Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 55834-55836 [2015-23360]

Download as PDF 55834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Network Authority First Responder Network Authority Board Meetings First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. AGENCY: The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will convene an open public meeting on October 2, 2015, preceded by open public meetings of the Board Committees on October 1, 2015. DATES: On October 1, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, there will be two open public meetings of FirstNet’s four Board Committees. The first meeting is a joint meeting of the Governance and Personnel and Finance Committee and will be held between 8–11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The second meeting is a joint meeting of the Technology and Consultation Committee and will be held between 1– 4:30 p.m. The full FirstNet Board will hold an open public meeting on October 2, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: The meetings on October 1 and October 2, 2015 will be held at John Wesley Powell Federal Building, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (703) 648–4165; email: uzoma.onyeije@ firstnet.gov. Please direct media inquiries to Ryan Oremland at (703) 648–4114. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Board of FirstNet will convene an open public meeting on October 2, 2015, preceded by open public meetings of the Board Committees on October 1, 2015. Background: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act), Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012), established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that is headed by a Board. The Act directs FirstNet to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. The FirstNet Board is responsible for making strategic decisions regarding FirstNet’s tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Sep 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 operations. The FirstNet Board held its first public meeting on September 25, 2012. Matters to be Considered: FirstNet will post detailed agendas of each meeting on its Web site, http:// www.firstnet.gov,prior to the meetings. The agenda topics are subject to change. Please note that the subjects that will be discussed by the Committees and the Board may involve commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, personnel matters, or other legal matters affecting FirstNet. As such, the Committee chairs and Board Chair may call for a vote to close the meetings only for the time necessary to preserve the confidentiality of such information, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 1424(e)(2). Times and Dates of Meetings: On October 1, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, there will be two open public meetings of FirstNet’s four Board Committees. The first meeting is a joint meeting of the Governance and Personnel and Finance Committee and will be held between 8– 11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The second meeting is a joint meeting of the Technology and Consultation Committee and will be held between 1– 4:30 p.m. The full FirstNet Board will hold an open public meeting on October 2, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Place: The meetings on October 1 and October 2, 2015 will be held at John Wesley Powell Federal Building, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192. Other Information: These meetings are open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. In order to get an accurate headcount, all expected attendees are asked to provide notice of intent to attend by sending an email to BoardRSVP@firstnet.gov. If the number of RSVPs indicates that expected attendance has reached capacity, FirstNet will respond to all subsequent notices indicating that capacity has been reached and that in-person viewing may no longer be available but that the meeting may still be viewed by webcast as detailed below. For access to the meetings, valid government issued photo identification may be requested for security reasons. The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, at (703) 648–4165 or uzoma.onyeije@firstnet.gov, at least five (5) business days before the applicable meeting(s). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The meetings will also be webcast. Please refer to FirstNet’s Web site at www.firstnet.gov for webcast instructions and other information. Viewers experiencing any issues with the live webcast may email support@ sparkstreetdigital.com or call 202.684.3361 x9 for support. A variety of automated troubleshooting tests are also available via the ‘‘Troubleshooting Tips’’ button on the webcast player. The meetings will also be available to interested parties by phone. To be connected to the meetings in listen-only mode by telephone, please dial 888– 997–9859 and passcode 3572169. Records: FirstNet maintains records of all Board proceedings. Minutes of the Board Meeting and the Committee meetings will be available at www.firstnet.gov. Dated: September 10, 2015. Eli Veenendaal, Attorney Advisor, First Responder Network Authority. [FR Doc. 2015–23391 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–TL–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–816] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On August 31, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (Department) Final Remand Redetermination pertaining to the 19th administrative review of corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).1 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,2 as AGENCY: 1 See Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. Court No. 14–00098, Slip Op. 15–99 (August 31, 2015); Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 14–00098, dated July 24, 2015 (Final Remand Redetermination); and Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (Remand Order). 2 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices clarified by Diamond Sawblades,3 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 19th administrative review of CORE from Korea, and that it is amending the final results with respect to Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union Steel).4 The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2011, through February 14, 2012.5 DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES On September 26, 2012, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea for the period August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.6 On March 19, 2013, as a result of the International Trade Commission’s determination in the third sunset review, the Department published a notice that the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea would be revoked, but that it would complete any pending reviews of entries made prior to February 14, 2012, the effective date of revocation.7 For the Preliminary Results, published on September 9, 2013, the Department shortened the POR for the ongoing administrative review to reflect the effective date of revocation of the 3 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 4 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011– 2012, 79 FR 17503 (March 28, 2014) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo). 5 The period of review ends on February 14, 2012 because the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea was revoked effective on this date. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013) (CORE Revocation). 6 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 59168 (September 26, 2012). 7 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013); Determinations: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and Korea, 78 FR 15376 (March 11, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Sep 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 antidumping order.8 In its preliminary dumping calculations, the Department truncated the sales databases to conform to the shortened POR. However, in conducting the sales below cost and cost recovery tests to determine the pool of home market sales available for the calculation of normal value, the Department used the cost of production database submitted by Dongbu covering the original August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012, review period. For the Final Results, the Department continued to use Dongbu’s weighted-average cost data for the full-year POR in its antidumping calculations.9 The Department also used Dongbu’s weighted-average dumping margin as the rate for non-examined respondent Union Steel, because it was the only rate that was not zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available.10 Before the Court, Dongbu and Union Steel challenged the Department’s determination to use the 12-month cost of production data in both the cost recovery and sales below cost tests, arguing that the language of the cost recovery test in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires that prices be measured for cost recovery against the weightedaverage cost of production for the shortened POR, and that the Department accordingly should have requested new cost data for the revised POR and recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin.11 Dongbu and Union Steel further argued that the Department’s use of costs outside the POR in the sales below cost test was unlawful because the statute requires that the cost of production ‘‘reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the merchandise, during the period of review.’’ 12 In its Remand Order, the Court held that the language of the statute ‘‘unambiguously prohibited the Department from using cost data for a period other than the POR to calculate the weighted average cost of production for purposes of the cost recovery test,’’ and that ‘‘{n}othing in the statutory framework contradicts the cost recovery test’s plain language regarding the POR.’’ 13 The Court rejected the 8 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 78 FR 55057 (September 9, 2013), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Results). 9 See Final Results, and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 1. 10 See Final Results, 79 FR at 17504 & n.11. 11 See Remand Order, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 1381. 12 Id., at 1388. 13 Id., at 1384. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55835 Department’s remaining arguments regarding the cost recovery test provision.14 In addition, the Court agreed that the Department has discretion to include costs outside of the POR in conducting the sales below cost test, but found the Department’s explanation as to why it included post-review period cost data inadequate, and remanded to the Department to ‘‘explain its decision in this case that the costs incurred after the POR reasonably reflect the costs of the product under review.’’ 15 After reopening the record to obtain cost of production data reflecting the revised POR from Dongbu, issuing a draft remand redetermination, and soliciting comments, the Department issued the Final Remand Redetermination on July 24, 2015. In the Final Remand Redetermination, the Department modified its dumping calculations by comparing Dongbu’s home market sales against cost data from the revised POR to determine whether such sales were made at prices that would provide for the recovery of costs.16 The Department relied on this same cost data in administering the sales below cost test for Dongbu.17 Finally, the Department assigned Dongbu’s revised dumping margin to Union Steel.18 Timken Notice In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s judgment sustaining the Final Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject 14 Id., at 1385–88. at 1388–90. 16 See Final Remand Redetermination at 5. 17 Id. 18 Id., at 6. 15 Id., E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 55836 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices merchandise exported by the producers and/or exporters listed below at the rates listed below. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to Dongbu and Union Steel, plaintiffs in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for these producers/exporters during the period August 1, 2011, through February 14, 2012, are as follows: WEIGHTED-AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS Producer/Exporter Weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Dongbu ............................. Union Steel ....................... 5.38 5.38 Cash Deposit Requirements The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012.19 Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed in response to these amended final results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015–23360 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Generic Clearance for Usability Data Collections National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 19 See CORE Revocation, 78 FR at 16833. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Sep 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Written comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 2015. DATES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at jjessup@doc.gov). ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Amy Egan, Management Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710, telephone 301–975–2819, or via email to amy.egan@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This is a request to renew or extend the expiration date of this currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of data collection efforts—both quantitative and qualitative. The data collections will be designed to determine requirements and evaluate the usability and utility of NIST research for measurement and standardization work. These data collections efforts may include, but may not be limited to electronic methodologies, empirical studies, video and audio collections, interviews, and questionnaires. For example, data collection efforts may include the password generation study and the user perceptions of online privacy and security study. NIST will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions or responses and will not collect information that is required or regulated. The results of the data collected will be used to guide NIST research. Steps will be taken to ensure anonymity of respondents in each activity covered under this request. II. Method of Collection NIST will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone and personto-person interviews. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0693–0043. Form Number: None. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection.) Affected Public: Individuals or households, State, local or tribal government, Federal government. Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,500. Estimated Time per Response: Varied, dependent upon the data collection method used. The possible response time to complete a questionnaire may be 15 minutes or 2 hours to participate in an empirical study. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,000. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: September 11, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–23295 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Vessel Monitoring System Requirements Under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55834-55836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23360]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-816]


Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic 
of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: On August 31, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) 
Final Remand Redetermination pertaining to the 19th administrative 
review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from 
the Republic of Korea (Korea).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. 
Court No. 14-00098, Slip Op. 15-99 (August 31, 2015); Final Results 
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 14-00098, 
dated July 24, 2015 (Final Remand Redetermination); and Dongbu Steel 
Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) 
(Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\2\ as

[[Page 55835]]

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\3\ 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 19th administrative review of CORE 
from Korea, and that it is amending the final results with respect to 
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(Union Steel).\4\ The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2011, through 
February 14, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \3\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \4\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 17503 (March 28, 2014) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo).
    \5\ The period of review ends on February 14, 2012 because the 
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea was revoked effective on 
this date. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013) (CORE 
Revocation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 26, 2012, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea for the period 
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.\6\ On March 19, 2013, as a 
result of the International Trade Commission's determination in the 
third sunset review, the Department published a notice that the 
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea would be revoked, but that it 
would complete any pending reviews of entries made prior to February 
14, 2012, the effective date of revocation.\7\ For the Preliminary 
Results, published on September 9, 2013, the Department shortened the 
POR for the ongoing administrative review to reflect the effective date 
of revocation of the antidumping order.\8\ In its preliminary dumping 
calculations, the Department truncated the sales databases to conform 
to the shortened POR. However, in conducting the sales below cost and 
cost recovery tests to determine the pool of home market sales 
available for the calculation of normal value, the Department used the 
cost of production database submitted by Dongbu covering the original 
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012, review period. For the Final 
Results, the Department continued to use Dongbu's weighted-average cost 
data for the full-year POR in its antidumping calculations.\9\ The 
Department also used Dongbu's weighted-average dumping margin as the 
rate for non-examined respondent Union Steel, because it was the only 
rate that was not zero, de minimis, or based on total facts 
available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 
59168 (September 26, 2012).
    \7\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013); 
Determinations: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and Korea, 78 FR 15376 (March 11, 2013).
    \8\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 78 
FR 55057 (September 9, 2013), and accompanying Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum (Preliminary Results).
    \9\ See Final Results, and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 1.
    \10\ See Final Results, 79 FR at 17504 & n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the Court, Dongbu and Union Steel challenged the 
Department's determination to use the 12-month cost of production data 
in both the cost recovery and sales below cost tests, arguing that the 
language of the cost recovery test in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires that prices be 
measured for cost recovery against the weighted-average cost of 
production for the shortened POR, and that the Department accordingly 
should have requested new cost data for the revised POR and 
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin.\11\ Dongbu and Union 
Steel further argued that the Department's use of costs outside the POR 
in the sales below cost test was unlawful because the statute requires 
that the cost of production ``reasonably reflect the costs associated 
with the production and sale of the merchandise, during the period of 
review.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Remand Order, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
    \12\ Id., at 1388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Order, the Court held that the language of the 
statute ``unambiguously prohibited the Department from using cost data 
for a period other than the POR to calculate the weighted average cost 
of production for purposes of the cost recovery test,'' and that 
``{n{time} othing in the statutory framework contradicts the cost 
recovery test's plain language regarding the POR.'' \13\ The Court 
rejected the Department's remaining arguments regarding the cost 
recovery test provision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id., at 1384.
    \14\ Id., at 1385-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Court agreed that the Department has discretion to 
include costs outside of the POR in conducting the sales below cost 
test, but found the Department's explanation as to why it included 
post-review period cost data inadequate, and remanded to the Department 
to ``explain its decision in this case that the costs incurred after 
the POR reasonably reflect the costs of the product under review.'' 
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id., at 1388-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reopening the record to obtain cost of production data 
reflecting the revised POR from Dongbu, issuing a draft remand 
redetermination, and soliciting comments, the Department issued the 
Final Remand Redetermination on July 24, 2015. In the Final Remand 
Redetermination, the Department modified its dumping calculations by 
comparing Dongbu's home market sales against cost data from the revised 
POR to determine whether such sales were made at prices that would 
provide for the recovery of costs.\16\ The Department relied on this 
same cost data in administering the sales below cost test for 
Dongbu.\17\ Finally, the Department assigned Dongbu's revised dumping 
margin to Union Steel.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 5.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id., at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department 
must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' 
with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's judgment 
sustaining the Final Remand Redetermination constitutes a final 
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's 
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending 
a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court's ruling 
is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject

[[Page 55836]]

merchandise exported by the producers and/or exporters listed below at 
the rates listed below.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the Final Results with respect to Dongbu and Union Steel, 
plaintiffs in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margins 
for these producers/exporters during the period August 1, 2011, through 
February 14, 2012, are as follows:

                    Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                   Producer/Exporter                     dumping margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu................................................              5.38
Union Steel...........................................              5.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash 
deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012.\19\ Therefore, no cash 
deposit requirements will be imposed in response to these amended final 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CORE Revocation, 78 FR at 16833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-23360 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P