Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31251 

products are covered by the scope of 

this review. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this review are: A. Boiler tubing and 

mechanical tubing, if such products are 

not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 

5L specifications and are not used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

applications. B. Finished and 

unfinished oil country tubular goods 

(OCTG), if covered by the scope of 

another antidumping duty order from 

the same country. If not covered by such 

an OCTG order, finished and unfinished 

OCTG are included in this scope when 

used in standard, line or pressure 

applications. C. Products produced to 

the A–335 specification unless they are 

used in an application that would 

normally utilize ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 

5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe 

for deepwater application, i.e., line and 

riser pipe that is (1) used in a deepwater 

application, which means for use in 

water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) 

intended for use in and is actually used 

for a specific deepwater project; (3) 

rated for a specified minimum yield 

strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and 

(4) not identified or certified through 

the use of a monogram, stencil, or 

otherwise marked with an API 

specification (e.g., ‘‘API 5L’’). 

With regard to the excluded products 

listed above, the Department will not 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to require end-use 

certification until such time as 

petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being utilized in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, we will require end-use 

certification only for the product(s) (or 

specification(s)) for which evidence is 

provided that such products are being 

used in a covered application as 

described above. For example, if, based 

on evidence provided by the petitioner, 

the Department finds a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect that seamless pipe 

produced to the A–335 specification is 

being used in an A–106 application, we 

will require end-use certifications for 

imports of that specification. Normally 

we will require only the importer of 

record to certify to the end use of the 

imported merchandise. If it later proves 

necessary for adequate implementation, 

we may also require producers who 

export such products to the United 

States to provide such certification on 

invoices accompanying shipments to 

the United States. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Rescission of the Administrative 

Review 

As noted above, all four respondents 

submitted letters to the Department 

indicating that they did not make any 

shipments or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. In response to the 

Department’s query to CBP, CBP data 

showed subject merchandise 

manufactured by one of the respondent 

companies, SMI, was entered for 

consumption into the United States 

during the POR from third countries. On 

February 19, 2009, the Department 

placed, on the record of this review, 

copies of the entry documents in 

question. 

Additionally, on February 19, and 

April 29, 2009, the Department sent 

questionnaires to SMI and requested 

that SMI further substantiate its claim of 

no shipments. On March 27, and May 

13, 2009, SMI provided the Department 

with responses, and explained in detail 

that it had no knowledge of the entries 

in question. On the basis of these 

documents and submissions, the 

Department has concluded that there is 

no evidence on the record that, at the 

time of sale, SMI had knowledge that 

these entries were destined for the 

United States, nor is there evidence that 

SMI had knowledge that any of these 

entries of subject merchandise entered 

the United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File, from 

Alexander Montoro, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through Nancy 

Decker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations Office 1, entitled ‘‘Intent to 

Rescind the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain Large 

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from 

Japan,’’ May 28, 2009 (Intent to Rescind 

Memo). Specifically, subject 

merchandise produced by SMI entered 

the United States during the POR under 

its antidumping case number, but this 

occurred without the company’s 

knowledge by way of intermediaries. 

See Intent to Rescind Memo. For JFE 

Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel 

Corporation, and NKK Tubes, the CBP 

data showed no entries of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR. Thus, the Department 

found that the respondents’ claims of no 

shipments or entries for consumption to 

be substantiated. On May 28, 2009, the 

Department notified interested parties of 

its intent to rescind this administrative 

review and gave parties until June 8, 

2009, to provide comments. See Intent 

to Rescind Memo. No comments were 

received. 

Based upon the certifications and the 

evidence on the record, we are satisfied 

that none of the respondents had 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department 

may rescind an administrative review, 

in whole or with respect to a particular 

exporter or producer, if the Secretary 

concludes that, during the period 

covered by the review, there were no 

entries, exports, or sales of the subject 

merchandise. Therefore, the Department 

is rescinding this review in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Dumping Duties). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by the 

respondent company for which it did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate un-reviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment of Dumping 

Duties for a full discussion of this 

clarification. The Department will issue 

liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of this notice of 

rescission of review. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15493 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–832] 

Pure Magnesium From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

a request for a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’), received on May 21, 

2009, meets the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for initiation. The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) of this new shipper 

review is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 

2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori 

Apodaca at (202) 482–4551, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 12, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure 

Magnesium From the People’s Republic 

of China, the Russian Federation and 

Ukraine, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995). 

Therefore, May is the anniversary 

month and a request for a new shipper 

review is timely filed if made during the 

six month period ending with the 

anniversary month. See 19 CFR 

351.214(d). On May 21, 2009, we 

received a new shipper review request 

from an exporter, Tianjin Xiangghaiqi 

Resources Import & Export Trade Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘TXR’’). On May 28, 2009, TXR 

submitted a certification from the 

manufacturer of its subject merchandise, 

Pan Asia Magnesium Co., Ltd. (‘‘PAM’’), 

certifying that PAM’s export activities 

are not controlled by the government of 

the PRC. Furthermore, on June 1, 2009, 

TXR submitted corrections to its May 

21, 2009, new shipper review request. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(A), 

TXR certified that it did not export pure 

magnesium to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). In 

addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), PAM, the producer 

of the pure magnesium exported by 

TXR, provided a certification that it did 

not export the subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POI. In 

addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), TXR and PAM 

certified that, since the initiation of the 

investigation, both have never been 

affiliated with any exporter or producer 

who exported pure magnesium to the 

United States during the POI, including 

those not individually examined during 

the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), TXR and PAM also 

certified that their export activities were 

not controlled by the central 

government of the PRC. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), TXR submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) The date on which it first 

shipped pure magnesium for export to 

the United States; (2) the volume of its 

first shipment; (3) the date when subject 

merchandise entered the United States 

for consumption; and (4) the date of its 

first sale to an unaffiliated customer in 

the United States. 

The Department requested a U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

database query for the purpose of 

substantiating that TXR’s shipment of 

subject merchandise had entered the 

United States for consumption and that 

liquidation of such entries had been 

properly suspended for antidumping 

duties. The Department reviewed the 

CBP data and was able to verify that 

TXR’s shipment of subject merchandise 

had entered the United States for 

consumption and that liquidation of 

such entries had been properly 

suspended for antidumping duties. 

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214, we find that 

the request submitted by TXR meets the 

threshold requirements for initiation of 

a new shipper review for shipments of 

pure magnesium from the PRC 

manufactured by PAM and exported by 

TXR. See Memorandum to the File, 

dated June 8, 2009, regarding TXR’s 

NSR Initiation Checklist. 

The POR is May 1, 2008, through 

April 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.214(g)(1)(i)(A). We intend to issue 

preliminary results of this review no 

later than 180 days from the date of 

initiation, and final results of this 

review no later than 270 days from the 

date of initiation. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(h)(i)(1). 

On August 17, 2006, the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006 (‘‘H.R. 4’’) was 

signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 

temporarily suspends the authority of 

the Department to instruct U.S. CBP to 

collect a bond or other security in lieu 

of a cash deposit in new shipper 

reviews during the period April 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2009. Therefore, the 

posting of a bond or other security 

under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act 

in lieu of a cash deposit is not available 

in this case. Importers of pure 

magnesium manufactured by PAM and 

exported by TXR must continue to post 

cash deposits of estimated antidumping 

duties on each entry of subject 

merchandise at the current PRC-wide 

rate of 108.26 percent. 

Interested parties that need access to 

proprietary information in this new 

shipper review should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. 

This initiation and notice are 

published in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15488 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Miami University, et al. 

Notice of Consolidated Decision on 

Applicationsfor 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 5:00 P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, 

D.C. 

Docket Number: 09–014. Applicant: 

Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended 

Use: See notice at 74 FR 23394, May 19, 

2009. 

Docket Number: 09–018. Applicant: 

Texas A&M University, College Station, 

TX 77843–4458. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: See notice at 74 FR 23394, May 19, 

2009. 

Docket Number: 09–020. Applicant: 

Columbia University, New York, NY 

10032. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, the 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

74 FR 23394, May 19, 2009. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6