 

subject merchandise. This 

documentation demonstrated that 

Mueller and Southland had applied 

for—and received CBP approval for—a 

post-entry amendment to the entry in 

question. This is confirmed by the 

Department’s ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry’’ 

to CBP with regard to Mueller. CBP 

provided no information identifying 

additional Mueller shipments. The 

customs documents related to the single 

suspect entry were the same that had 

been submitted by Mueller and 

Southland to explain that the entry had 

been mischaracterized by Southland’s 

customs broker. See CBP Documents 

Memorandum at Attachment 2. The 

above explanation is equally applicable 

to TUNA, which is confirmed by the 

Department’s ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry’’ 

to CBP with regard to TUNA. See CBP 

Documents Memorandum (containing 

proprietary information not susceptible 

to public summary). 

In addition, as stated above, the 

Department sent a ‘‘No Shipments 

Inquiry’’ to CBP with regard to Lamina 

and Southland to confirm that there 

were no shipments or entries of certain 

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 

from Mexico by either respondent 

during the POR. We received no 

information from CBP to contradict the 

results of our data query and the claims 

made by each respondent. 

Therefore, because the evidence on 

the record indicates that Mueller, 

Southland, TUNA, and Lamina made no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that there are 

no reviewable transactions during the 

POR for each of the respondents for 

whom reviews were requested. 

Since the implementation of the 1997 

regulations, our practice concerning no 

shipment respondents had been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and we have confirmed 

through our examination of CBP data 

that there were no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997); see also Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September 

5, 2007), unchanged in Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from Japan: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). In 

such circumstances, we normally 

instructed CBP to liquidate any entries 

from the no shipment company at the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49439 

deposit rate in effect on the date of 

entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by the 

respondents, and exported by other 

parties at the all-others rate, should we 

continue to find that the respondents 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise in the POR in our final 

results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 

From the Russian Federation: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), 

unchanged in Magnesium Metal From 

the Russian Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September 

17, 2010). In addition, the Department 

finds that it is more consistent with the 

May 2003 clarification not to rescind the 

review in its entirety but, rather, to 

complete the review with respect to the 

respondents, issuing appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

B. Duty Absorption 

On January 25, 2011, Wheatland 

requested that the Department conduct 

a duty absorption inquiry with regard to 

Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium 

Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium). 

Mueller responded to this request on 

February 22, 2011. Section 751(a)(4) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), provides for the Department, if 

requested, to determine during an 

administrative review initiated two or 

four years after publication of the order 

whether antidumping duties have been 

absorbed by the foreign producer or 

exporter if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

affiliated importer. See also 19 CFR 

351.213(j). First, Ternium is not a 

respondent in this administrative 

review. Notwithstanding, because this 

review was not initiated at the two-year 

or four-year interval from publication of 

the antidumping duty order, a duty 

absorption inquiry is not authorized. 

See Antidumping Duty Order. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department intends to 

issue appraisement instructions directly 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

As noted above, the Department 

clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ 

regulation on May 6, 2003. See 

Assessment Policy Notice. This 

clarification will apply to POR entries 

by each respondent company if we 

continue to make a final determination 

of no shipments based upon their 

certifications that they made no POR 

shipments of subject merchandise for 

which they had knowledge of U.S. 

destination. We will instruct CBP to 

liquidate these entries at the all-others 

rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation (32.62 percent) if 

there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

The preliminary results of 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: August 2, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20331 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–867] 

Large Power Transformers From the 

Republic of Korea: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482–3019 or 

David Cordell at 202–482–0408, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On July 14, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

a petition concerning imports of large 

liquid dielectric power transformers 

(‘‘large power transformers’’) from the 

Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), filed in 

proper form on behalf of ABB Inc., Delta 

Star, Inc. and Pennsylvania Transformer 

Technology, Inc., (collectively, ‘‘the 

Petitioners’’). See the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea, filed on July 14, 2011 

(‘‘the Petition’’). On July 20, 2011, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. The 

Petitioners filed a response to this 

request on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter, 

‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). In 

accordance with section 732(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Petitioners allege that imports 

of large power transformers from Korea 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. On July 28, 2011, the 

Petitioners filed an amendment to the 

Petition in which they revised the scope 

language, amended the lost sales listing 

and provided the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) page for HTSUS number 

8504.90.9540, (hereinafter, ‘‘Second 

Supplement to the Petition’’). On 

August 1, 2011, the Petitioners filed an 

additional amendment to the Petition 

with respect to industry support for the 

Petition (hereinafter, ‘‘Third 

Supplement to the Petition’’). 

On July 28, 2011, the Department 

received a standing challenge to the 

Petition by Hyosung Corporation, a 

Korean producer and exporter of the 

subject merchandise, and its U.S. 

affiliate HICO America Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Hyosung’’). On July 29, 

2011, the Department received a 

standing challenge to the petition by 

Hyundai Corporation, a Korean 

producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate 

Hyundai Corporation, USA 

(collectively, ‘‘Hyundai’’). The 

Petitioners responded to HICO’s and 

Hyundai’s submission on August 1, 

2011 (hereinafter, ‘‘Fourth Supplement 

to the Petition’’). 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES