Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 29845-29846 [2019-13479]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2019 / Notices Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Irette Patterson, Program Analyst. The Form BIS–999 is used to apply for such assistance. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http:// www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@ omb.eop.gov. Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department. [FR Doc. 2019–13448 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–33–P [FR Doc. 2019–13469 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Bureau of Industry and Security [A–570–967; C–570–968] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security. Title: Special Priorities Assistance. OMB Control Number: 0694–0057. Form Number(s): BIS–999. Type of Review: Regular Submission. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 600. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200. Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes. Needs and Uses: The information collected from defense contractors and suppliers on Form BIS–999, Request for Special Priorities Assistance, is required for the enforcement and administration of special priorities assistance under the Defense Production Act, the Selective Service Act and the Defense Priorities and Allocation System regulation. Contractors may request Special Priorities Assistance (SPA) when placing rated orders with suppliers, to obtain timely delivery of products, materials or services from suppliers, or for any other reason under the DPAS, in support of approved national programs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:35 Jun 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) reversed and vacated, in part, the Court of International Trade’s (the CIT) earlier decisions, vacated Commerce’s remand determination, and reinstated Commerce’s original scope ruling, in part. In Commerce’s original scope ruling, Commerce found that Whirlpool Corporation’s (Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps were covered by the general scope language of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (China). On May 1, 2019, the CIT granted Whirlpool’s request to dismiss the litigation concerning its handles. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second amended final scope ruling. DATES: Applicable June 25, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–6071. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29845 Background On August 4, 2014, Commerce found that kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps imported by Whirlpool were subject to the Orders.1 Specifically, Commerce found that the handles did not fall under the finished merchandise or finished goods kit exclusions, based on its interpretation of these exclusions, as adopted in prior scope rulings.2 Whirlpool filed suit challenging the Final Scope Ruling. In Whirlpool I, the CIT held that ‘‘the general scope language is not reasonably interpreted to include the kitchen appliance door handles described in Whirlpool’s first scope ruling request{,}’’ (i.e., the kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps).3 The CIT further held that, even if the general scope language could be reasonably interpreted to include the handles, Commerce’s determination that the handles did not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion based on Commerce’s interpretation of the exclusion was in error.4 Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for reconsideration in light of Whirlpool I.5 In its Remand Redetermination, under protest, Commerce complied with Whirlpool I and found the handles were not covered by the general scope language of the Orders.6 Commerce did not further address the finished merchandise exclusion. The CIT affirmed the Remand Redetermination in Whirlpool II.7 Pursuant to Whirlpool II, on September 27, 2016, Commerce published its First Amended Final Scope Ruling, finding that the handles 1 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Kitchen Appliance Door Handles with Plastic End Caps and Kitchen Appliance Door Handles without Plastic End Caps,’’ dated August 4, 2014 (Final Scope Ruling). 2 Id. at 16–21, citing, e.g., Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door Handles,’’ dated June 21, 2013, (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles I Scope Ruling) and Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.’s Geodesic Structures,’’ (July 17, 2012) (Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling). 3 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1303 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool I). The Court affirmed Commerce’s determination that the kitchen appliance door handles without end caps are within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1306. 4 Id. at 1304. 5 Id. at 1305–07. 6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Court No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 16–08 (CIT February 1, 2016), dated April 15, 2016 (Remand Redetermination). 7 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool II). E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM 25JNN1 29846 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2019 / Notices were not covered by the scope of the Orders.8 The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner in the underlying investigations, appealed. In Whirlpool III, the CAFC held that: {T}he CIT erred when it stated that assembly processes were absent from the specified post-extrusion processes. The general scope language unambiguously includes aluminum extrusions that are part of an assembly. The Orders explicitly include aluminum extrusions ‘‘that are assembled after importation’’ in addition to ‘‘aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies.’’ 9 Thus, the CAFC held that Commerce’s determination in the Final Scope Ruling ‘‘that the general scope language includes Whirlpool’s assembled handles was supported by substantial evidence.’’ 10 The CAFC further held that Commerce’s determination that the handles did not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion was based on an incorrect interpretation of the exclusion.11 Therefore, the CAFC reversed Whirlpool II, which affirmed the Remand Redetermination, and instructed the CIT to vacate the Remand Redetermination and reinstate the Final Scope Ruling, in part, with respect to Commerce’s determination that the general scope language included the handles.12 The CAFC further vacated those portions of Whirlpool I that held that the general scope language did not cover the handles.13 In addition, the CAFC affirmed, in part, those portions of Whirlpool I which rejected Commerce’s interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion and instructed the CIT to vacate the remainder of the Final Scope Ruling.14 Finally, the CAFC remanded to the CIT for Commerce to reconsider its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion as it pertains to Whirlpool’s handles.15 On January 14, 2019, in Whirlpool IV, in accordance with Whirlpool III, the CIT vacated the Remand Redetermination, reinstated those portions of the Final Scope Ruling concluding that Whirlpool’s handles are khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 8 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81 FR 66259 (September 27, 2016) (First Amended Final Scope Ruling). 9 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 890 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Whirlpool III). 10 Id. 11 Id. at 1309–11. 12 Id. at 1311. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 1311–12. 15 Id. at 1312. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:35 Jun 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 within the general scope language of the Orders, vacated the remaining portions of the Final Scope Ruling, and remanded for Commerce to reconsider whether Whirlpool’s handles satisfied the finished merchandise exclusion.16 The CIT further ordered that ‘‘{s}hould Commerce determine that the assembled handles are within the scope of the Orders despite the finished merchandise exclusion, it must explain its reasoning and also must clarify whether it is concluding that the handles in their entirety, or only the extruded aluminum components therein, are within the scope of the Orders.’’ 17 On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued the Draft Second Remand Determination in which it found the extruded aluminum components of Whirlpool’s handles to be within the scope of the Orders and the non-extruded aluminum components to be outside the scope of the Orders.18 Before Commerce issued the final remand redetermination and filed it with the CIT, Whirlpool requested that the CIT voluntarily dismiss the action.19 On May 1, 2019, the CIT granted Whirlpool’s request to voluntarily dismiss the case.20 Second Amended Final Scope Ruling As noted above, there is now a final and conclusive court decision which reinstates those portions of the Final Scope Ruling in which Commerce determined that Whirlpool’s handles are within the general scope language of the Orders. As a result of the dismissal of Whirlpool’s action, no further action is required. Therefore, we are issuing a second amended final scope ruling and find that Whirlpool’s handles are within the scope of the Orders. Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Whirlpool’s handles until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash deposit rate for entries of Whirlpool’s handles will be the applicable cash deposit rate of the exporters of the merchandise from China to the United States. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) and 16 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1328, 1363–64 (CIT 2019) (Whirlpool IV). 17 Id. at 1363. 18 See Draft Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Ct. No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 19–6, dated April 1, 2019 (Draft Second Remand Determination). 19 See Ct. No. 14–199, ECF Docket No. 75. 20 See Ct. No. 14–199, ECF Docket No. 76. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: June 18, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2019–13479 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–523–812] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Oman: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera) made sales of certain welded carbon quality steel pipe from Oman at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) June 8, 2016 through November 30, 2017. DATES: Applicable June 26, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Robert Palmer, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–9068, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background Commerce published the Preliminary Results on December 11, 2018.1 For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see Commerce’s Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.3 1 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016– 2017, 83 FR 63621 (December 11, 2018) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results; 2016–2017,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Memorandum to the Record from Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM 25JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29845-29846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967; C-570-968]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On May 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(the CAFC) reversed and vacated, in part, the Court of International 
Trade's (the CIT) earlier decisions, vacated Commerce's remand 
determination, and reinstated Commerce's original scope ruling, in 
part. In Commerce's original scope ruling, Commerce found that 
Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door handles with 
plastic end caps were covered by the general scope language of the 
antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum 
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China). On May 1, 2019, 
the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to dismiss the litigation 
concerning its handles. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second 
amended final scope ruling.

DATES: Applicable June 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-
6071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 4, 2014, Commerce found that kitchen appliance door 
handles with plastic end caps imported by Whirlpool were subject to the 
Orders.\1\ Specifically, Commerce found that the handles did not fall 
under the finished merchandise or finished goods kit exclusions, based 
on its interpretation of these exclusions, as adopted in prior scope 
rulings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Kitchen Appliance 
Door Handles with Plastic End Caps and Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles without Plastic End Caps,'' dated August 4, 2014 (Final 
Scope Ruling).
    \2\ Id. at 16-21, citing, e.g., Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013, (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles I 
Scope Ruling) and Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Final Scope Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.'s Geodesic Structures,'' 
(July 17, 2012) (Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool filed suit challenging the Final Scope Ruling. In 
Whirlpool I, the CIT held that ``the general scope language is not 
reasonably interpreted to include the kitchen appliance door handles 
described in Whirlpool's first scope ruling request{,{time} '' (i.e., 
the kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps).\3\ The CIT 
further held that, even if the general scope language could be 
reasonably interpreted to include the handles, Commerce's determination 
that the handles did not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion 
based on Commerce's interpretation of the exclusion was in error.\4\ 
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for 
reconsideration in light of Whirlpool I.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d 
1296, 1303 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool I). The Court affirmed Commerce's 
determination that the kitchen appliance door handles without end 
caps are within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1306.
    \4\ Id. at 1304.
    \5\ Id. at 1305-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Redetermination, under protest, Commerce complied 
with Whirlpool I and found the handles were not covered by the general 
scope language of the Orders.\6\ Commerce did not further address the 
finished merchandise exclusion. The CIT affirmed the Remand 
Redetermination in Whirlpool II.\7\ Pursuant to Whirlpool II, on 
September 27, 2016, Commerce published its First Amended Final Scope 
Ruling, finding that the handles

[[Page 29846]]

were not covered by the scope of the Orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Court No. 14-00199, Slip 
Op. 16-08 (CIT February 1, 2016), dated April 15, 2016 (Remand 
Redetermination).
    \7\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 3d 
1307 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool II).
    \8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81 
FR 66259 (September 27, 2016) (First Amended Final Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner 
in the underlying investigations, appealed. In Whirlpool III, the CAFC 
held that:

    {T{time} he CIT erred when it stated that assembly processes 
were absent from the specified post-extrusion processes. The general 
scope language unambiguously includes aluminum extrusions that are 
part of an assembly. The Orders explicitly include aluminum 
extrusions ``that are assembled after importation'' in addition to 
``aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding 
or fasteners) to form subassemblies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 890 F.3d 1302, 
1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Whirlpool III).

    Thus, the CAFC held that Commerce's determination in the Final 
Scope Ruling ``that the general scope language includes Whirlpool's 
assembled handles was supported by substantial evidence.'' \10\ The 
CAFC further held that Commerce's determination that the handles did 
not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion was based on an 
incorrect interpretation of the exclusion.\11\ Therefore, the CAFC 
reversed Whirlpool II, which affirmed the Remand Redetermination, and 
instructed the CIT to vacate the Remand Redetermination and reinstate 
the Final Scope Ruling, in part, with respect to Commerce's 
determination that the general scope language included the handles.\12\ 
The CAFC further vacated those portions of Whirlpool I that held that 
the general scope language did not cover the handles.\13\ In addition, 
the CAFC affirmed, in part, those portions of Whirlpool I which 
rejected Commerce's interpretation of the finished merchandise 
exclusion and instructed the CIT to vacate the remainder of the Final 
Scope Ruling.\14\ Finally, the CAFC remanded to the CIT for Commerce to 
reconsider its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion as 
it pertains to Whirlpool's handles.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 1309-11.
    \12\ Id. at 1311.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. at 1311-12.
    \15\ Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2019, in Whirlpool IV, in accordance with Whirlpool 
III, the CIT vacated the Remand Redetermination, reinstated those 
portions of the Final Scope Ruling concluding that Whirlpool's handles 
are within the general scope language of the Orders, vacated the 
remaining portions of the Final Scope Ruling, and remanded for Commerce 
to reconsider whether Whirlpool's handles satisfied the finished 
merchandise exclusion.\16\ The CIT further ordered that 
``{s{time} hould Commerce determine that the assembled handles are 
within the scope of the Orders despite the finished merchandise 
exclusion, it must explain its reasoning and also must clarify whether 
it is concluding that the handles in their entirety, or only the 
extruded aluminum components therein, are within the scope of the 
Orders.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 
1328, 1363-64 (CIT 2019) (Whirlpool IV).
    \17\ Id. at 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued the Draft Second Remand 
Determination in which it found the extruded aluminum components of 
Whirlpool's handles to be within the scope of the Orders and the non-
extruded aluminum components to be outside the scope of the Orders.\18\ 
Before Commerce issued the final remand redetermination and filed it 
with the CIT, Whirlpool requested that the CIT voluntarily dismiss the 
action.\19\ On May 1, 2019, the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to 
voluntarily dismiss the case.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Draft Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Ct. No. 14-00199, 
Slip Op. 19-6, dated April 1, 2019 (Draft Second Remand 
Determination).
    \19\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 75.
    \20\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amended Final Scope Ruling

    As noted above, there is now a final and conclusive court decision 
which reinstates those portions of the Final Scope Ruling in which 
Commerce determined that Whirlpool's handles are within the general 
scope language of the Orders. As a result of the dismissal of 
Whirlpool's action, no further action is required. Therefore, we are 
issuing a second amended final scope ruling and find that Whirlpool's 
handles are within the scope of the Orders.
    Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Whirlpool's handles 
until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash deposit 
rate for entries of Whirlpool's handles will be the applicable cash 
deposit rate of the exporters of the merchandise from China to the 
United States.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-13479 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P