Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24459 

1See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 

Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Preliminary No 

Shipment Determination, 76 FR 79651 (December 

22, 2011) (Preliminary Results). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1824] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

226 Under Alternative Site Framework 

Merced County, CA 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) (74 FR 

1170, 01/12/2009; correction 74 FR 

3987, 01/22/2009; 75 FR 71069–71070, 

11/22/2010) as an option for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

general-purpose zones; 

Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of 

the County of Merced, grantee of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 226, submitted an 

application to the Board (FTZ Docket 

84–2011, filed 12/23/2011) for authority 

to reorganize under the ASF with a 

service area which includes portions of 

Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, 

Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties, 

California as its service area, as 

described in the application, within and 

adjacent to the Fresno U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 

226’s existing Sites 1, 2, 9, 10 and 11 

would be categorized as magnet sites, 

existing Site 8 would be categorized as 

a usage-driven site, Sites 3, 4, 6, 7, 12 

and 13 would be deleted and acreage 

reduced at existing Site 1; 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 81912–81913, 12/29/ 

2011) and the application has been 

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 226 

under the alternative site framework is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard 

2,000-acre activation limit for the 

overall general-purpose zone project, 

and to five-year ASF sunset provisions 

for magnet sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 2, 9 10 and 11 if not 

activated by April 30, 2017, and to a 

three-year sunset provision for usagedriven sites that would terminate 

authority for Site 8 if no foreign-status 

merchandise is admitted for a bona fide 

customs purpose by April 30, 2015. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

April 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

ATTEST: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9821 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1821] 

Voluntary Termination of ForeignTrade Subzone 9D, Maui Pineapple 

Company, Ltd., Kahului, Maui, HI 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board Regulations (15 

CFR part 400), the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board (the Board) hereby adopts the 

following order: 

Whereas, on April 25, 1986, the Board 

issued a grant of authority to the State 

of Hawaii (grantee of FTZ 9) authorizing 

the establishment of Foreign-Trade 

Subzone 9D at the Maui Pineapple 

Company, Ltd., facility in Kahului, 

Maui, Hawaii (Board Order 329, 51 FR 

16367, 05/02/1986); 

Whereas, the State of Hawaii has 

advised that zone procedures are no 

longer needed at the facility and 

requested voluntary termination of 

Subzone 9D (FTZ Docket 14–2012); and, 

Whereas, the request has been 

reviewed by the FTZ Staff and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection officials, 

and approval has been recommended; 

Now, therefore, the Foreign-Trade 

Zones Board terminates the subzone 

status of Subzone 9D, effective this date. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

April 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9824 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–828] 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 22, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 

(SSBW pipe fittings) from Italy.1 This 

review covers two respondent 

companies and the period of review is 

from February 1, 2010, through January 

31, 2011. We invited interested parties 

to comment on the preliminary results 

but received no comments. Therefore, 

our final results remain unchanged from 

the preliminary results of review. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3931 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 22, 2011, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of the current administrative 

review on SSBW pipe fittings from Italy 

in the Federal Register. See Preliminary 

Results. In these results, we 

preliminarily determined that the 

respondent Filmag Italia SRL (Filmag) 

had no reviewable transactions during 

the period of review. With respect to the 

respondent Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A. 

(Tectubi), we determined that it and two 

of its affiliates, Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l. 

(Raccordi) and Allied International S.r.l. 

(Allied) should be treated as a single 

entity for purposes of calculating a 

dumping margin pursuant to the 

provisions of 19 CFR 351.401(f) and 

consequently, we calculated a 

preliminary dumping margin based on 

the sales information reported by 

Tectubi for all three companies. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

2See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 

2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the 

Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 

(September 17, 2010). 

3See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties). 

4Although we found it appropriate to collapse 

the sales information reported by Tectubi, Raccordi 

and Allied for our margin analysis, all subject 

merchandise under review was produced by 

Tectubi or Raccordi, exported by Tectubi and 

imported by Tectubi. 

5See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel 

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy, Malaysia, and 

the Philippines, 66 FR 11257, 11258 (February, 23, 

2001). 

We invited parties to comment on the 

preliminary results of review but 

received no comments and did not 

receive any requests for a hearing. 

Period of Review 

The period of review is February 1, 

2010, through January 31, 2011. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the product 

covered is certain stainless steel, buttweld pipe fittings. SSBW pipe fittings 

are under 14 inches in outside diameter 

(based on nominal pipe size), whether 

finished or unfinished. The product 

encompasses all grades of stainless steel 

and ‘‘commodity’’ and ‘‘specialty’’ 

fittings. Specifically excluded from the 

definition are threaded, grooved, and 

bolted fittings, and fittings made from 

any material other than stainless steel. 

The butt-weld fittings subject to the 

order are generally designated under 

specification ASTM A403/A403M, the 

standard specification for Wrought 

Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping 

Fittings, or its foreign equivalents (e.g., 

DIN or JIS specifications). This 

specification covers two general classes 

of fittings, WP and CR, of wrought 

austenitic stainless steel fittings of 

seamless and welded construction 

covered by the latest revision of ANSI 

B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI B16.28. 

Butt-weld fittings manufactured to 

specification ASTM A774, or its foreign 

equivalents, are also covered by the 

order. 

The order does not apply to cast 

fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel 

pipe fittings are covered by 

specifications A351/A351M, A743/ 

743M, and A744/A744M. 

The butt-weld fittings subject to the 

order is currently classifiable under 

subheading 7307.23.0000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Final Determination of No Shipments 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

Filmag stated that it had no sales of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review in response to our 

antidumping questionnaire and we were 

able to confirm with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) that the 

company had no entries of subject 

merchandise during this period. Based 

on this evidence, we preliminarily 

determined that Filmag had no 

reviewable transactions during the 

period of review. We further found that 

if, in the final results, we continued to 

find that Filmag had no reviewable 

transactions of subject merchandise, we 

would instruct CBP to liquidate any 

existing entries of merchandise 

produced by Filmag but exported by 

other parties at the all-others rate.2

Because we have no basis to find 

otherwise, we continue to find that 

Filmag had no reviewable transactions 

of subject merchandise during the 

period of review for the final results of 

review. Furthermore, we continue to 

find that it is more consistent with our 

May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic assessment’’ 

clarification 3 not to rescind the review 

in part in these circumstances but, 

rather, to complete the review with 

respect to Filmag and issue appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on our final 

results. See the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ 

section of this notice below. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period February 1, 2010, 

through January 31, 2011: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margins 

(percent) 

Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A./ 

Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l./Allied 

International S.r.l. ................ 0.00 

Filmag Italia SRL .................... * 

* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm does not have an individual 

rate from a prior segment of the proceeding. 

Assessment Rates 

We will instruct CBP to apply a 

dumping margin of zero percent to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review that were produced 

by Tectubi or Raccordi and exported 

and imported by Tectubi.4

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties. This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review produced by Tectubi, Raccordi 

and Filmag for which they did not know 

that their merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

of 26.59 percent, established in the lessthan-fair-value investigation of the 

order,5 if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of these final 

results, consistent with section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by the collapsed Tectubi 

companies (i.e., Tectubi, Raccordi and 

Allied), the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies other than the 

collapsed Tectubi companies, the cashdeposit 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, the 

prior review, or the 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) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cashdeposit rate will be the all-others rate of 

26.59 percent. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notifications to Interested Parties 

This notice also 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 doubled antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24461 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation, 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: April 17, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9819 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–122–853] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From Canada: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2012, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on citric 

acid and certain citrate salts from 

Canada. The review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise: Jungbunzlauer Canada 

Inc. (JBL Canada). The period of review 

(POR) is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 

2011. 

No interested party submitted 

comments on the preliminary results. 

We have made no changes to the margin 

calculation for the final results of this 

review. Therefore, the final results do 

not differ from the preliminary results. 

The final weighted-average dumping 

margin for JBL Canada is listed below in 

the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, 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) 482–4007 or (202) 482– 

4929, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The review covers one manufacturer/ 

exporter of the subject merchandise: JBL 

Canada. 

On February 7, 2012, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on citric acid and certain citrate salts 

from Canada. See Citric Acid and 

Certain Citrate Salts from Canada: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 6061 

(February 7, 2012) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on the 

preliminary results of the review. No 

interested party submitted comments. 

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 all 

grades and granulation sizes of citric 

acid, sodium citrate, and potassium 

citrate in their unblended forms, 

whether dry or in solution, and 

regardless of packaging type. The scope 

also includes blends of citric acid, 

sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as 

well as blends with other ingredients, 

such as sugar, where the unblended 

form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, 

and potassium citrate constitute 40 

percent or more, by weight, of the blend. 

The scope of this order also includes all 

forms of crude calcium citrate, 

including dicalcium citrate 

monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate 

tetrahydrate, which are intermediate 

products in the production of citric 

acid, sodium citrate, and potassium 

citrate. The scope of this order does not 

include calcium citrate that satisfies the 

standards set forth in the United States 

Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with 

a functional excipient, such as dextrose 

or starch, where the excipient 

constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, 

of the product. The scope of this order 

includes the hydrous and anhydrous 

forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and 

anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, 

otherwise known as citric acid sodium 

salt, and the monohydrate and 

monopotassium forms of potassium 

citrate. Sodium citrate also includes 

both trisodium citrate and monosodium 

citrate, which are also known as citric 

acid trisodium salt and citric acid 

monosodium salt, respectively. Citric 

acid and sodium citrate are classifiable 

under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), respectively. 

Potassium citrate and crude calcium 

citrate are classifiable under 

2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the 

HTSUS, respectively. Blends that 

include citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate are classifiable under 

3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is May 1, 2010, through 

April 30, 2011. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine that a weighted-average 

dumping margin exists for JBL Canada 

for the period May 1, 2010, through 

April 30, 2011, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc ............ 2.34 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 

19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends 

to issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the respondent subject 

to this review directly to CBP 41 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

For those sales where JBL Canada 

reported the entered value of its U.S. 

sales, we 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 examined sales to that 

importer. For those sales where the 

respondent did not know the entered 

value or importer of its U.S. sales, we 

calculated customer-specific per-unit 

duty assessment rates by aggregating the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity of those sales. To determine 

whether the per-unit duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), we calculated customerspecific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES