Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decisions, 22552-22553 [2010-10024]

Download as PDF 22552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Notices The purpose of the planning meeting is to plan future activities. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday June 14, 2010. The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202–376–7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission’s Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. Dated in Washington, DC, 26 April, 2010. Peter Minarik, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. 2010–9958 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–489–807] mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decisions AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In June and November 2009 and January 2010, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained three final remand redeterminations made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) in the 2003–2004 administrative review of certain steel concrete of reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 09–55 (June 15, 2009) (Habas I); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 v. United States, Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 09–133 (Nov. 23, 2009) (Habas II); and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05– 00616, Slip Op. 10–6 (Jan. 19, 2010) (ICDAS). Because all litigation for this administrative review has now concluded, the Department is issuing its amended final results in accordance with the CIT’s decisions. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, 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) 482–3874. Background In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 8, 2005, the Department published its notice of final results in the antidumping duty administrative review of rebar from Turkey for the period of review (POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results). In the Final Results the Department followed its normal practice of using POR weighted–average costs in its margin calculation for all companies, instead of quarterly–average costs as requested by Habas and ICDAS. The Department also based the U.S. date of sale for Habas on the earlier of shipment date or invoice date and the U.S. date of sale for ICDAS on contract date. Subsequent to the final results, Habas and ICDAS contested the Department’s decision to use POR costs, Habas contested the Department’s decision to use invoice date as its U.S. date of sale, and the domestic industry, among other arguments, challenged the Department’s decision to use invoice date as ICDAS’s date of sale. On November 18, 2005, the Department requested a voluntary remand in order to reconsider the date– of-sale issue for ICDAS. On December 15, 2005, the CIT granted the Department’s request to reconsider whether, based upon the record evidence, the Department reasonably applied its date–of-sale methodology to the facts at issue. See Nucor PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States, Court No. 05–00616 (Dec. 15, 2005). On January 31, 2006, the Department issued its final results of redetermination, in which it found that the invoice date was the appropriate date of sale for ICDAS’s U.S. sales. See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Jan. 31, 2006). On November 15, 2007, the CIT remanded for reconsideration Habas’ date of sale and quarterly cost issues. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05–00613, Slip Op. 07–167 (Nov. 15, 2007). On March 3, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s November 15, 2007, remand order, finding that the contract date was the more appropriate date of sale and providing additional justification for relying on POR costs. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Mar. 3, 2008). On March 24, 2009, the CIT again remanded the ICDAS date of sale issue to the Department, requiring that the Department provide a more in–depth analysis as to the reason the use of invoice date was appropriate. The CIT also remanded two additional issues, at the Department’s request, related to the calculation of ICDAS’s cost of production (COP) and the universe of U.S. sales examined in the review. See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company, v. United States, Court No. 05–00616, Slip Op. 09–20 (March 24, 2009). On June 15, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Department’s determination to use contract date as the date of sale for Habas’ U.S. sales. See Habas I. However, the CIT also determined that the Department’s analysis of Habas’ COP (i.e., quarterly costs vs. annual weighted–average costs) in the Final Results was not supported by substantial evidence on the record, and the court remanded this issue to the Department once again for additional reconsideration. Id. On September 8, 2009, and November 6, 2009, respectively, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s June 15, 2009, and March 24, 2009, rulings. See Habas Sinai Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Final Results of Redetermination E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM 29APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Notices mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Pursuant to Court Remand (Sept. 8, 2009) and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial metals Company v. United Sates, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Nov. 6, 2009). In both remand redeterminations, the Department reconsidered the appropriateness of using POR cost data, and consistent with the court’s orders, recalculated the margin for both companies using quarterly costs. In addition, in its November 6, 2009, redetermination, the Department provided additional justification for its date of sale methodology for ICDAS, as well as for its methodology of defining the universe of reviewed transactions. On November 23, 2009, and January 19, 2010, respectively, the CIT found that the Department complied with its remand orders and sustained the Department’s remand redeterminations in all respects. See Habas II and ICDAS. On December 4, 2009, and February 12, 2010, respectively, consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal District in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT’s decisions were ‘‘not in harmony’’ with the Department’s Final Results. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 74 FR 65515 (Dec. 10, 2009) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 75 FR 7562 (Feb. 22, 2010) (Collectively, Rebar Timken Notices). No party appealed either of the CIT’s judgments. Because there are now final and conclusive decisions in the Court proceedings as explained in the Rebar Timken Notices, we are issuing amended final results to reflect the results of the remand determinations. Amended Final Results of Review We are amending the final results of the 2003–2004 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey to revise the weighted– average margin for Habas from 26.07 percent to 5.58 percent, and to revise the weighted–average margin for ICDAS from 0.16 percent to 0.70 percent. Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 23, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–10024 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will meet in open session on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern daylight savings time. DATES: The meeting will convene Tuesday, May 11, at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 3:15 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Measurement Laboratory, Building 215, Room C103, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rene Cesaro, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975–2162. Rene’s e-mail address is rene.cesaro@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) Advisory Board is composed of ten members appointed by the Director of NIST who are eminent in such fields as business, research, science and technology, engineering, education, and management consulting. The purpose of this meeting is to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Technology Innovation Program, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 22553 forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include a TIP update, a presentation on the TIP selection process, and a discussion of potential critical national need areas for future funding. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the TIP Web site at: http://www.nist.gov/tip/. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Board’s affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On May 11, 2010, approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the TIP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 4700, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, via fax at (301) 975–4032, or electronically by e-mail to (lorel.wisniewski@nist.gov). All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Rene Cesaro no later than Friday, May 7, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Cesaro’s e-mail address is rene.cesaro@nist.gov and her phone number is (301) 975–2162. Dated: April 20, 2010. Marc G. Stanley, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. 2010–9494 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 13, 2010, 10 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM 29APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 82 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22552-22553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of 
Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decisions

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In June and November 2009 and January 2010, the United States 
Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained three final remand 
redeterminations made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) in 
the 2003-2004 administrative review of certain steel concrete of 
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 
09-55 (June 15, 2009) (Habas I); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 09-133 
(Nov. 23, 2009) (Habas II); and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel 
Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States and Icdas 
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05-00616, Slip 
Op. 10-6 (Jan. 19, 2010) (ICDAS). Because all litigation for this 
administrative review has now concluded, the Department is issuing its 
amended final results in accordance with the CIT's decisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, 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) 482-3874.

Background

    In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 8, 2005, the Department 
published its notice of final results in the antidumping duty 
administrative review of rebar from Turkey for the period of review 
(POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results).
    In the Final Results the Department followed its normal practice of 
using POR weighted-average costs in its margin calculation for all 
companies, instead of quarterly-average costs as requested by Habas and 
ICDAS. The Department also based the U.S. date of sale for Habas on the 
earlier of shipment date or invoice date and the U.S. date of sale for 
ICDAS on contract date.
    Subsequent to the final results, Habas and ICDAS contested the 
Department's decision to use POR costs, Habas contested the 
Department's decision to use invoice date as its U.S. date of sale, and 
the domestic industry, among other arguments, challenged the 
Department's decision to use invoice date as ICDAS's date of sale.
    On November 18, 2005, the Department requested a voluntary remand 
in order to reconsider the date-of-sale issue for ICDAS. On December 
15, 2005, the CIT granted the Department's request to reconsider 
whether, based upon the record evidence, the Department reasonably 
applied its date-of-sale methodology to the facts at issue. See Nucor 
Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals 
Company v. United States, Court No. 05-00616 (Dec. 15, 2005). On 
January 31, 2006, the Department issued its final results of 
redetermination, in which it found that the invoice date was the 
appropriate date of sale for ICDAS's U.S. sales. See Nucor Corporation, 
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United 
States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Jan. 
31, 2006).
    On November 15, 2007, the CIT remanded for reconsideration Habas' 
date of sale and quarterly cost issues. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 
07-167 (Nov. 15, 2007). On March 3, 2008, the Department issued its 
final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's November 15, 
2007, remand order, finding that the contract date was the more 
appropriate date of sale and providing additional justification for 
relying on POR costs. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Court Remand (Mar. 3, 2008).
    On March 24, 2009, the CIT again remanded the ICDAS date of sale 
issue to the Department, requiring that the Department provide a more 
in-depth analysis as to the reason the use of invoice date was 
appropriate. The CIT also remanded two additional issues, at the 
Department's request, related to the calculation of ICDAS's cost of 
production (COP) and the universe of U.S. sales examined in the review. 
See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial 
Metals Company, v. United States, Court No. 05-00616, Slip Op. 09-20 
(March 24, 2009).
    On June 15, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Department's determination 
to use contract date as the date of sale for Habas' U.S. sales. See 
Habas I. However, the CIT also determined that the Department's 
analysis of Habas' COP (i.e., quarterly costs vs. annual weighted-
average costs) in the Final Results was not supported by substantial 
evidence on the record, and the court remanded this issue to the 
Department once again for additional reconsideration. Id.
    On September 8, 2009, and November 6, 2009, respectively, the 
Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the 
CIT's June 15, 2009, and March 24, 2009, rulings. See Habas Sinai Tibbi 
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Final Results of 
Redetermination

[[Page 22553]]

Pursuant to Court Remand (Sept. 8, 2009) and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau 
Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial metals Company v. United Sates, 
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Nov. 6, 
2009). In both remand redeterminations, the Department reconsidered the 
appropriateness of using POR cost data, and consistent with the court's 
orders, recalculated the margin for both companies using quarterly 
costs. In addition, in its November 6, 2009, redetermination, the 
Department provided additional justification for its date of sale 
methodology for ICDAS, as well as for its methodology of defining the 
universe of reviewed transactions.
    On November 23, 2009, and January 19, 2010, respectively, the CIT 
found that the Department complied with its remand orders and sustained 
the Department's remand redeterminations in all respects. See Habas II 
and ICDAS.
    On December 4, 2009, and February 12, 2010, respectively, 
consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal District in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT's decisions 
were ``not in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. See 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 74 
FR 65515 (Dec. 10, 2009) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results 
of Administrative Review, 75 FR 7562 (Feb. 22, 2010) (Collectively, 
Rebar Timken Notices). No party appealed either of the CIT's judgments. 
Because there are now final and conclusive decisions in the Court 
proceedings as explained in the Rebar Timken Notices, we are issuing 
amended final results to reflect the results of the remand 
determinations.

Amended Final Results of Review

    We are amending the final results of the 2003-2004 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey to revise the 
weighted-average margin for Habas from 26.07 percent to 5.58 percent, 
and to revise the weighted-average margin for ICDAS from 0.16 percent 
to 0.70 percent.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-10024 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S