Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Scope Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of Amended Final Results of Scope Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order, 18200-18202 [2015-07771]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18200
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices
platform user instructions, and
demonstration plans and scripts
necessary to demonstrate the desired
capabilities. Each prospective
participant will train NIST personnel as
necessary, to operate its product in
capability demonstrations to the
financial services community.
Following successful demonstrations,
NIST will publish a description of the
security platform and its performance
characteristics sufficient to permit other
organizations to develop and deploy
security platforms that meet the security
objectives of the Access Rights
Management for the Financial Services
sector use case. These descriptions will
be public information. Under the terms
of the consortium agreement, NIST will
support development of interfaces
among participants’ products by
providing IT infrastructure, laboratory
facilities, office facilities, collaboration
facilities, and staff support to
component composition, security
platform documentation, and
demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the
Access Rights Management for the
Financial Services sector capability will
be announced on the NCCoE Web site
at least two weeks in advance at
https://nccoe.nist.gov/. The expected
outcome of the demonstration is to
improve access rights management
across an entire financial services sector
enterprise. Participating organizations
will gain from the knowledge that their
products are interoperable with other
participants’ offerings.
For additional information on the
NCCoE governance, business processes,
and NCCoE operational structure, visit
the NCCoE Web site https://
nccoe.nist.gov/.
Richard Cavanagh,
Acting Associate Director for Laboratory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015–07590 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economics and Statistics
Administration
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commerce Data Advisory Council
Meeting
Economic and Statistics
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Economic and Statistics
Administration (ESA) is giving notice of
a meeting of Commerce Data Advisory
Council (CDAC). The CDAC will
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Apr 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
address areas such as data management
practices; common, open data
standards; policy issues related to
privacy, latency, and consistency;
effective models for public-private
partnership; external uses of Commerce
data; and, methods to build new
feedback loops between the Department
and data users. The CDAC will meet in
a plenary session on April 23–24, 2015.
Last-minute changes to the schedule are
possible, which could prevent giving
advance public notice of schedule
adjustments.
DATES: April 23–24, 2015. On April 23,
the meeting will begin at approximately
12:00 p.m. and end at approximately
5:00 p.m. On April 24, the meeting will
begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and
end at approximately 1:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
Google Washington, DC, 25
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 900,
Washington, DC 20001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Burton Reist, BReist@doc.gov Director of
External Communication and DFO,
CDAC, Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics
Administration, 1401 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone
(202) 482–3331.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CDAC
comprises as many as 20 members. The
Committee provides an organized and
continuing channel of communication
between recognized experts in the data
industry (collection, compilation,
analysis, dissemination and privacy
protection) and the Department of
Commerce. The CDAC provides advice
and recommendations, to include
process and infrastructure
improvements, to the Secretary, DOC
and the DOC data-bureau leadership on
ways to make Commerce data easier to
find, access, use, combine and
disseminate. The aim of this advice
shall be to maximize the value of
Commerce data to all users including
governments, businesses, communities,
academia, and individuals.
The Committee meeting is in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Title 5, United States
Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)).
All meetings are open to the public.
A brief period will be set aside at the
meeting for public comment on April
24, 2015. However, individuals with
extensive questions or statements must
submit them in writing to:
DataAdvisoryCouncil@doc.gov (subject
line ‘‘APRIL 2015 CDAC Meeting Public
Comment’’), or by letter submission to
the Director of External Communication
and DFO, CDAC, Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration, 1401 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Such
submissions will be included in the
record for the meeting if received by
Friday, April 17, 2015.
The meeting is physically accessible
to persons with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to the
Director of External Communication as
soon as possible, preferably two weeks
prior to the meeting. If you plan to
attend the meeting, please register by
Monday, April 20, 2015. You may
access the online registration from the
following link: https://
www.regonline.com/cdac_april_2015_
meeting.
Seating is available to the public on
a first-come, first-served basis.
Dated: March 30, 2015.
Austin Durrer,
Chief of Staff for Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs, Economics and Statistics
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015–07773 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–932]
Steel Threaded Rod From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the
Final Results of Scope Ruling on
Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of
Amended Final Results of Scope
Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 22, 2014, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a
decision that engineered steel coil rod
(coil rod) imported by A.L. Patterson,
Inc. (Patterson) was outside the scope of
the antidumping duty order on certain
steel threaded rod from the People’s
Republic of China on threaded rod from
the PRC.1 On December 29, 2014, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) issued an order for
the Department to take action on
remand in accordance with the CAFC’s
decision and to find that Patterson’s
engineered steel coil rod is outside the
AGENCY:
1 See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585
Fed. Appx. 778, 785–86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson
CAFC 2014); see also Certain Steel Threaded Rod
from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 4,
2009) (AD Order).
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices
scope of the AD Order.2 On March 3,
2015, the CIT issued final judgment in
A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 11–00192, affirming
the Department of Commerce’s (the
Department) final results of
redetermination pursuant to remand.3
Consistent with section 516A of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
the Department is notifying the public
that the final judgment in this case is
not in harmony with the Department’s
final results of the scope ruling on the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
threaded rod from the People’s Republic
of China, and is amending the final
results with respect to coil rod imported
by Patterson.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Gillman, Office V, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6433.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
In our initial scope ruling, the
Department found coil rod imported by
Patterson within the scope of the AD
Order on threaded rod from the PRC.4 In
that scope ruling, the Department stated
that the description of the product
contained in the petition, the initial
investigation, and the determinations by
the Department (including prior scope
determinations) and the International
Trade Commission (ITC) were, in fact,
dispositive with respect to Patterson’s
engineered steel coil rod.5 Therefore,
the Department conducted the scope
determination pursuant to 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1). Based on that analysis, as
the scope language of the AD Order was
clear in its requirement that subject
merchandise consist of products with
solid, circular cross sections, with
threading along greater than 25 percent
threading of their total length, and
Patterson’s coil rod met these specific
requirements of the scope of AD Order,
the Department found that Patterson’s
coil rod was within the scope of the AD
Order.6
2 See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court
No. 11–00192 (CIT December 29, 2014) (CIT Second
Remand Order).
3 See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand, A.L. Patterson v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00192 (Jan. 26, 2015), available at:
https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/ (Final
Second Remand Redetermination).
4 See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the
People’s Republic of China: A.L. Patterson Final
Scope Ruling, A–570–932 (May 24, 2011) (Final
Scope Ruling); see also AD Order.
5 See Final Scope Ruling at 5.
6 Id., at 5–6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Apr 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Patterson challenged the Department’s
Final Scope Ruling in the CIT. On
August 6, 2012, the CIT remanded the
Final Scope Ruling to the Department to
reconsider its decision that the
engineered steel coil rod imported by
Patterson falls within the scope of the
AD Order.7 Specifically, the Court held
that: (1) The Department’s decision that
the scope language encompasses
Patterson’s product is not supported by
substantial evidence; (2) if there is no
finding of injury or sales at less-thanfair-value (LTFV) for Patterson’s
product, the Department’s
determination is not in accordance with
law; and (3) the Department failed to
adequately explain the reasons for its
determination.8 The CIT instructed the
Department on remand ‘‘to reconsider
whether the language of the order
includes Patterson’s coil rod, following
the interpretive procedure established
in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).’’ 9
On remand, the Department reexamined the language of the petition,
prior scope determinations, and original
investigations of the Department and
ITC, and the Department continued to
find that Patterson’s coil rod is within
the scope of the AD Order.10 After
reviewing the petition, the ITC reports,
and the original investigations, the
Department found that Patterson’s coil
rod matched the physical description of
the same class or kind of merchandise
previously considered by the
Department and the ITC based on
carbon content, threading along the rod,
and circular cross-section.11
Accordingly, the Department found that
Patterson’s coil rod was within the
scope of the AD Order under an analysis
conducted pursuant to 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1).12
On May 22, 2013, the CIT sustained
the Department’s First Remand
Redetermination.13 Patterson appealed
the CIT’s judgment to the CAFC.
On September 22, 2014, the CAFC
reversed the CIT’s judgment sustaining
the First Remand Redetermination. As
detailed below, the CAFC concluded,
among other things, that substantial
evidence did not support the
Department’s determination that the coil
rod at issue was part of the ITC’s
7 See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, 34 Int’l
Trade Rep. (BNA) 1894 (CIT 2012) (CIT First
Remand Order).
8 See CIT First Remand Order at 9–17.
9 Id., at 18.
10 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand (December 4, 2012) at 14 (First Remand
Redetermination).
11 Id., at 14 and 16–19.
12 Id., at 14.
13 See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court
No. 11–00192 (CIT May 22, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18201
domestic industry analysis during its
investigation.14 Specifically, the CAFC
found that ‘‘the record before us shows
that the investigations that supported
the antidumping order was {sic} not on
Patterson’s coil rod but rather other
kinds of steel threaded rods.’’ 15
Therefore, the CAFC concluded that
‘‘there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that Patterson’s coil rod, a
distinctly different product than steel
threaded rod, was part of the {ITC}’s
material injury investigation,’’ and as
such, found that Patterson’s engineered
steel coil rod is not subject to the AD
order.16 On December 29, 2014, the CIT
issued an order for the Department to
take action on remand in accordance
with the CAFC’s decision in Patterson
CAFC 2014 and to find that Patterson’s
engineered steel coil rod is outside the
scope of the AD Order.17 In the Final
Second Remand Redetermination, and
in following the express directive of the
CIT Second Remand Order, which
instructed the Department to act in
accordance with the CAFC’s decision in
Patterson CAFC 2014, the Department
found that the AD Order did not cover
Patterson’s coil rod.18 The CIT affirmed
the Department’s Final Second Remand
Determination in its entirety on March
3, 2015, and entered judgment.19
Statutory Notice
The CAFC’s decision in Patterson
CAFC 2014 and the CIT’s March 3, 2015,
judgment affirming the Final Second
Remand Determination constitutes final
court decisions that are not in harmony
with the Final Scope Ruling. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the
statutory publication requirements.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department is amending
the Final Scope Ruling with respect to
Patterson’s coil rod as redetermined in
the Final Second Remand
Redetermination and finds engineered
steel coil rod imported by imported by
A.L. Patterson, Inc. to be outside the
scope of the AD Order.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we now find that the scope
of the AD Order does not cover
Patterson’s coil rod, no cash deposits for
14 See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585
Fed. Appx. 778, 785–86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson
CAFC 2014).
15 Id.; Cf. Sango Int’l, L.P. v. United States, 484
F. 3d 1371, 1380–1 (CAFC 2007).
16 See Patterson CAFC 2014 at 15.
17 See CIT Second Remand Order.
18 Final Second Remand Determination.
19 See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court
No. 11–00192 (CIT March 3, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
18202
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices
estimated antidumping duties on future
entries of Patterson’s coil rod
merchandise will be required.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 27, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–07771 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) has received
requests to conduct administrative
reviews of various antidumping and
countervailing duty orders and findings
with February anniversary dates. In
accordance with the Department’s
regulations, we are initiating those
administrative reviews.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Dates: April 3, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD
Operations, Customs Liaison Unit,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)
482–4735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Department has received timely
requests, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), for administrative reviews of
various antidumping and countervailing
duty orders and findings with February
anniversary dates. With respect to the
antidumping duty orders of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India
and Thailand, the initiation of the
antidumping duty administrative review
for these cases will be published in a
separate initiation notice.
All deadlines for the submission of
various types of information,
certifications, or comments or actions by
the Department discussed below refer to
the number of calendar days from the
applicable starting time.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Apr 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Notice of No Sales
If a producer or exporter named in
this notice of initiation had no exports,
sales, or entries during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), it must notify the
Department within 30 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. All submissions must be filed
electronically at https://access.trade.gov
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1
Such submissions are subject to
verification in accordance with section
782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). Further, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i),
a copy must be served on every party on
the Department’s service list.
Respondent Selection
In the event the Department limits the
number of respondents for individual
examination for administrative reviews,
the Department intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S.
imports during the POR. We intend to
release the CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order
(‘‘APO’’) to all parties having an APO
within seven days of publication of this
initiation notice and to make our
decision regarding respondent selection
within 21 days of publication of this
Federal Register notice. The
Department invites comments regarding
the CBP data and respondent selection
within five days of placement of the
CBP data on the record of the applicable
review. Rebuttal comments will be due
five days after submission of initial
comments.
In the event the Department decides
it is necessary to limit individual
examination of respondents and
conduct respondent selection under
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found
that determinations concerning whether
particular companies should be
‘‘collapsed’’ (i.e., treated as a single
entity for purposes of calculating
antidumping duty rates) require a
substantial amount of detailed
information and analysis, which often
require follow-up questions and
analysis. Accordingly, the Department
will not conduct collapsing analyses at
the respondent selection phase of this
review and will not collapse companies
at the respondent selection phase unless
there has been a determination to
collapse certain companies in a
previous segment of this antidumping
proceeding (i.e., investigation,
1 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
administrative review, new shipper
review or changed circumstances
review). For any company subject to this
review, if the Department determined,
or continued to treat, that company as
collapsed with others, the Department
will assume that such companies
continue to operate in the same manner
and will collapse them for respondent
selection purposes. Otherwise, the
Department will not collapse companies
for purposes of respondent selection.
Parties are requested to (a) identify
which companies subject to review
previously were collapsed, and (b)
provide a citation to the proceeding in
which they were collapsed. Further, if
companies are requested to complete
the Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’)
Questionnaire for purposes of
respondent selection, in general each
company must report volume and value
data separately for itself. Parties should
not include data for any other party,
even if they believe they should be
treated as a single entity with that other
party. If a company was collapsed with
another company or companies in the
most recently completed segment of this
proceeding where the Department
considered collapsing that entity,
complete Q&V data for that collapsed
entity must be submitted.
Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a
party that has requested a review may
withdraw that request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. The
regulation provides that the Department
may extend this time if it is reasonable
to do so. In order to provide parties
additional certainty with respect to
when the Department will exercise its
discretion to extend this 90-day
deadline, interested parties are advised
that the Department does not intend to
extend the 90-day deadline unless the
requestor demonstrates that an
extraordinary circumstance has
prevented it from submitting a timely
withdrawal request. Determinations by
the Department to extend the 90-day
deadline will be made on a case-by-case
basis.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market
economy (‘‘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 an
administrative review in an NME
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18200-18202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-932]
Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Scope Ruling on
Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of Amended Final Results of Scope
Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision that engineered steel coil
rod (coil rod) imported by A.L. Patterson, Inc. (Patterson) was outside
the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod
from the People's Republic of China on threaded rod from the PRC.\1\ On
December 29, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT
or Court) issued an order for the Department to take action on remand
in accordance with the CAFC's decision and to find that Patterson's
engineered steel coil rod is outside the
[[Page 18201]]
scope of the AD Order.\2\ On March 3, 2015, the CIT issued final
judgment in A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No.
11-00192, affirming the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final
results of redetermination pursuant to remand.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 Fed. Appx.
778, 785-86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson CAFC 2014); see also Certain
Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 4, 2009) (AD Order).
\2\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT December 29, 2014) (CIT Second Remand Order).
\3\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, A.L.
Patterson v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00192 (Jan. 26,
2015), available at: https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/ (Final
Second Remand Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the Department is notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final
results of the scope ruling on the antidumping duty order on certain
steel threaded rod from the People's Republic of China, and is amending
the final results with respect to coil rod imported by Patterson.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Gillman, Office V, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-6433.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In our initial scope ruling, the Department found coil rod imported
by Patterson within the scope of the AD Order on threaded rod from the
PRC.\4\ In that scope ruling, the Department stated that the
description of the product contained in the petition, the initial
investigation, and the determinations by the Department (including
prior scope determinations) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC) were, in fact, dispositive with respect to Patterson's engineered
steel coil rod.\5\ Therefore, the Department conducted the scope
determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1). Based on that analysis,
as the scope language of the AD Order was clear in its requirement that
subject merchandise consist of products with solid, circular cross
sections, with threading along greater than 25 percent threading of
their total length, and Patterson's coil rod met these specific
requirements of the scope of AD Order, the Department found that
Patterson's coil rod was within the scope of the AD Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of
China: A.L. Patterson Final Scope Ruling, A-570-932 (May 24, 2011)
(Final Scope Ruling); see also AD Order.
\5\ See Final Scope Ruling at 5.
\6\ Id., at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson challenged the Department's Final Scope Ruling in the
CIT. On August 6, 2012, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to the
Department to reconsider its decision that the engineered steel coil
rod imported by Patterson falls within the scope of the AD Order.\7\
Specifically, the Court held that: (1) The Department's decision that
the scope language encompasses Patterson's product is not supported by
substantial evidence; (2) if there is no finding of injury or sales at
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) for Patterson's product, the Department's
determination is not in accordance with law; and (3) the Department
failed to adequately explain the reasons for its determination.\8\ The
CIT instructed the Department on remand ``to reconsider whether the
language of the order includes Patterson's coil rod, following the
interpretive procedure established in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, 34 Int'l Trade
Rep. (BNA) 1894 (CIT 2012) (CIT First Remand Order).
\8\ See CIT First Remand Order at 9-17.
\9\ Id., at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On remand, the Department re-examined the language of the petition,
prior scope determinations, and original investigations of the
Department and ITC, and the Department continued to find that
Patterson's coil rod is within the scope of the AD Order.\10\ After
reviewing the petition, the ITC reports, and the original
investigations, the Department found that Patterson's coil rod matched
the physical description of the same class or kind of merchandise
previously considered by the Department and the ITC based on carbon
content, threading along the rod, and circular cross-section.\11\
Accordingly, the Department found that Patterson's coil rod was within
the scope of the AD Order under an analysis conducted pursuant to 19
CFR 351.225(k)(1).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand
(December 4, 2012) at 14 (First Remand Redetermination).
\11\ Id., at 14 and 16-19.
\12\ Id., at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2013, the CIT sustained the Department's First Remand
Redetermination.\13\ Patterson appealed the CIT's judgment to the CAFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT May 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22, 2014, the CAFC reversed the CIT's judgment
sustaining the First Remand Redetermination. As detailed below, the
CAFC concluded, among other things, that substantial evidence did not
support the Department's determination that the coil rod at issue was
part of the ITC's domestic industry analysis during its
investigation.\14\ Specifically, the CAFC found that ``the record
before us shows that the investigations that supported the antidumping
order was {sic{time} not on Patterson's coil rod but rather other
kinds of steel threaded rods.'' \15\ Therefore, the CAFC concluded that
``there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Patterson's coil rod,
a distinctly different product than steel threaded rod, was part of the
{ITC{time} 's material injury investigation,'' and as such, found that
Patterson's engineered steel coil rod is not subject to the AD
order.\16\ On December 29, 2014, the CIT issued an order for the
Department to take action on remand in accordance with the CAFC's
decision in Patterson CAFC 2014 and to find that Patterson's engineered
steel coil rod is outside the scope of the AD Order.\17\ In the Final
Second Remand Redetermination, and in following the express directive
of the CIT Second Remand Order, which instructed the Department to act
in accordance with the CAFC's decision in Patterson CAFC 2014, the
Department found that the AD Order did not cover Patterson's coil
rod.\18\ The CIT affirmed the Department's Final Second Remand
Determination in its entirety on March 3, 2015, and entered
judgment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 Fed. Appx.
778, 785-86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson CAFC 2014).
\15\ Id.; Cf. Sango Int'l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F. 3d
1371, 1380-1 (CAFC 2007).
\16\ See Patterson CAFC 2014 at 15.
\17\ See CIT Second Remand Order.
\18\ Final Second Remand Determination.
\19\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT March 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Notice
The CAFC's decision in Patterson CAFC 2014 and the CIT's March 3,
2015, judgment affirming the Final Second Remand Determination
constitutes final court decisions that are not in harmony with the
Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
statutory publication requirements.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is
amending the Final Scope Ruling with respect to Patterson's coil rod as
redetermined in the Final Second Remand Redetermination and finds
engineered steel coil rod imported by imported by A.L. Patterson, Inc.
to be outside the scope of the AD Order.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we now find that the scope of the AD Order does not cover
Patterson's coil rod, no cash deposits for
[[Page 18202]]
estimated antidumping duties on future entries of Patterson's coil rod
merchandise will be required.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 27, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-07771 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
