5416 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause.

access to business proprietary 

information under APO can be found at 

19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these sunset 

reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of the notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the sunset 

review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of sunset reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department.

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–1943 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–122–814] 

Pure Magnesium From Canada: Notice 

of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

the petitioner in this proceeding, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from Canada. Due to the 

recent completion of NAFTA panel 

review of the final remand 

redetermination made by the 

Department concerning the full sunset 

review of that order, the order was 

revoked effective August 1, 2000. 

Therefore, we are rescinding the 

ongoing administrative review covering 

the period August 1, 2003, through July 

31, 2004.

EFFECTIVE DATES: February 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–1279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 31, 1992, the Department 

published in the Federal Register (57 

FR 39390) an antidumping duty order 

on pure magnesium from Canada. On 

August 3, 2004, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of the opportunity for 

interested parties to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from Canada. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 46496 

(August 3, 2004). On August 30, 2004, 

and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Department received a 

timely request for review of the 

antidumping duty order from U.S. 

Magnesium LLC, an interested party in 

these proceedings, on imports of pure 

magnesium from Canada by Norsk 

Hydro Canada Inc., and Magnola 

Metallurgy Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the 

respondents’’). 

We published a notice of initiation of 

the antidumping duty administrative 

review on September 22, 2004, with 

respect to the respondents in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). 

The period of review is August 1, 2003, 

through July 31, 2004. 

On November 19, 2004, the NAFTA 

Secretariat published in the Federal 

Register a notice of completion of panel 

review of the final remand 

redetermination made by the 

Department concerning the full sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on pure magnesium from Canada. See 

North American Free-Trade Agreement, 

Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; 

Completion of Panel Review, 69 FR 

67703 (November 19, 2004). 

On December 7, 2004, pursuant to the 

panel’s decision, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of amended final results of its 

full sunset review and revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from Canada effective 

August 1, 2000, the effective date of the 

original full sunset review, in 

accordance with 516A(g)(5)(C) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (‘‘the 

Act’’). See Pure Magnesium from 

Canada; Notice of NAFTA Binational 

Panel’s Final Decision, Amended Final 

Results of Full Sunset Review and 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 

69 FR 70649 (December 7, 2004). 

Rescission of Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

As the result of the revocation of the 

antidumping duty order effective 

August 1, 2000, we are hereby 

rescinding the instant administrative 

review on pure magnesium from 

Canada, the only ongoing review of this 

order. 

Instructions to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(2) and 

751(d)(3) of the Act, and 351.222 of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department has instructed U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

and to liquidate, without regard to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 5417

1 7 U.S.C. 6d(a)(2). The Commission segregation 

requirements are set forth in Regulations 1.20–1.30, 

132 and 1.36 [17 CFR 1.20–1.30, 1.32 and 1.36].

2See Financial and Segregation Interpretation No. 

10, Treatment of Funds Deposited in Safekeeping 

Accounts, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 7120 (May 

23, 1984).

3Until immediately prior to the issuance of 

Interpretation No. 10, the Department of Labor 

(‘‘DOL’’) viewed customer margin as client assets 

for purposes of the custody requirements and 

certain other fiduciary provisions of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’) 

[29 U.S.C. 1001–1461], requiring separate 

safekeeping of such assets. Since then, and 

currently, DOL subscribes to the view that such 

assets are not client assets for purposes of ERISA.

4U.S.C. 6(d)(a)2).

5See also, note 16, Interpretation No. 10, citing 

Administrative Determination No. 29 of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority, the Commission’s 

predecessor agency, dated September 28, 1937, 

which stated in pertinent part that ‘‘the deposit, by 

a futures commission merchant, of customer funds 

* * * under conditions whereby such funds would 

not be subject to withdrawal upon demand would 

be repugnant to the spirit and purpose of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. All funds deposited in 

a bank should in all cases be subject to withdrawal 

on demand.’’

antidumping duties, all unliquidated 

entries of pure magnesium from Canada 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after August 1, 

2000, the effective date of the revocation 

of the order. The Department has further 

instructed CBP to refund with interest 

any estimated duties collected with 

respect to unliquidated entries of pure 

magnesium entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

August 1, 2000, in accordance with 

section 778 of the Act. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, 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. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Act, as amended and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4).

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–1957 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed withdrawal of staff 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: Section 4d(a)(2) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) and 

related Commission regulations 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘segregation requirements’’) require 

that, among other things, all funds 

deposited with a futures commission 

merchant (‘‘FCM’’) to purchase, margin, 

guarantee, or secure futures or 

commodity options transactions and all 

accruals thereon (‘‘customer funds’’ or 

‘‘customer margin’’) be accounted for 

separately, be held for the benefit of 

customers and deposited under an 

account name that clearly identifies 

them as such, and not be commingled 

with the FCM’s own funds,1 Further, the 

Division of Clearing and Intermediary 

Oversight (‘‘Division’’) has construed 

these provisions to prohibit any 

impediments or restrictions upon an 

FCM’s ability to obtain immediate 

access to customer funds.

In 1984, the Division of Trading and 

Markets (‘‘T&M,’’ predecessor to the 

Division) issued an interpretation, 

Financial and Segregation Interpretation 

No. 10 (‘‘Interpretation No. 10’’), to 

address whether, and the circumstances 

under which, the use of bank custodial 

accounts (otherwise known as 

‘‘safekeeping accounts’’ or ‘‘third-party 

custodial accounts’’) to maintain 

customer funds would be consistent 

with the segregation requirements of the 

CEA.2 At the time, investment 

companies registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 

‘‘Investment Company Act’’) (‘‘RICs’’) 

were generally barred from using any 

FCM or futures clearinghouse as a 

custodian of fund assets and, thus, 

third-party custodial accounts were the 

only permissible means available to 

RICs to use the risk management tools 

available through the futures markets.3

With Interpretation No. 10, T&M took 

the position that customer funds held in 

third-party custodial accounts could be 

deemed properly segregated for 

purposes of Section 4d(a)(2), provided 

that certain terms and conditions 

designed to ensure FCMs’ immediate 

and unimpeded access to the funds 

were met.

Today, RICs are, for the most part, no 

longer prohibited from depositing 

customer margin directly with FCMs 

and thus may engage in futures trading 

generally in the same manner as other 

futures customers. This, coupled with 

the fact that third-party custodial 

accounts may present not insignificant 

regulatory concerns, as well as costs and 

burdens for market participants, leads 

the Division to believe that 

Interpretation No. 10 is no longer 

necessary or justified, except in certain 

limited circumstances. In this notice, 

the Division is inviting comments 

concerning Interpretation No. 10 and 

specifically, whether Interpretation No. 

10 should be withdrawn.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. Comments may 

be sent by facsimile transmission to 

(202) 418–5521, by e-mail to 

secretary@cftc.gov, or electronically by 

accessing http://www.regulations.gov.

Reference should be made to ‘‘Proposed 

Withdrawal of Interpretation No. 10.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carlene S. Kim, Senior Special Counsel, 

Division of Clearing and Intermediary 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Telephone: (202) 418–5613.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

I. Interpretation No. 10

Section 4d(a)(2) of the CEA and 

related Commission regulations require 

that, among other things, all funds 

deposited with an FCM to purchase, 

margin, guarantee, or secure futures or 

commodity options transactions and all 

accruals thereon, be accounted for 

separately by the FCM and deposited 

under an account name that clearly 

identifies them as such, not be 

commingled with the FCM’s own funds, 

and be held for the benefit of 

customers.4 The segregation 

requirements are intended to prevent an 

FCM from using customer property to 

margin the trades of other customers or 

of the FCM itself. Further, the Division 

has interpreted the segregation 

requirements to preclude any 

impediments or restrictions on the 

FCM’s ability to obtain the immediate 

access to customer funds.5 The 

immediate and unfettered access 

requirement avoids potential delay or 

interruption in securing required margin 

payments that, in times of significant 

market disruption or otherwise, could 

magnify the impact of such market