45400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

1The Department verified these adjustments 

during its verification of Maquilacero’s comparison 

and U.S. market sales. See Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Maquilacero S.A. de C.V in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled 

deposit will be required; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, or the initial 

less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 12.61 

percent, the all others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

SSSSC Order, 64 FR at 40557. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17935 Filed 8–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

The Ohio State University, et al.; Notice 

of Consolidated Decision on 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Electron Microscopes 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. 

Docket Number: 08–027. Applicant: 

The Ohio State University, Columbus, 

OH 43210. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Helios 600. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company/Phillips 

Electron Optics, The Netherlands. 

Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 

37408, July 1, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–029. Applicant: 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

37232–8725. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 

TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

72 FR 37408, July 1, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–030. Applicant: 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 

98195. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model Tecnai G2 F20 S–TWIN. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, The 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

72 FR 34708, July 1, 2008. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as these 

instruments are intended to be used, 

was being manufactured in the United 

States at the time the instruments were 

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign 

instrument is an electron microscope 

and is intended for research or scientific 

educational uses requiring an electron 

microscope. We know of no electron 

microscope, or any other instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of order of each instrument. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17723 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–836] 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Judy Lao, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department), 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–8029 or (202) 482–7924, 

respectively. 

Amendment to Final Determination 

In accordance with sections 735(a) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, (the Act), on June 13, 2008, 

the Department made a final 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (LTFV) in the investigation of 

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 

from Mexico. The final determination 

was subsequently released to all parties 

in the proceeding, and published in the 

Federal Register on June 24, 2008. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 73 FR 35649 (June 24, 2008) 

(Final Determination). On June 23, 2008, 

and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), 

we received timely-filed allegations 

from respondents, Maquilacero S.A. de 

C.V. (Maquilacero) and Productos 

Laminados de Monterrey SA. de C.V. 

(PROLAMSA), that the Department 

made ministerial errors with respect to 

its final dumping margin calculations 

for both companies. See Letter from 

Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. to the 

Department of Commerce, regarding 

‘‘Ministerial Error Comments,’’ dated 

June 23, 2008 (Maquilacero Ministerial 

Letter); see also Letter from Productos 

Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V., 

regarding ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Comments,’’ dated June 23, 2008 

(PROLAMSA Ministerial Letter). On 

June 25, 2008, we received comments 

from petitioners regarding the 

ministerial errors alleged by 

PROLAMSA. See Letter from Petitioners 

to the Department, regarding the 

ministerial errors alleged by 

PROLAMSA, dated June 25, 2008. 

After analyzing respondents’

ministerial error comments, we have 

determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), that we made the following 

ministerial errors with respect to our 

final dumping margin calculations for 

Maquilacero and PROLAMSA. 

Maguilacero 

The Department has revised its 

margin calculation for Maquilacero with 

regard to certain expense adjustments. 

Specifically, the Department 

inadvertently did not adjust the 

comparison and U.S. market net prices 

for certain expenses reported in 

Maquilacero’s sales databases, i.e., 

maqhm06b and maqus06b.1 See 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45401 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, dated 

April 11, 2008. 2 In the Final Determination, the Department 

increased the total cost of manufacturing for each 

product by the percentage difference between the 

subject merchandise variance percentage 

recalculated by the Department and the variance 

percentage previously reported by PROLAMSA. See 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination of the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from Mexico,’’ from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated June 13, 2008. See also ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Determination: Productos 

Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V.,’’

memorandum from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper, 

dated June 13, 2008. 

3The Department determined an adverse facts 

available (AFA) rate of 11.50 percent in the final 

determination of sales at LTFV of this investigation 

for certain Mexican producers and/or exporters of 

LWR that were non-responsive to our requests for 

information. The Department based the AFA rate 

upon the highest estimated margin alleged in the 

petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 73 FR 35649 (June 24, 

2008). We note that the AFA rate of 11.50 percent 

continues to apply for these companies. 

Maquilacero Ministerial Letter. The 

Department has revised its calculation 

of both the comparison and U.S. market 

net prices to adjust for these expenses 

as intended. For a detailed discussion of 

the ministerial errors alleged by 

Maquilacero as well as the Department’s 

analysis, see Memorandum from the 

Team to Richard O. Weible, entitled, 

‘‘Ministerial Error Allegation in the 

Final Determination of the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico: Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.,’’

dated July 24, 2008. Correcting these 

errors results in a revised margin of 2.40 

percent for Maquilacero as indicated in 

the ‘‘Amended Cash Deposits’’ section 

below. 

PROLAMSA 

The Department has revised its 

margin calculation for PROLAMSA, to 

correct for two errors. First, the 

Department inadvertently applied the 

incorrect scrap offset factor in 

calculating PROLAMSA’s cost of direct 

materials in its final determination. 

Based on the Department’s findings at 

verification, the Department 

recalculated PROLAMSA’s variance 

factor to exclude the cost of direct 

materials for semi-finished products. 

See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee, 

Accountant, to the File, regarding 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Prolamsa (A–201–836),’’ dated April 15, 

2008 (PROLAMSA Cost Verification 

Report) at 2, 19–20. However, the 

Department inadvertently applied the 

original scrap offset factor to calculate 

PROLAMSA’s cost of direct materials 

net of scrap revenue (DMNET) for the 

final determination. See PROLAMSA 

Ministerial Letter at 2. The Department 

is, therefore, revising its calculation of 

DMNET to reflect the revised scrap 

offset factor, as intended. Second, 

because the Department has revised 

PROLAMSA’s total cost of 

manufacturing as described above, the 

Department is consequently revising the 

calculation of PROLAMSA’s inventory 

carrying costs during the period of 

investigation because these costs are 

based upon PROLAMSA’s cost of 

manufacturing. 

PROLAMSA further alleged a 

ministerial error with regard to the 

Department’s calculation of its total cost 

of manufacturing. See PROLAMSA 

Ministerial Letter at 3–4. Specifically, 

PROLAMSA alleges that the Department 

made a mathematical calculation error 

by applying the adjusted variance factor 

to its total cost of manufacturing which 

includes an amount for the B–10 

adjustment.2 After reviewing 

PROLAMSA’s allegation, we have 

determined that the alleged error is 

methodological in nature and, therefore, 

does not constitute a ministerial error 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.224(f). For a detailed discussion of 

the ministerial errors alleged by 

PROLAMSA as well as the Department’s 

analysis, see Memorandum from the 

Team to Richard O. Weible, entitled, 

‘‘Ministerial Error Allegations in the 

Final Determination of the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico: Productos Laminados de 

Monterrey S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated July 24, 

2008. Correcting the scrap offset factor 

and adjusting the calculation of 

PROLAMSA’s inventory carrying costs 

to account for this correction, results in 

a revised margin for PROLAMSA of 5.12 

percent as indicated in the ‘‘Amended 

Cash Deposits’’ section below. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

35 1.224(e), we are amending the final 

determination of sales at LTFV in the 

antidumping duty investigation of lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Mexico for Maquilacero and 

PROLAMSA. 

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 and de minimis margins and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. For this amended 

final determination, we have calculated 

amended margins for Maquilacero and 

PROLAMSA that are both above de 

minimis . Notwithstanding the language 

of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, 

we have not calculated the all-others 

rate by weight averaging the rates of 

Maquilacero and PROLAMSA, because 

doing so risks disclosure of proprietary 

information. 

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 

rate of the amended dumping margins 

calculated for Maquilacero and 

PROLAMSA, i.e., 3.76 percent. 

Amended Cash Deposits 

The revised weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows: 3

Manufacturer/exporter 

Final determination weighted 

average 

Amended final 

weighted 

average margin 

percentage 

Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. .................................................................................................................................... 2.94 2.40 

Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. .............................................................................................. 5.73 5.12 

Arco Metal S.A. de C.V. ...................................................................................................................................... 4.33 3.76 

Hylsa S.A. de C.V. ............................................................................................................................................... 4.33 3.76 

Internacional de Aceros, S.A. de C.V. ................................................................................................................ 4.33 3.76 

Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. ................................................................................................................... 4.33 3.76 

Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos ..................................................................................................................... 4.33 3.76 

Talleres Acero Rey S.A. de C.V. ......................................................................................................................... 4.33 3.76 

Tuberia Laguna, S.A. de C.V. ............................................................................................................................. 4.33 3.76 

All-Others ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.33 3.76 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

1On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms 

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are 

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

See Recommendation Memorandum–Final Ruling 

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain 

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this 

decision was upheld by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Tak Fat v. 

United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. 

CBP shall require a cash deposit equal 

to the estimated amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the U.S. price as 

indicated in the chart above. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

This amended determination is issued 

and published pursuant to section 

735(e) of the Act. 

Dated: July 24, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17719 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 23, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the 

Federal Register the preliminary results 

of the new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for 

Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xingda’’). See Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

73 FR 30054 (May 23, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results, 

but we did not receive any comments. 

Therefore, we made no changes to the 

dumping margin calculations for these 

final results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor at (202) 482–4114; AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Preliminary Results for this 

administrative review were published 

on May 23, 2008. In the Preliminary 

Results, the Department stated that 

interested parties were to submit case 

briefs within 30 days of publication of 

the preliminary results and rebuttal 

briefs within five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. No interested 

party submitted a case or rebuttal brief. 

Verification 

The Department did not conduct 

verification in this new shipper review. 

Hearing 

No party requested a hearing for this 

new shipper review. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers 

February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers 

to mushrooms that have been prepared 

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

provisionally preserve them for further 

processing.1

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’ (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or 

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are 

prepared or preserved by means of 

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain 

oil or other additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under subheadings: 

2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 

0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–market 

(‘‘NME’’) countries, the Department 

begins with a rebuttable presumption 

that all companies within the country 

are subject to government control and, 

thus, should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

In the Preliminary Results, we found 

that Xingda demonstrated its eligibility 

for separate rate status. We received no 

comments from interested parties 

regarding Xingda’s separate rate status. 

In these final results of review, we 

continue to find that the evidence 

placed on the record of this review by 

Xingda demonstrates an absence of 

government control, both in law and in 

fact, with respect to Xingda’s exports of 

the merchandise under review. Thus, 

we have determined that Xingda is 

eligible to receive a separate rate. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

No interested parties submitted 

comments for these final results. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

We made no changes to the 

Preliminary Results. 

Combination Rate 

In new shipper reviews, the 

Department may, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.107(b), establish a combination cash 

deposit rate for each combination of the 

exporter and its supplying producer(s). 

See Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

67 FR 72139 at 72140 (December 4, 

2002), Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: 

Certain In–Shell Raw Pistachios from 

Iran, 68 FR 353 at 354 (January 3, 2003), 

and Certain Forged Stainless Steel 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES