26726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 

82See section 735(b)(2) of the Act. 

83See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and (d). 

84See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

to, the U.S. industry.82 As the 

Department is postponing the deadline 

for our final determination to 135 days 

from the date of the publication of this 

preliminary determination, the ITC will 

make its final determination no later 

than 45 days after our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs limited to issues raised in case 

briefs and must be received no later 

than five days after the deadline date for 

case briefs.83 A list of authorities used 

and an executive summary of issues 

should accompany any briefs submitted 

to the Department. This summary 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if timely requested, the 

Department will hold a public hearing, 

to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, the 

Department intends to hold the hearing 

two days after the deadline of 

submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice.84 Requests should contain the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number, the number of participants, and 

a list of the issues to be discussed. At 

the hearing, each party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on issues 

raised in that party’s case brief and may 

make rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 5, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11344 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–838] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

preliminarily determines that seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube (‘‘copper 

pipe and tube’’) from Mexico is being, or 

is likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733(b)(1)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to a request 

submitted on behalf of the respondents, 

IUSA S.A. de C.V. (‘‘IUSA’’) and 

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. 

(‘‘Nacobre’’), we are postponing for 60 

days the final determination and 

extending provisional measures from a 

four-month period to not more than six 

months. Accordingly, we will make our 

final determination not later than 135 

days after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 20, 2009, the Department 

initiated the antidumping duty 

investigation of copper pipe and tube 

from Mexico. See Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 55194 (October 27, 

2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

petitioners in this investigation are 

Cerro Flow Products, Inc., KobeWieland 

Copper Products, LLC, Mueller Copper 

Tube Products, Inc., and Mueller 

Copper Tube Company, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

The Department set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 

74 FR at 55194. See also Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). For 

further details, see the ‘‘Scope 

Comments’’ section of this notice, 

below. The Department also set aside a 

time for parties to comment on product 

characteristics for use in the 

antidumping duty questionnaire. During 

November 2009, we received product 

characteristic comments from the 

Petitioners and the respondents, IUSA 

and Nacobre, Mexican producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

For an explanation of the product– 

comparison criteria used in this 

investigation, see the ‘‘Product 

Comparisons’’ section of this notice, 

below. 

On November 30, 2009, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) published its affirmative 

preliminary determination that that 

there is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports 

from China and Mexico of copper pipe 

and tube, and the ITC notified the 

Department of its finding. See Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From 

China and Mexico, 74 FR 62595 

(November 30, 2009); see also USITC 

Publication 4116 (November 2009), 

entitled Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from China and Mexico: 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1174–1175 

(Preliminary). 

On December 2, 2009, we selected 

IUSA and Nacobre as the mandatory 

respondents in this investigation and 

issued the Department’s antidumping 

duty questionnaire to both respondents. 

See Memorandum entitled: 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico Selection of Respondents 

for Individual Review,’’ dated December 

2, 2009. IUSA and Nacobre submitted 

responses to section A (i.e., the section 

covering general information about the 

company) of the antidumping duty 

questionnaire on December 24, 2009, 

and sections B (i.e., the section covering 

comparison market sales), C (i.e., the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 26727 

1See letter from Nacobre to the Department titled 

‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico: Comments on Scope of Investigation,’’ 

dated November 12, 2009. 

2See Letter from Petitioners to the Department 

titled, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico: Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments on 

Scope of Investigation’’ (January 11, 2010). Note this 

letter was re-filed under both case numbers for the 

instant Mexico and People’s Republic of China 

investigations. See Letter from Pet’’ (March 30, 

2010) (‘‘Petitioners’ Rebuttal to Nacobre’’). 

section covering U.S. sales), and D (i.e., 

the section covering the cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) and constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’)) of the antidumping duty 

questionnaire on February 2, 2010. We 

issued supplemental section A, B, C, 

and D questionnaires, to which IUSA 

and Nacobre responded during 

February, March, and April 2010. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. See Memorandum to the 

Record regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. Accordingly, the revised deadline 

for the un–extended preliminary 

determination of this investigation was 

March 16, 2010. 

On February 12, 2010, the petitioners 

made a timely request pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department 

postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation until 

May 5, 2010. See Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 75 FR 8677 (February 25, 

2010). 

On April 27, 2010, IUSA and Nacobre 

requested that, in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department: 1) 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days, in accordance with section 

735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(2)(ii); and 2) extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 

from a four-month period to a six-month 

period. For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures’’ 

section of this notice, below. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This 

period corresponds to the four most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered under this 

investigation consist of all copper pipe 

and tube, including redraw hollows, 

greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 

mm) in length and measuring less than 

12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in 

outside diameter (‘‘OD’’), regardless of 

wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, 

enhanced with inner grooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot 

finished, cold–drawn, annealed), outer 

surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with 

grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), 

coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, 

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, 

plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., 

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). 

The scope of this investigation covers, 

but is not limited to, copper pipe and 

tube produced or comparable to the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) ASTM–B42, 

ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM–B88, 

ASTM–B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM– 

B251, ASTM–B251M, ASTM–B280, 

ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM–359, 

ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM– 

B903 specifications and meeting the 

physical parameters described therein. 

Also included within the scope of this 

investigations are all sets of covered 

products, including ‘‘line sets’’ of copper 

pipe and tube (with or without fittings 

or insulation) suitable for connecting an 

outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to 

an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase 

‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes 

any combination of items put up for sale 

that is comprised of merchandise 

subject to the scope. 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) 

metal containing at least 99.85 percent 

by weight of copper; or (2) metal 

containing at least 97.5 percent by 

weight of copper, provided that the 

content by weight of any other element 

does not exceed the following limits: 

ELEMENT 

LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT 

BY WEIGHT 

Ag - Silver ..................... 0.25 

As - Arsenic .................. 0.5 

Cd - Cadmium .............. 1.3 

Cr - Chromium .............. 1.4 

Mg - Magnesium ........... 0.8 

Pb - Lead ...................... 1.5 

S - Sulfur ...................... 0.7 

Sn - Tin ......................... 0.8 

Te - Tellurium ............... 0.8 

Zn - Zinc ....................... 1.0 

Zr - Zirconium ............... 0.3 

Other elements (each) .. 0.3 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are all seamless circular 

hollows of refined copper less than 12 

inches in length whose OD (actual) 

exceeds its length. The products subject 

to this investigation are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Products 

subject to this investigation may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), in our Initiation Notice we set 

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the Initiation Notice. On 

November 12, 2009, Nacobre filed 

comments concerning the scope of this 

investigation.1 In its submission, 

Nacobre requested that the Department 

exclude from the scope of the 

investigation nine categories of copper 

pipe and tube. Nacobre asserted in its 

letter that the products covered by its 

exclusion request are not produced 

domestically and, therefore, should not 

be of interest to Petitioners. On January 

11, 2010, Petitioners filed comments on 

Nacobre’s scope exclusion request.2

Petitioners rebutted Nacobre’s assertion 

that the products covered by its 

exclusion request are of no interest to 

Petitioners and that Petitioners do not 

and/or cannot produce them. Petitioners 

stated that they are interested in the 

categories of products as described by 

Nacobre. Petitioners contend that all 

nine categories of copper pipe and tube 

that Nacobre seeks to exclude fall 

within the scope. We do not find 

Nacobre’s arguments made in its scope 

exclusion requests to be persuasive. 

Specifically, we find that it is not 

appropriate in this case to base a request 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

26728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 

3See letter from BrassCraft to the Department, 

dated March 16, 2010, at 2. 

4See letter from Petitioners to the Department 

titled ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico: Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments on 

Scope of Investigation,’’ dated January 11, 2010. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’ BrassCraft/JCI 

Comments’’) at 2-3. 

5See letter from JCI to the Department, dated 

November 10, 2010 at 6. 

6See Petitioners’ BrassCraft/JCI Comments at 3-4. 7See Scope Exclusion Request Memo. 

8See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit 

From Thailand, 60 FR 2734 (January 11, 1995) at 

2734-2735. See also; Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper 

from Finland, 56 FR 56363 (November 4, 1991). See 

also the Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire issued to IUSA and Nacobre on 

December 2, 2009. 

9 IUSA explained that, in addition to the 

merchandise under investigation manufactured by 

IUSA in Mexico, IUSA’s affiliate, CLI, manufactures 

copper tube in the United States. CLI also purchases 

limited quantities of non-subject copper tube from 

third party producers. Some of the non-subject tube 

manufactured by CLI or obtained from third party 

producers is physically identical to subject 

merchandise manufactured by IUSA and purchased 

by and added to CLI’s inventory. In those instances, 

the CLI or third party-produced non-subject 

merchandise is commingled in CLI warehouses 

with the imports of subject merchandise produced 

by IUSA in Mexico. See submission from IUSA to 

Department titled, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from Mexico: Treatment of Commingled 

Inventory of Non-Subject Merchandise,’’ dated April 

27, 2010. 

to exclude certain products from the 

scope of this investigation on an 

application or end–use, instead of the 

physical characteristics of the finished 

product. We have examined the nine 

products for which exclusion was 

proposed and have found that they all 

fall within the scope of this 

investigation. See Memorandum from 

the Team, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, 

through James Terpstra, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, to 

Melissa Skinner, Office Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled, ‘‘Scope 

Exclusion Requests,’’ dated May 5, 2010 

(‘‘Scope Exclusion Request Memo’’). 

The Department also received 

comments submitted on behalf of 

BrassCraft Manufacturing (‘‘BrassCraft’’) 

and Johnson Controls, Inc. (‘‘JCI’’). In its 

letter dated March 16, 2010, BrassCraft 

seeks to exclude from the scope of the 

investigation cut–to-length copper tube 

under 40 inches in length.3 In its March 

30, 2010, comments, Petitioners reject 

BrassCraft’s proposed scope exclusion 

and reject the stated rationale.4 Based 

on the language of the scope of the 

investigation, the Department has 

determined that copper pipe and tube 

between six and 40 inches is covered by 

the scope of the investigation. 

Therefore, the Department is denying 

BrassCraft’s scope exclusion request. 

In its November 10, 2010, letter, JCI 

seeks to exclude from the scope of the 

investigation ‘‘inner groove copper pipe 

and tube produced from the cast and 

roll technology.’’5 Petitioners rebut JCI, 

stating that there are generally no 

differences in the resulting product from 

either the extrusion or cast and roll 

processes. Furthermore, Petitioners 

assert that it is incorrect for JCI to 

propose a product exclusion based on a 

manufacturing process instead of 

objective physical characteristics for the 

finished product.6 The scope of the 

investigation includes all seamless 

circular refined copper pipe and tube at 

least six inches in length, of either 

smooth bore or enhanced bore (without 

regard to a specific method of 

fabrication). Based on the fact that 

‘‘inner groove’’ tube is considered to be 

an ‘‘enhanced bore,’’ and is defined by 

the scope of the investigation, the 

Department finds that the inner groove 

pipe and tube produced from the cast 

and roll technology referenced by JCI 

falls within the scope of the 

investigation.7

Product Comparisons 

We have taken into account the 

comments that were submitted by the 

interested parties concerning product– 

comparison criteria. In accordance with 

section 771(16) of the Act, all products 

produced by the respondent covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, above, and sold 

in Mexico during the POI are considered 

to be foreign like product for purposes 

of determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 

relied on nine criteria to match U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise to 

comparison–market sales of the foreign 

like product: 1) type and ASTM 

specification, 2) copper alloy unified 

number system, 3) outer diameter, 4) 

wall thickness, 5) physical form, 6) 

temper designation, 7) bore, 8) outer 

surface, and 9) attachments. Where 

there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market made 

in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics listed above, 

which were made in the ordinary course 

of trade. 

Line Sets 

A line set is composed of two sections 

of copper tubing: a liquid line and a 

suction line. The tubes have different 

diameters and wall thicknesses and the 

suction line is insulated, while the 

liquid line is not. Line sets are sold as 

one product and there is not a separate 

price for each constituent component. 

See IUSA Section A questionnaire 

response dated December 24, 2009, at 

A–64. 

During the POI, IUSA sold line sets in 

the United States which were fully 

manufactured in Mexico. In order to 

derive price–based normal values for 

these sales, Petitioners have proposed 

several different methods for deriving a 

price for the constituent elements that 

are subject merchandise, e.g., allocating 

the total price by weight. IUSA has 

argued that it considers line sets as a 

distinct product, rather than as a 

collection of different types of subject 

merchandise. IUSA has also argued that 

there is no accurate way to derive a 

price for the constituent elements 

because the line set product is sold as 

a combination of two components with 

additional features (e.g., a liquid line 

and suction line which may have 

insulation added). IUSA claims that it 

would be distortive to derive a price for 

the constituent components, because the 

line set is a unique product which is not 

sold in the home market. Based on the 

data reported by IUSA, we preliminarily 

determine that line sets are sold as one 

product and, in the absence of home 

market sales of line sets, we are relying 

on constructed value as the basis for 

normal value. See sections 773(e) and (f) 

of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.405. 

IUSA sells to its U.S. affiliate, 

Cambridge–Lee Industries (‘‘CLI’’), level 

wound coil, which is further processed 

in the United States and sold as a line 

set. See IUSA Section A questionnaire 

response (revised bracketed version), 

dated February 19, 2010, at A–67. IUSA 

also reported that it sells line sets which 

are made of imported subject 

merchandise and further processed in 

the United States. IUSA asked to be 

excused from reporting further 

manufacturing costs for the small 

portion of its line sets that are 

assembled in the United States by its 

affiliate. Because the further 

manufactured sales account for a small 

portion of IUSA’s total U.S. sales, we 

granted IUSA’s request not to respond to 

Section E (Cost of Further Manufacture 

or Assembly Performed in the United 

States) of the Department’s 

questionnaire.8

In similar cases where we allow 

respondents not to report certain 

information in investigations to simplify 

reporting, the U.S. sales involved are 

normally not reported. This case is 

unique because the affected sales were 

reported by IUSA.9 IUSA indicated that 

its accounting records do not allow it to 

identify whether the line sets sold in the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 26729 

10See IUSA’s April 12, 2010 submission at 2-3. 

11See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 

60 FR 29553 (June 5, 1995) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. 

United States were manufactured in 

Mexico or further processed in the 

United States because they are 

commingled in inventory by its U.S. 

affiliate, CLI.10 Therefore, IUSA stated 

that where products identical to subject 

merchandise were commingled in CLI’s 

inventory, IUSA reported all CLI sales of 

the commingled products during the 

POI. As a result, IUSA’s reported U.S. 

sales database includes all line sets sold, 

a portion of which are the line sets 

further manufactured in the United 

States. Thus, we have some U.S. sales 

that were further manufactured in the 

United States but we do not have the 

relevant costs that would normally be 

deducted. 

IUSA proposed that the sales 

quantity, for sales of commingled 

products during the POI, should be 

based on the ratio of imports of IUSA’s 

merchandise into the United States into 

CLI’s inventory of each Mexican– 

produced commingled product during 

the POI to total additions to CLI’s 

inventory of each such commingled 

product during the POI. For purposes of 

the preliminary determination, we have 

accounted for U.S. further manufactured 

line sets by reducing U.S. sales of line 

sets by the ratio of sales of further 

manufactured lines sets to total sales of 

line sets.11 See the memorandum titled, 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for IUSA, 

S.A. de C.V. and its affiliates (‘‘IUSA’’), 

for the Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Investigation of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico,’’ dated May 5, 2010 (‘‘IUSA 

Sales Calculation Memo’’). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether respondents’ 

sales of copper pipe and tube from 

Mexico to the United States were made 

at LTFV, we compared the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) and constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price/ 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted–average EPs 

and CEPs to POI weighted–average NVs. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in 

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) 

of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used the EP methodology 

when the merchandise was sold by the 

producer or exporter outside the United 

States directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the sale to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. See 

section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP 

and CEP on the packed prices charged 

to the first unaffiliated customer in the 

United States and the applicable terms 

of sale. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Act, we calculated EP for a 

number of IUSA and Nacobre’s U.S. 

sales because these sales were made 

before the date of importation and were 

sales directly to unaffiliated customers 

in the United States, and because CEP 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight to the port, foreign 

brokerage, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight from the 

port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse 

expenses, U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

and U.S. customs duty. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP where the 

record established that sales made by 

IUSA and Nacobre were made in the 

United States after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. Where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price for foreign inland 

freight to the port, foreign brokerage, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. inland freight from the port to 

warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, 

U.S. inland freight from the warehouse 

to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. 

customs duty, credit expenses, 

inventory carrying costs incurred in the 

United States, and other indirect selling 

expenses in the United States associated 

with economic activity in the United 

States. See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 

772(d)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 

772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 

adjustment for CEP profit. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison–Market Selection 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

respondents’ volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to its 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that respondents had a 

viable home market during the POI. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or 

CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(iii), the NV LOT is based 

on the starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market or, when NV is 

based on constructed value, the starting 

price of the sales from which we derive 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit. For EP sales, the 

U.S. LOT is based on the starting price 

of the sales in the U.S. market, which is 

usually from exporter to importer. See 

19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). (For CEP sales, 

the U.S. LOT is based on the starting 

price of the U.S. sales, as adjusted under 

section 772(d) of the Act, which is from 

the exporter to the importer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(ii). 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison– 

market sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level 

is more remote from the factory than the 

CEP level and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

levels between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability, we adjust NV under 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (‘‘the 

CEP–offset provision’’). See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

26730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 61733 (November 

19, 1997). 

1. IUSA 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from IUSA regarding the 

marketing stages involved in making its 

reported home market and U.S. market 

sales, including a description of the 

selling activities performed by the 

respondent and its affiliates for each 

channel of distribution. IUSA reported 

that it made sales to end users in the 

home market through two channels of 

distribution: 1) factory direct to 

customers; and 2) factory to customer 

via distribution center. IUSA made both 

EP sales of subject merchandise to U.S. 

customers and CEP sales of subject 

merchandise through its affiliate, CLI. 

We examined information from IUSA 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making its reported home market and 

U.S. market sales. IUSA described its 

selling activities performed, and 

provided a table comparing the selling 

functions performed among each 

channel of distribution for both markets. 

See IUSA revised Section A response at 

A–25 to A–28, and Exhibit SQ–4 (A–7). 

We reviewed the nature of the selling 

functions and the intensity to which all 

selling functions were performed for 

each home market channel of 

distribution and customer category and 

between IUSA’s EP and home market 

channels of distribution and customer 

categories. We found no differences in 

the levels of intensity performed for 

selling functions between the two home 

market channels of distribution. Based 

on our analysis of all of IUSA’s home 

market selling functions, we find all 

home market sales were made at the 

same LOT. Further, we find only minor 

differences between the sole home 

market LOT and that of IUSA’s EP sales. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine IUSA’s home market and EP 

sales were made at the same LOT. 

We then compared the NV LOT, based 

on the selling activities associated with 

the transactions between IUSA and its 

customers in the home market, to the 

CEP LOT, which is based on the selling 

activities associated with the transaction 

between IUSA and its affiliated 

importer, CLI. Our analysis indicates the 

selling functions performed for home 

market customers are performed at a 

higher degree of intensity than the 

selling functions performed for CLI. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude 

that the NV LOT is at a more advanced 

stage than the CEP LOT. Due to the 

proprietary nature of this discussion, 

see IUSA Sales Calculation Memo. 

Because we found the home market 

and U.S. CEP sales were made at 

different LOTs, we examined whether a 

LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be 

appropriate in this investigation. As we 

found only one LOT in the home 

market, it was not possible to make a 

LOT adjustment to home market sales, 

because such an adjustment is 

dependent on our ability to identify a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the home market sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the CEP sales. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 

we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining an LOT adjustment. 

Consequently, because the data 

available do not form an appropriate 

basis for making an LOT adjustment, 

even though the home market LOT is at 

a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset 

to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset 

is calculated as the lesser of: (1) the 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

the home market sales, or (2) the 

indirect selling expenses deducted from 

the starting price in calculating CEP. Id. 

2. Nacobre 

We obtained information from 

Nacobre regarding the marketing stages 

involved in making its reported home 

market and U.S. sales, including a 

description of the selling activities 

performed by the respondent and its 

affiliates for each channel of 

distribution. In the home market, 

Nacobre reported that it made sales 

through two channels of distribution, in 

which both channels include certain 

activities performed by its affiliated 

company to its customers. Nacobre 

described its selling activities 

performed, and provided a table 

comparing the selling functions 

performed among each channel of 

distribution for both markets. See 

Nacobre’s revised Section A 

questionnaire response (Nacobre’s 

AQR), dated February 12, 2010, at A–5, 

A–32 to A–33, and Nacobre’s AQR at 

Exhibit A–21. We reviewed the nature 

of the selling functions and the intensity 

to which all selling functions were 

performed for the home market channel 

of distribution and customer category. 

Based on our analysis of the selling 

functions and sales process, we found 

no appreciable differences in the 

functions performed in selling to 

different types of customers in the two 

home market channels of distribution. 

Thus, sales to these customers 

constitute a single marketing stage and, 

therefore, we continue to find that all of 

Nacobre’s home market sales were made 

at one LOT. 

In the U.S. market, Nacobre reported 

that it made sales through two channels 

of distribution: 1) from Nacobre through 

its affiliated company to its U.S. 

customers; and 2) from Nacobre to its 

customers in Puerto Rico. Nacobre made 

EP sales of subject merchandise to U.S. 

customers and CEP sales of subject 

merchandise through its affiliate, 

Copper & Brass International 

Corporation (‘‘CBI’’). After adjusting CEP 

sales in accordance with section 772(d) 

of the Act, we find no substantial 

differences in selling activities between 

EP and CEP sales. Therefore, after 

adjusting CEP sales in accordance with 

section 772(d) of the Act, there are no 

appreciable differences in the functions 

performed in selling to different types of 

customers in the two U.S. channels of 

distribution. Thus, we find that 

Nacobre’s U.S. sales were made at the 

same LOT. 

We then compared the NV LOT, based 

on the selling activities associated with 

the transactions between Nacobre and 

its customers in the home market, to the 

U.S. LOT, which is based on the selling 

activities associated with the transaction 

between Nacobre and its affiliated 

reseller, CBI. Based on our analysis, we 

find that the selling functions performed 

for home market customers are at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

selling functions performed for CBI. 

Therefore, we conclude that the NV 

LOT is at a more advanced stage than 

the CEP LOT. Due to the proprietary 

nature of this discussion, see the 

memorandum titled, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Nacobre, S.A. de C.V. 

and its affiliates (‘‘Nacobre’’), for the 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Investigation of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico,’’ dated May 5, 2010 (‘‘Nacobre 

Sales Calculation Memo’’). 

Because we found that the home 

market and U.S. sales were made at 

different LOTs, we examined whether 

an LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may 

be appropriate in this investigation. As 

we found only one LOT in the home 

market, it was not possible to make a 

LOT adjustment to home market sales, 

because such an adjustment is 

dependent on our ability to identify a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the home market sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the CEP sales. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 

we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining an LOT adjustment. 

Consequently, because the data 

available do not form an appropriate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 26731 

basis for making an LOT adjustment, 

even though the home market LOT is at 

a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset 

to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset 

is calculated as the lesser of: (1) the 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

the home market sales, or (2) the 

indirect selling expenses deducted from 

the starting price in calculating CEP. Id. 

C. Cost Reporting Period 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted–average 

cost for the entire period of 

investigation or period of review. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 65 FR 

77852 (December 13, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 18, and 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining 

the Department’s practice of computing 

a single weighted–average cost for the 

entire period). This methodology is 

predictable and generally applicable in 

all proceedings. However, the 

Department recognizes that possible 

distortions may result if our normal 

annual weighted–average cost method is 

used during a period of significant cost 

changes. 

Under these circumstances, in 

determining whether to deviate from 

our normal methodology of calculating 

an annual weighted average cost, the 

Department has evaluated the case– 

specific record evidence using two 

primary factors: (1) the change in the 

cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) 

recognized by the respondent during the 

POI must be deemed significant; and (2) 

the record evidence must indicate that 

sales during the shorter averaging 

periods could be reasonably linked with 

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) or 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) during the 

same shorter averaging periods. See, 

e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 (December 

11, 2008) and Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results 

of Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 

(February 10, 2010). 

a. Significance of Cost Changes 

Record evidence indicates that both 

IUSA and Nacobre experienced 

significant changes in the total COM 

during the POI and that the changes in 

COM are primarily attributable to the 

price volatility for copper, the main 

input consumed in the production of 

the merchandise under consideration. 

The record indicates that copper prices 

changed dramatically throughout the 

POI. Specifically, the record data shows 

that the percentage difference between 

the high and low quarterly costs for 

seamless refined copper pipe and tube 

products exceeded 25 percent during 

the POI. As a result, we have 

determined that for the preliminary 

determination the changes in COM for 

IUSA and Nacobre are significant. 

b. Linkage between Cost and Sales 

Information 

If the Department finds cost changes 

to be significant in a given investigation 

or administrative review, the 

Department evaluates whether there is 

evidence of linkage between the cost 

changes and the sales prices for the 

given POI/POR. Our definition of 

linkage does not require direct 

traceability between specific sales and 

their specific production cost, but rather 

relies on whether there are elements 

which would indicate a reasonable 

correlation between the underlying 

costs and the final sales prices levied by 

the company. These correlative 

elements may be measured and defined 

in a number of ways depending on the 

associated industry, and the overall 

production and sales processes. See, 

e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 75 FR 

12204 (March 15, 2010). 

In the instant case, based on record 

evidence we find that the cost changes 

and sales prices for IUSA and Nacobre 

appear to be reasonably correlated. 

Because the data on which we base our 

analysis contains business proprietary 

information, a detailed analysis is 

included in the Memorandum to Neal 

M. Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination IUSA, S.A. de C.V.’’ 

dated May 5, 2010 (‘‘IUSA Preliminary 

Cost Memorandum’’), and Memorandum 

to Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination Nacional de Cobre, S.A. 

de C.V.’’ dated May 5, 2010 (‘‘Nacobre 

Preliminary Cost Memorandum’’). 

In light of the two factors discussed 

above, we preliminarily determined that 

it is appropriate to rely on a shorter cost 

periods with respect to IUSA and 

Nacobre. Thus, we used quarterly 

indexed annual average copper costs 

and annual weighted–average 

fabrication costs in the COP and CV 

calculations. See IUSA Preliminary Cost 

Memorandum and Nacobre Preliminary 

Cost Memorandum. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on the Department’s analysis of 

the Petitioner’s allegation in the 

petition, we initiated a sales–below-cost 

investigation to determine whether 

IUSA and Nacobre had sales that were 

made at prices below their COP 

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. 

See Initiation Notice at 55198. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

Before making any comparisons to 

NV, we conducted a quarterly COP 

analysis of IUSA and Nacobre’s 

pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act 

to determine whether IUSA and 

Nacobre’s comparison market sales were 

made at prices below the COP. We 

calculated the COP based on the sum of 

the cost of materials and fabrication for 

the foreign like product, plus amounts 

for SG&A expenses and packing, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act. 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by IUSA and Nacobre 

and their supplemental section D 

questionnaire responses for the COP 

calculation, except for the following 

instances where the information was not 

appropriately quantified or valued: 

IUSA: 

1. We adjusted IUSA’s reported 

quarterly copper costs to reflect the 

purchases of copper scrap ingots 

from affiliated parties at arm’s 

length prices. 

For additional details, see IUSA 

Preliminary Cost Memorandum. 

Nacobre: 

1. We reclassified the corporate rent 

expense from the reported fixed 

manufacturing overhead costs to 

G&A expenses. 

2. We disallowed certain non– 

operating income offsets to the G&A 

expenses because they were 

inadequately supported. We 

reduced the denominator of 

Nacobre’s G&A expense ratio by the 

estimated loss of value of inventory. 

This estimated loss of value of 

inventory was not included in the 

reported costs, however, it was 

included by Nacobre in its cost of 

goods sold denominator. 

3. We set the reported interest 

expenses to zero. 

For additional details, see Nacobre 

Preliminary Cost Memorandum. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

As required under section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act, we compared the quarterly 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

26732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 

weighted average COP to the per–unit 

price of the comparison market sales of 

the foreign like product to determine 

whether these sales had been made at 

prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities, and whether such prices 

were sufficient to permit the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time. We determined the net 

comparison market prices for the below 

cost test by subtracting from the gross 

unit price any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, rebates, direct and 

indirect selling expenses (also 

subtracted from the COP), and packing 

expenses. See IUSA Sales Calculation 

Memo and Nacobre Sales Calculation 

Memo. 

3. Results of COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

the respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model were at prices below the 

COP, we did not disregard any below– 

cost sales of that model because we 

determined that the below–cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

the respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model were at prices less than the 

COP, we disregarded the below–cost 

sales because: (1) they were made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the indexed POI weighted– 

average COPs, they were at prices which 

would not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

Therefore, for IUSA and Nacobre, we 

disregarded below–cost sales of a given 

product of 20 percent or more and used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See IUSA 

Sales Calculation Memo and Nacobre 

Sales Calculation Memo. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison–Market Prices 

We calculated NV for IUSA and 

Nacobre on the reported packed, ex– 

factory or delivered prices to 

comparison market customers. We made 

deductions from the starting price, 

where appropriate, for billing 

adjustments, early payment discounts, 

rebates, inland freight, foreign inland 

freight and warehousing expenses 

where appropriate, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made, where appropriate, circumstanceof-sale adjustments. We added U.S. 

packing costs and deducted home 

market packing costs, in accordance 

with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of 

the Act. Finally, we made a CEP offset 

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We 

calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of 

the indirect selling expenses incurred 

on the home market sales or the indirect 

selling expenses deducted from the 

starting price in calculating CEP. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the variable cost of manufacturing for 

the foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.415(a) based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

relied upon in making our final 

determination for IUSA and Nacobre. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of copper pipe 

and tube from Mexico that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will also instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margins, as indicated in the 

chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

IUSA S.A. de C.V. ........ 29.52 

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. 

de C.V. ...................... 32.27 

All Others ...................... 30.90 

All–Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. IUSA and 

Nacobre are the only respondents in this 

investigation for which the Department 

has calculated a company–specific rate 

that is not zero or de minimis. 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate and pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the simple average of the dumping 

margins calculated for IUSA and 

Nacobre for the ‘‘all others’’ rate, as 

referenced in the Suspension of 

Liquidation section, above. 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On April 27, 2010, IUSA and Nacobre 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days (135 days after publication of the 

preliminary determination) and extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under section 

733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period 

to a six-month period. In accordance 

with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) 

our preliminary determination is 

affirmative; (2) the requesting 

producers/exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 26733 

1For the purpose of this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 

the use of the word ‘‘cell phone’’ will refer to any 

wireless, portable device that is available to the 

public on a subscription or prepaid basis for 

delivering voice and/or data services such as text 

messages. It includes, for example, phones 

operating within the Cellular Radio Service in the 

800 MHz bands; broadband Personal 

Communications Services (PCS) in the 1.9 GHz 

bands; the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) in 

the 1.7 GHz band; Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

services in the 800 and 900 MHz bands; and any 

future mobile wireless devices that plan to operate 

in bands such as the 700 MHz band. 

subject merchandise; and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist, we 

are granting this request and are 

postponing the final determination until 

no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of 

copper pipe and tube from Mexico are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the U.S. industry. See 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act. Because we 

are postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the ITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the 

content of which is limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days from the deadline date 

for the submission of case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2). A list of authorities used, 

a table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

Further, we request that parties 

submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs 

provide the Department with a copy of 

the public version of such briefs on 

diskette. In accordance with section 

774(1) of the Act, the Department will 

hold a public hearing, if timely 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. See 

also 19 CFR 351.310. If a timely request 

for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, we intend to hold the 

hearing two days after the rebuttal brief 

deadline date at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone, the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) a list of the issues to be 

discussed. At the hearing, oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 5, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11342 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 100504212–0212–01] 

Preventing Contraband Cell Phone Use 

in Prisons 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) seeks comment 

on technical approaches to preventing 

contraband cell phone use in prisons. 

Congress tasked NTIA with developing, 

in coordination with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 

and the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ), a plan to investigate and evaluate 

how wireless jamming, detection and 

other technologies might be utilized for 

law enforcement and corrections 

applications in Federal and State prison 

facilities. To assist in its evaluation of 

these technologies, NTIA requests 

information from the public on 

technologies that would significantly 

reduce or eliminate contraband cell 

phone use without negatively affecting 

commercial wireless and public safety 

services (including 911 calls and other 

government radio services) in areas 

surrounding prisons. 

DATES: Comments are requested on or 

before June 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Parties may mail written 

comments to Richard J. Orsulak, 

Emergency Planning and Public Safety 

Division, Office of Spectrum 

Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1212 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 600B, Washington, DC 

20005, with copies to Edward Drocella, 

Spectrum Engineering and Analysis 

Division, Office of Spectrum 

Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 6725, Washington, DC 

20230. Alternatively, comments may be 

electronically submitted in Microsoft 

Word format to 

contrabandcellphones@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments will be posted on NTIA’s 

Web site for viewing at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/ 

contrabandcellphones/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard J. Orsulak, Emergency Planning 

and Public Safety Division, Office of 

Spectrum Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1212 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 600B, Washington, DC 

20005; telephone (202) 482–9139 or email rorsulak@ntia.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

The mobile phone industry has 

enjoyed significant growth since the 

inception of the analog wireless cell 

phone network in the early 1980s.1 The 

1990s saw the development of digital 

networks, and thereafter, high-speed 

data networks became available to 

consumers. The growth of the mobile 

phone industry has been fueled, in part, 

by consumer demand for instant access 

anywhere and anytime. Features such as 

data, image, and video communications 

have also contributed to the 

overwhelming demand for mobile 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES