50176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 

warrant an initiation of a formal anticircumvention inquiry. In accordance 

with section 351.225(e) of the 

Department’s regulations, if the 

Department finds that the issue of 

whether a product is included within 

the scope of an order cannot be 

determined based solely upon the 

application and the descriptions of the 

merchandise, the Department will notify 

by mail all parties on the Department’s 

scope service list of the initiation of a 

scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, in 

accordance with section 351.225(f)(1)(ii) 

of the Department’s regulations, a notice 

of the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 

paragraph (e) of this section includes a 

description of the product that is the 

subject of the anti-circumvention 

inquiry—drill pipe that contain the 

characteristics as provided in the scope 

of the Drill Pipe Orders, and an 

explanation of the reasons for the 

Department’s decision to initiate an 

anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided 

below. 

With regard to whether the 

merchandise from the UAE is of the 

same class or kind as the merchandise 

produced in the PRC, the Petitioners 

have presented information to the 

Department indicating that, pursuant to 

section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

merchandise being exported from the 

UAE by Almansoori/Hilong may be of 

the same class or kind as drill pipe 

produced in the PRC, which is subject 

to the Drill Pipe Orders. Consequently, 

the Department finds that the 

Petitioners have provided sufficient 

information in their request regarding 

the class of kind of merchandise to 

support the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. 

With regard to completion or 

assembly of merchandise in a foreign 

country, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B) 

of the Act, the Petitioners have also 

presented information to the 

Department indicating that the drill 

pipe exported from the UAE to the 

United States is assembled by 

Almansoori/Hilong in the UAE from 

pipe and tool joints produced in the 

PRC. We find that the information 

presented by the Petitioners regarding 

this criterion supports their request to 

initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

The Department believes that the 

Petitioners sufficiently addressed the 

factors described in section 781(b)(2) of 

the Act regarding whether the friction 

welding of pipe to tool joints in the UAE 

is minor or insignificant. Specifically, in 

support of their argument, the 

Petitioners relied on their own 

experience and surrogate values from 

the less-than-fair-value investigation. 

Thus, we find that the information 

presented by the Petitioners supports 

their request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, we 

find that the Petitioners’ submissions 

suggest that (1) little investment has 

been made by Hilong in its drill pipe 

welding operations in the UAE, (2) 

Hilong has fully integrated production 

facilities in the PRC, and therefore, 

research and development presumably 

takes place in the PRC rather than the 

UAE, (3) the friction welding of pipe to 

tool joints in the UAE does not alter the 

fundamental characteristics of the drill 

pipe, nor does it remove it from the 

scope of the Drill Pipe Orders, (4) 

Almansoori/Hilong has a lower 

investment level than companies that 

manufacture pipe and tool joints and (5) 

friction welding pipe to tool joints adds 

little value to the merchandise imported 

to the United States. Our analysis will 

focus on Almansoori/Hilong’s assembly 

operations in the UAE and, in the 

context of this proceeding, we will 

closely examine the manner in which 

this company’s processing materials are 

obtained, whether those materials are 

considered subject to the scope of the 

Drill Pipe Orders, and the extent of 

processing in the UAE, as well as the 

manner in which production and sales 

relationships are conducted with the 

alleged PRC and U.S. affiliates. 

With respect to the value of the 

merchandise produced in the PRC, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the 

Act, the Petitioners relied on one of its 

member’s information and arguments in 

the ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’ 

portion of its anti-circumvention request 

to indicate that the value of the pipe and 

tool joint may be significant relative to 

the total value of finished drill pipe 

exported to the United States. We find 

that the information adequately meets 

the requirements of this factor, as 

discussed above, for the purposes of 

initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

Finally, the Petitioners argue that 

pursuant to section 781(b)(3) of the Act 

the Department considers the pattern of 

trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 

volumes as factors in determining 

whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. Here, we find 

that imports of drill pipe from the PRC 

decreased after the initiation of the 

investigations, that the Almansoori/ 

Hilong joint venture in the UAE is 

affiliated to Hilong, and that the U.S. 

import data submitted by the Petitioners 

suggests that imports of drill pipe have 

risen since the investigations. 

Accordingly, based on the Petitioners’ 

submissions, we have determined that 

we have a sufficient basis to initiate a 

formal anti-circumvention inquiry 

concerning the Drill Pipe Orders, 

pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In 

accordance with section 351.225(l)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations, if the 

Department issues a preliminary 

affirmative determination, we will then 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to suspend liquidation and 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

duties on the merchandise. 

This anti-circumvention inquiry 

covers Hilong and its affiliated 

companies in the UAE and United 

States. If, within sufficient time, the 

Department receives a formal request 

from an interested party regarding 

potential circumvention of the Drill Pipe 

Orders by other UAE companies, we 

will consider conducting additional 

inquiries concurrently. 

The Department will establish a 

schedule for questionnaires and 

comments on the issues. In accordance 

with section 351.225(f)(5), the 

Department intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation. 

This notice is published in accordance 

with section 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20570 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–840] 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Determination 

Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty 

Order in Part, and Final No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On April 7, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice (OJ) from Brazil. This 

review covers four producers/exporters 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. The period of review (POR) is 

March 1, 2009, through February 28, 

2010. 

After analyzing the comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

in the margin calculations. Therefore, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 50177 

these final results differ from the 

preliminary results. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

reviewed firms are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

Further, we have determined not to 

revoke the antidumping duty order with 

respect to OJ from Brazil produced and 

exported by Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 

(Cutrale). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hector Rodriguez or Blaine Wiltse, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0629 or (202) 482– 

6345, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 7, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the 2009–2010 

administrative review of antidumping 

duty order on certain OJ from Brazil. 

See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent Not to Revoke Antidumping 

Duty Order in Part, 76 FR 19315 (Apr. 

7, 2011) (Preliminary Results). Also in 

April, after the issuance of the 

preliminary results, the Department 

issued, and Cutrale submitted responses 

to, two additional supplemental 

questionnaires. 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. In May 

2011, we received case briefs from the 

petitioners (i.e., Florida Citrus Mutual 

and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, and 

Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and 

Agricultura (Fischer). We received 

rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and 

Cutrale. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain orange juice for transport and/or 

further manufacturing, produced in two 

different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice 

in a highly concentrated form, 

sometimes referred to as frozen 

concentrated orange juice for 

manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) 

pasteurized single-strength orange juice 

which has not been concentrated, 

referred to as not-from-concentrate 

(NFC). At the time of the filing of the 

petition, there was an existing 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from 

Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order; 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). 

Therefore, the scope of this order with 

regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by those 

companies which were excluded or 

revoked from the pre-existing 

antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil 

as of December 27, 2004. Those 

companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, 

Coinbra-Frutesp (SA), Cutrale, Fischer, 

and Montecitrus Trading S.A. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are reconstituted orange juice and 

frozen concentrated orange juice for 

retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange 

juice is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, by adding 

water, oils and essences to the orange 

juice concentrate. FCOJR is 

concentrated orange juice, typically at 

42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in 

retail-sized containers ready for sale to 

consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer 

product, is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk 

manufacturer’s product. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 

2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

These HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and for customs 

purposes only and are not dispositive. 

Rather, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is March 1, 2009, through 

February 28, 2010. 

Determination Not To Revoke Order, In 

Part 

The Department may revoke, in whole 

or in part, an antidumping duty order 

upon completion of a review under 

section 751 of the Act. While Congress 

has not specified the procedures that the 

Department must follow in revoking an 

order, the Department has developed a 

procedure for revocation that is 

described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 

regulation requires, inter alia, that a 

company requesting revocation must 

submit the following: (1) A certification 

that the company has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than normal 

value (NV) in the current review period 

and that the company will not sell 

subject merchandise at less than NV in 

the future; (2) a certification that the 

company sold commercial quantities of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in each of the three years forming 

the basis of the request; and (3) an 

agreement to immediate reinstatement 

of the order if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold subject merchandise at 

less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). 

Upon receipt of such a request, the 

Department will consider whether: (1) 

The company in question has sold 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

for a period of at least three consecutive 

years; (2) the company has agreed in 

writing to its immediate reinstatement 

in the order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that the 

company, subsequent to the revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV; and (3) the continued 

application of the antidumping duty 

order is otherwise necessary to offset 

dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). 

As we noted in the Preliminary 

Results, on March 31, 2010, Cutrale 

requested revocation of the antidumping 

duty order with respect to its sales of 

subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.222(b). This request was 

accompanied by certification that: (1) 

Cutrale sold the subject merchandise at 

not less than NV during the current POR 

and will not sell the merchandise at less 

than NV in the future; and (2) it sold 

subject merchandise to the United 

States in commercial quantities for a 

period of at least three consecutive 

years. Cutrale also agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that, subsequent 

to the revocation, it sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV. See 

Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 19315. 

After analyzing Cutrale’s request for 

revocation (as more fully explained in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

accompanying this notice (the Decision 

Memo)), we find that it does not meet 

all of the criteria under 19 CFR 

351.222(b). In the second and third 

administrative reviews, we found that 

Cutrale sold subject merchandise at less 

than NV. See Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

40167 (Aug. 11, 2009); and Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent Not To 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 

Part, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010). 

Accordingly, Cutrale did not 

demonstrate that it did not sell the 

subject merchandise at less than NV for 

a period of at least three consecutive 

years. 

Therefore, we determine that Cutrale 

does not qualify for revocation of the 

order on certain orange juice pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and as a result 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

50178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 

we have not revoked the order with 

respect to merchandise produced and 

exported by Cutrale. For further 

discussion of this issue, see the Decision 

Memo at Comment 3. 

Determination of No Shipments 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

we received no-shipment claims from 

two companies named in the notice of 

initiation of this review, CoinbraFrutesp (SA) (Coinbra-Frutesp) and 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus), 

and we confirmed their claims with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Because we find that the record 

indicates that Coinbra-Frutesp and 

Montecitrus did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, we determine that they had no 

reviewable transactions during the POR. 

As we stated in the Preliminary 

Results, our former practice concerning 

respondents submitting timely noshipment certifications was to rescind 

the administrative review with respect 

to those companies if we were able to 

confirm the no-shipment certifications 

through a no-shipment inquiry with 

CBP. See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997); see also 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 

2010). As a result, in such 

circumstances, we normally instructed 

CBP to liquidate any entries from the 

no-shipment company at the deposit 

rate in effect on the date of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation, 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). 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

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 

Coinbra-Futesp or Montecitrus and 

exported by other parties at the allothers rate. In addition, we continue to 

find that it is more consistent with the 

May 2003 clarification not to rescind the 

review in part in these circumstances 

but, rather, to complete the review with 

respect to these two companies and 

issue appropriate instructions to CBP 

based on the final results of this 

administrative review. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the preliminary 

results, we conducted an investigation 

to determine whether Cutrale and 

Fischer made home market sales of the 

foreign like product during the POR at 

prices below their costs of production 

(COP) within the meaning of section 

773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results. For these final results, we 

performed the cost test following the 

same methodology as in the Preliminary 

Results, except as discussed in the 

Decision Memo. 

We found 20 percent or more of each 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the reporting period were at 

prices less than the weighted-average 

COP for this period. Thus, we 

determined that these below-cost sales 

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ 

within an extended period of time and 

at prices which did not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of 

the Act. 

For purposes of these final results, we 

continue to find that Cutrale and 

Fischer made below-cost sales not in the 

ordinary course of trade. Consequently, 

we disregarded these sales for each 

respondent and used the remaining 

sales (if any) as the basis for 

determining NV, pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were 

no home market sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, we based NV 

on constructed value. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review, 

and to which we have responded, are 

listed in the Appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the Decision Memo, which 

is adopted by this notice. Parties can 

find a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of 

the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes to the margin 

calculations. These changes are 

discussed in the relevant sections of the 

Decision Memo. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average margin percentages 

exist for the period March 1, 2009, 

through February 28, 2010: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) ........................................................................................................................................................... * 

Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura .............................................................................................................. 3.97 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. ..................................................................................................................................................... * 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.42 (de minimis) 

* No shipments or sales subject to this review. 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

We have calculated importer-specific 

ad valorem duty assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the sales. We will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate is above de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice, 68 FR 23954. This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by companies included in these final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 50179 

results of review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate established 

in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of OJ from Brazil entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided for 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates shown 

above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 

percent, de minimis within the meaning 

of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash 

deposit will be zero; (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, or the LTFV investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 16.51 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183 

(Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility, 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

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 

written notification of return/ 

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 sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results of review in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

1. Offsetting of Negative Margins. 

2. Capping Interest Revenue by Credit 

Expenses. 

3. Request for Revocation by Cutrale. 

4. U.S. Brix Level. 

5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale’s 

U.S. Sales. 

6. Calculation of Cutrale’s U.S. Indirect 

Selling Expense Rate. 

7. Calculation of Cutrale’s General and 

Administrative Expense Rate. 

8. Calculation of Fischer’s International 

Freight Expenses. 

9. Use of Fischer’s Home Market Sample 

Sales in Calculating Normal Value and 

Constructed Value Profit. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20563 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory 

Board 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of an opportunity to 

apply for membership on the U.S. 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is currently seeking applications for 

membership on the U.S. Travel and 

Tourism Advisory Board (Board). The 

purpose of the Board is to advise the 

Secretary of Commerce on matters 

relating to the travel and tourism 

industry. 

DATES: All applications must be 

received by the Office of Advisory 

Committees by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time (EDT) on September 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit application 

information by mail to Jennifer Pilat, 

Office of Advisory Committees, U.S. 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board 

Executive Secretariat, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 or via e-mail to oacie@trade.

gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Pilat, U.S. Travel and Tourism 

Advisory Board Executive Secretariat, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202– 

482–5896, e-mail: jennifer.pilat@trade.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board 

(Board) is established under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. App. (FACA), and advises the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on 

matters relating to the U.S. travel and 

tourism industry pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

1512. The Board provides a means of 

ensuring regular contact between the 

U.S. Government and the travel and 

tourism industry. The Board advises the 

Secretary on government policies and 

programs that affect United States travel 

and tourism, and the Board serves as a 

forum for discussing and proposing 

solutions to industry-related problems. 

The Board acts as a liaison among the 

stakeholders represented by the 

membership and provides a forum for 

those stakeholders on current and 

emerging issues in the travel and 

tourism sector. The Board recommends 

ways to ensure that the United States 

remains the preeminent destination for 

international visitation and tourism 

throughout the world. 

The Office of Advisory Committees is 

accepting applications for Board 

members. Members shall represent 

companies and organizations in the 

travel and tourism sector from a broad 

range of products and services, 

company sizes, and geographic 

locations and shall be drawn from large, 

medium, and small travel and tourism 

companies, private-sector organizations 

involved in the export of travel and 

tourism-related products and services, 

and other tourism-related entities. 

Each Board member shall serve as the 

representative of a U.S. company in the 

travel and tourism industry, a U.S. 

organization involved in the export of 

travel and tourism-related products and 

services, or a tourism-related U.S. 

entity. For eligibility purposes, a ‘‘U.S. 

company’’ is a for-profit firm that is 

incorporated in the United States (or an 

unincorporated U.S. firm with its 

principal place of business in the 

United States) that is controlled by U.S. 

citizens or by other U.S. companies. A 

company is not a U.S. company if 50 

percent plus one share of its stock (if a 

corporation, or a similar ownership 

interest of an unincorporated entity) is 

known to be controlled, directly or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES