Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13355 

1 VSMPO–AVISMA submitted the Foster 

Affidavit as part of its administrative case brief, 

dated June 11, 2008, which the Department rejected 

as untimely new factual information. 

fishing, boating, camping, pet and 

related products (duty rate ranges from 

duty-free to 48%). 

FTZ procedures could exempt 

Cabela’s from customs duty payments 

on foreign products that will be reexported (approximately 1% of 

shipments). On its domestic sales, the 

company would be able to defer duty 

payments until merchandise is shipped 

from the plant and entered for 

consumption. FTZ designation would 

further allow Cabela’s to realize 

logistical benefits through the use of 

weekly customs entry procedures. The 

request indicates that the savings from 

FTZ procedures would help improve 

the facility’s international 

competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the 

FTZ Staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and to report findings 

and recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is May 10, 2011. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to May 25, 2011. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5698 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–819] 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Notice of Court Decision 

Not in Harmony With Final Results of 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Amended Final Results of 

Administrative Review Pursuant to 

Court Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the United 

States Court of International Trade (CIT) 

sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (the Department’s) results 

of redetermination as applied to PSC 

VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation 

(VSMPO–AVISMA) pursuant to the 

CIT’s remand order in PSC VSMPO– 

Avisma Corp. v. United States, 724 F. 

Supp. 2d 1308 (CIT 2010) (AVISMA II). 

The Department is notifying the public 

that the final CIT judgment in this case 

is not in harmony with the Department’s 

final determination and is amending the 

final results of the administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

magnesium metal from the Russian 

Federation covering the period of 

review April 1, 2006, through March 31, 

2007 with respect to VSMPO–AVISMA. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 10, 2008, the 

Department published the final results 

of the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the Russian Federation for 

the period of review (POR) April 1, 

2006, through March 31, 2007. See 

Magnesium Metal from the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52642 (September 10, 

2008) (Final Results). In the Final 

Results the Department determined that 

it was appropriate to treat raw 

magnesium and chlorine gas as coproducts and employed a net-realizablevalue (NRV) analysis to allocate joint 

costs incurred up to the split-off point 

where raw magnesium and chlorine gas 

become separately identifiable products. 

The CIT remanded the Final Results to 

the Department to take into account an 

affidavit from Dr. George Foster, an 

accounting professor (the Foster 

Affidavit), when considering the best 

methodology for calculating the NRV for 

the chlorine gas.1 See PSC VSMPO– 

AVISMA Corp. v. United States, 31 

I.T.R.D. 2235 (CIT 2009) (AVISMA I). In 

accordance with the CIT’s order in 

AVISMA I, the Department admitted the 

Foster Affidavit into the record, 

considered the arguments of Dr. Foster 

upon remand, and, as a result of that 

consideration, determined not to 

recalculate the dumping margin for 

VSMPO–AVISMA upon concluding that 

Dr. Foster’s proposed methodology was 

not appropriate to use in this case. See 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand, dated March 30, 2010 (First 

Remand) (available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). As a result, in 

the First Remand the Department 

adhered to the same allocation 

methodology it used in the Final 

Results. 

In AVISMA II, the CIT remanded the 

Final Results again, instructing the 

Department to consider VSMPO– 

AVISMA’s entire production process, 

including titanium production, in 

allocating joint costs to the subject 

merchandise. The CIT found the 

Department’s cost-allocation 

methodology in the Final Results to be 

unsupported by substantial record 

evidence and not in accordance with 

section 773(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). See 

AVISMA II, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 1313–16. 

In accordance with the CIT’s order in 

AVISMA II, and under respectful 

protest, the Department reexamined its 

calculation methodology to take 

VSMPO–AVISMA’s entire production 

process into account, including the 

stages of production encompassing and 

following ilmenite catalyzation, and, 

based on that examination, the 

Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for VSMPO– 

AVISMA. See Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 

dated November 22, 2010 (Second 

Remand) (available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). As a result of 

the Department’s recalculations, the 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the period April 1, 2006, through March 

31, 2007, for magnesium metal from the 

Russian Federation is 8.51 percent for 

VSMPO–AVISMA. The CIT sustained 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

1The meaning of this term is the same as that 

used by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. 

2This material is already covered by existing 

antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the People’s 

Republic of China, the Russian Federation and 

Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Pure Magnesium From the Russian 

Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995), and 

the Department’s Second Remand on 

March 1, 2011. See PSC VSMPO– 

Avisma Corp. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No 08–00321, Slip Op. 11–22 

(March 1, 2011) (AVISMA III); see also 

Second Remand. 

Timken Notice 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (CAFC 

1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond 

Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United 

States, 626 F.3d 1374 (CAFC 2010), 

pursuant to section 516A(c) of the Act, 

the Department must publish a notice of 

a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s judgment in AVISMA III on 

March 1, 2011, sustaining the 

Department’s Second Remand with 

respect to VSMPO–AVISMA constitutes 

a final decision of that court that is not 

in harmony with the Department’s Final 

Results. This notice is published in 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. Accordingly, 

the Department will continue the 

suspension of liquidation of the subject 

merchandise pending the expiration of 

the period of appeal or, if appealed, 

pending a final and conclusive court 

decision. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision with respect to VSMPO– 

AVISMA, the weighted-average 

dumping margin for the period April 1, 

2006, through March 31, 2007, for 

magnesium metal from the Russian 

Federation is 8.51 percent for VSMPO– 

AVISMA. The cash-deposit rate will 

remain the company-specific rate 

established for the subsequent and most 

recent period for which the Department 

reviewed VSMPO–AVISMA. See 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 

2010). In the event the CIT’s ruling is 

not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by 

the CAFC, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

assess antidumping duties on entries of 

the subject merchandise exported 

during the POR by VSMPO–AVISMA 

using the revised assessment rates 

calculated by the Department in the 

Second Remand. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5691 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–896] 

Magnesium Metal From the People’s 

Republic of China: Continuation of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on magnesium metal from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States, the Department is publishing a 

notice of continuation of the 

antidumping duty order. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4474. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 1, 2010, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the PRC, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 9160 

(March 1, 2010). 

As a result of its review, the 

Department determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

magnesium metal from the PRC would 

likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and, therefore, 

notified the ITC of the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail should the 

order be revoked. See Magnesium Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China 

and the Russian Federation: Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews 

of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 

38983 (July 7, 2010). 

On February 24, 2011, the ITC 

notified the Department of its 

determination, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the PRC would likely lead to 

a continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. See USITC Publication 4214 

(February 2011), Magnesium From 

China and Russia: Investigation Nos. 

731–TA–10701–1072 (Review). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is magnesium metal, which includes 

primary and secondary alloy 

magnesium metal, regardless of 

chemistry, raw material source, form, 

shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or 

alloy containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium. Primary 

magnesium is produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Secondary 

magnesium is produced by recycling 

magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 

metal. The magnesium covered by the 

order includes blends of primary and 

secondary magnesium. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following alloy magnesium metal 

products made from primary and/or 

secondary magnesium including, 

without limitation, magnesium cast into 

ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other 

shapes, magnesium ground, chipped, 

crushed, or machined into raspings, 

granules, turnings, chips, powder, 

briquettes, and other shapes: Products 

that contain 50 percent or greater, but 

less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by 

weight, and that have been entered into 

the United States as conforming to an 

‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium 

Alloy’’ 1 and thus are outside the scope 

of the existing antidumping order on 

magnesium from the PRC (generally 

referred to as ‘‘alloy’’ magnesium). 

The scope of the order excludes the 

following merchandise: (1) All forms of 

pure magnesium, including chemical 

combinations of magnesium and other 

material(s) in which the pure 

magnesium content is 50 percent or 

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by 

weight, that do not conform to an 

‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium 

Alloy;’’ 2 (2) magnesium that is in liquid 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES