Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Countervailing Duty Order, 305-307 [2024-31587]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access. trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and that the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order was revoked is up to 101.10 percent. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing, and publishing notice of, the results of this sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii). Dated: December 27, 2024. Abdelali Elouaradia, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. History of the Order V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping 2. Magnitude of the Margin of Dumping Likely to Prevail VII. Final Results of Sunset Review VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2024–31592 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–428–848] Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Countervailing Duty Order Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Court No. 21–00080, Slip Op. 24–148 (CIT December 26, 2024), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) fourth remand redetermination pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) from the Germany covering the period of investigation, January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT’s final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce’s final determination in that investigation, and that Commerce is amending the final determination and resulting CVD order with respect to the countervailable subsidy rates assigned to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH Siegen), Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH (SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group (voestalpine Bohler), and all others. DATES: Applicable January 3, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or Shane Subler, 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) 482–9068 or (202) 482–6241, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On December 11, 2020, Commerce published its final determination in the CVD investigation of FEBs from Germany.1 Commerce calculated countervailable subsidy rates of 5.86 percent for BGH Siegen, 6.71 percent for SWG, 14.81 percent for voestalpine Bohler, and 6.29 percent for all other 1 See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 85 FR 80011 (December 11, 2020) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM). PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 305 producers/exporters of FEBs in Germany.2 Commerce subsequently published the CVD order on FEBs from Germany.3 BGH Siegen appealed Commerce’s Final Determination. On October 12, 2022, the CIT remanded the Final Determination to Commerce, directing Commerce to: (1) consider in the first instance whether to account for the compliance costs in its calculation of the CVD rates for subsidy programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act; and (2) explain or reconsider its determination that the Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) Program is a specific subsidy.4 In the First Remand Results, issued in January 2023, Commerce explained its determination not to account for compliance costs in its calculation of the CVD rates for programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act.5 Commerce also further explained its determination that the KAV Program is specific.6 However, Commerce made no changes to the final subsidy rates calculated during the investigation.7 In its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce’s First Remand Results with respect to the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act.8 However, with respect to the KAV Program, the CIT held that Commerce’s First Remand Results failed to explain: (1) how the amount of electricity consumed or the electricity prices paid by companies are not economic in nature; and (2) how criteria based solely on electricity consumption and pricing are not horizontal in application.9 Regarding the latter, the CIT explained that for the KAV Program’s criteria to be vertical in application, the criteria would need to expressly limit the program’s application to specifically named enterprises or industries or a group of 2 Id., 85 FR at 80012. Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the People’s Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, and Italy: Countervailing Duty Orders, and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for the People’s Republic of China, 86 FR 7535 (January 29, 2021) (Order). 4 See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, 600 F.Supp.3d 1241 (CIT 2022) (First Remand Order). 5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the First Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21– 00080; Slip. Op. 22–117 (CIT October 12, 2022), dated January 9, 2023 (First Remand Results) at 18, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 639 F.Supp.3d 1237, 1242 (CIT 2023) (Second Remand Order). 9 Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1243–44. 3 See E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM 03JAN1 306 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 enterprises or industries.10 The CIT elaborated that the Government of Germany’s (GOG) eligibility criteria for the KAV Program did not expressly limit the program’s application to specific enterprises or industries or groups of enterprises or industries.11 Accordingly, the CIT, again, remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its determination.12 In the Second Remand Results, Commerce found that the GOG’s eligibility criteria for the KAV Program were not horizontal in application, and thus, not neutral, pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act.13 Commerce explained that ‘‘where an authority, by law, limits eligibility to a group of enterprises or industries (e.g., those that operate specific types of ‘stationary equipment’), it cannot {emphasis added} do so uniformly.’’ 14 Further, Commerce explained that ‘‘by expressly limiting eligibility to certain groups that the authority, itself, defines, the authority has, in effect, established criteria that are vertical in nature.’’ 15 On this basis, Commerce found the eligibility criteria for the KAV Program to be vertical in application.16 In its Third Remand Order, the CIT held that Commerce’s position that a subsidy is de jure specific where ‘‘implementing legislation expressly limit{s} access to the ‘group’ that the legislation itself created’’ was contrary to law.17 The CIT elaborated that ‘‘{t}he statute allows a subsidy to be limited to fewer than all enterprises or industries in an economy, so long as that criteria creating that legislation is objective.’’ 18 On this basis, the CIT remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.19 10 Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1244 (citing section 771(5A)(D)(i) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)). 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Second Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21– 00080; Slip. Op. 23–71 (CIT May 9, 2023), dated August 7, 2023 (Second Remand Results) at 11, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 14 Id. (citing Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2020, 87 FR 48455 (August 9, 2022), and accompanying IDM at Comment 103). 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 F.Supp.3d 1378, 1384 (CIT 2023) (Third Remand Order). 18 Id. (citing Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 4242). 19 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 In the Third Remand Results, Commerce reconsidered its determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.20 Commerce found, under respectful protest, that the KAV Program is not de jure specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.21 Consequently, Commerce determined that the KAV Program did not constitute a countervailable subsidy.22 Commerce removed the KAV Program from the overall subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler, and recalculated the all-others rate.23 In the Fourth Remand Order, the CIT remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its determination in the Third Remand Results.24 Specifically, the CIT held that Commerce ‘‘failed to conduct a de facto specificity analysis despite there being reasons to believe the KAV Program is specific as a matter of fact.’’ 25 In the Fourth Remand Results, Commerce further explained its determination that the KAV Program does not constitute a countervailable subsidy because it is neither de jure nor de facto specific.26 Commerce continued to find, based on facts otherwise available in accordance with 776(a)(1) of the Act, that the KAV Program does not constitute a countervailable subsidy.27 Commerce made no changes to the final subsidy rates calculated in the Third Remand Results.28 On December 26, 2024, the CIT sustained Commerce’s Fourth Remand Results.29 20 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Third Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (CIT 2023), dated February 12, 2024 (Third Remand Results) at 9, available at https://access.trade.gov/ public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 21 Id.; see also Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 22 See Third Remand Results at 9. 23 Id. at 9–10; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Calculation of the Non-Selected Rate,’’ dated January 16, 2024 (All-Others Rate Memorandum). 24 See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F.Supp.3d 1372 (CIT 2024) (Fourth Remand Order). 25 Id., 704 F. Supp.3d at 1380. 26 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Fourth Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (CIT 2024), dated September 16, 2024 (Fourth Remand Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/ public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 27 Id. at 13. 28 Id. at 19. 29 See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21–00080, Slip Op. 24– 148 (CIT December 26, 2024). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,30 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,31 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s December 26, 2024, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce’s Final Determination. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Determination with respect BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler, and all others as follows: Company BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH ............. Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH ........... voestalpine Bohler Group ................... All Others ............................................ Subsidy rate (percent ad valorem) 5.81 6.64 14.74 6.18 Amended CVD Order Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending its Final Determination and Order. As a result of this amended final determination, Commerce is hereby revising the subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler. Additionally, because the all-others rate was based on BGH Siegen’s and SWG’s rates, Commerce is also revising the allothers rate.32 Cash Deposit Requirements Because BGH Siegen has a superseding cash deposit rate, this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for BGH Siegen.33 For all companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 30 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 31 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 32 See All-Others Rate Memorandum. 33 See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from Germany: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022, 89 FR 64875 (August 8, 2024). E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM 03JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 30, 2024. Abdelali Elouaradia, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2024–31587 Filed 12–30–24; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPALB U.S. Stakeholder Meeting Topics [RTID 0648–XE570] North Pacific Albacore United States Stakeholder Meeting; Meeting Announcement National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. AGENCY: NMFS announces a U.S. stakeholder meeting to discuss North Pacific albacore (NPALB) management. This meeting is intended to prepare for potential discussions at the 2025 annual meetings of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Northern Committee (WCPFC NC) related to the results of the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for NPALB fisheries. The meeting topics are described under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. DATES: The virtual meeting will be held on February 20, 2025, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST (11 a.m.–2 p.m. HST). You must complete the registration process by February 13, 2025, if you plan to attend the meeting (see ADDRESSES). ADDRESSES: If you plan to attend the meeting, which will be held by webinar, please register at https://forms.gle/ 7hDuYGSCtJbnHedS9. Instructions for attending the meeting will be emailed to meeting participants before the meeting occurs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Reynolds, Pacific Islands Regional Office, tel. 808–725–5039 or emily.reynolds@noaa.gov or Tyler Lawson, West Coast Region Office, tel. 503–230–5421 at tyler.lawson@ noaa.gov. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 SUMMARY: In 2024, the WCPFC NC and IATTC requested the International Scientific Committee on Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) provide SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Jan 02, 2025 recommendations to relate fishing intensity to catch and/or effort. Additionally, the ISC’s Albacore Working Group developed criteria for identifying exceptional circumstances for the NPALB MSE. This stakeholder meeting is intended to discuss these items as well as to prepare for anticipated discussions at the IATTC and WCPFC NC in 2025. For more information on fishing intensity recommendations and identifying exceptional circumstances, please see the ISC24 Plenary Report: https:// isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC24/ISC24_Plenary_ Report_r1.pdf. Jkt 265001 The meeting agenda will be distributed to participants in advance of the meeting. The meeting agenda will include a discussion on translating fishing intensity into catch and/or effort limits for NPALB, identifying exceptional circumstances for the NPALB MSE, and logbook updates. Special Accommodations Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be indicated when registering for the meeting (see ADDRESSES) by February 13, 2025. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Dated: December 30, 2024. Kelly Denit, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024–31557 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XE576] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. AGENCY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public webinar of its Joint Herring Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 307 be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This webinar will be held on Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Webinar registration URL information: https://nefmc-org.zoom.us/ meeting/register/tJwpduyopz4uGtSP_ pFIKrgZkz5BehDTaWUCouncil address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate O’Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda The Atlantic Herring Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to discuss Amendment 10 and the timeline for the action and an update from the Plan Development Team (PDT) on draft analysis to date. They also plan to discuss Specifications for 2025—a summary of fishing year 2024 preliminary catch information and updated catch projections from the PDT, and recommendations for next steps, make recommendation to the Committee/Council as appropriate. Other business will be discussed, if necessary. Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O’Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: December 30, 2024. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024–31572 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM 03JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 305-307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31587]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-428-848]


Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended 
Countervailing Duty Order

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

SUMMARY: On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 
States, Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024), 
sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) fourth remand 
redetermination pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) 
investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) from the Germany 
covering the period of investigation, January 1, 2018, through December 
31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final 
judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in that 
investigation, and that Commerce is amending the final determination 
and resulting CVD order with respect to the countervailable subsidy 
rates assigned to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH Siegen), Schmiedewerke 
Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH (SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group (voestalpine Bohler), 
and all others.

DATES: Applicable January 3, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or Shane Subler, 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) 482-9068 or (202) 
482-6241, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 11, 2020, Commerce published its final determination in 
the CVD investigation of FEBs from Germany.\1\ Commerce calculated 
countervailable subsidy rates of 5.86 percent for BGH Siegen, 6.71 
percent for SWG, 14.81 percent for voestalpine Bohler, and 6.29 percent 
for all other producers/exporters of FEBs in Germany.\2\ Commerce 
subsequently published the CVD order on FEBs from Germany.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic 
of Germany: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 85 
FR 80011 (December 11, 2020) (Final Determination), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ Id., 85 FR at 80012.
    \3\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the People's Republic 
of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, and Italy: 
Countervailing Duty Orders, and Amended Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination for the People's Republic of 
China, 86 FR 7535 (January 29, 2021) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BGH Siegen appealed Commerce's Final Determination. On October 12, 
2022, the CIT remanded the Final Determination to Commerce, directing 
Commerce to: (1) consider in the first instance whether to account for 
the compliance costs in its calculation of the CVD rates for subsidy 
programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act; and (2) 
explain or reconsider its determination that the 
Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) Program is a specific subsidy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, 600 
F.Supp.3d 1241 (CIT 2022) (First Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the First Remand Results, issued in January 2023, Commerce 
explained its determination not to account for compliance costs in its 
calculation of the CVD rates for programs under the Electricity Tax Act 
and Energy Tax Act.\5\ Commerce also further explained its 
determination that the KAV Program is specific.\6\ However, Commerce 
made no changes to the final subsidy rates calculated during the 
investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the First 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 22-117 (CIT October 12, 2022), dated 
January 9, 2023 (First Remand Results) at 18, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce's First 
Remand Results with respect to the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax 
Act.\8\ However, with respect to the KAV Program, the CIT held that 
Commerce's First Remand Results failed to explain: (1) how the amount 
of electricity consumed or the electricity prices paid by companies are 
not economic in nature; and (2) how criteria based solely on 
electricity consumption and pricing are not horizontal in 
application.\9\ Regarding the latter, the CIT explained that for the 
KAV Program's criteria to be vertical in application, the criteria 
would need to expressly limit the program's application to specifically 
named enterprises or industries or a group of

[[Page 306]]

enterprises or industries.\10\ The CIT elaborated that the Government 
of Germany's (GOG) eligibility criteria for the KAV Program did not 
expressly limit the program's application to specific enterprises or 
industries or groups of enterprises or industries.\11\ Accordingly, the 
CIT, again, remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its 
determination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 639 
F.Supp.3d 1237, 1242 (CIT 2023) (Second Remand Order).
    \9\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1243-44.
    \10\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1244 (citing section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Remand Results, Commerce found that the GOG's 
eligibility criteria for the KAV Program were not horizontal in 
application, and thus, not neutral, pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(ii) 
of the Act.\13\ Commerce explained that ``where an authority, by law, 
limits eligibility to a group of enterprises or industries (e.g., those 
that operate specific types of `stationary equipment'), it cannot 
{emphasis added{time}  do so uniformly.'' \14\ Further, Commerce 
explained that ``by expressly limiting eligibility to certain groups 
that the authority, itself, defines, the authority has, in effect, 
established criteria that are vertical in nature.'' \15\ On this basis, 
Commerce found the eligibility criteria for the KAV Program to be 
vertical in application.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Second 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 23-71 (CIT May 9, 2023), dated August 
7, 2023 (Second Remand Results) at 11, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \14\ Id. (citing Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: 
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 2020, 87 FR 48455 (August 9, 2022), and 
accompanying IDM at Comment 103).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Third Remand Order, the CIT held that Commerce's position 
that a subsidy is de jure specific where ``implementing legislation 
expressly limit{s{time}  access to the `group' that the legislation 
itself created'' was contrary to law.\17\ The CIT elaborated that 
``{t{time} he statute allows a subsidy to be limited to fewer than all 
enterprises or industries in an economy, so long as that criteria 
creating that legislation is objective.'' \18\ On this basis, the CIT 
remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its 
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 
F.Supp.3d 1378, 1384 (CIT 2023) (Third Remand Order).
    \18\ Id. (citing Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), 
at 4242).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Third Remand Results, Commerce reconsidered its 
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\20\ Commerce 
found, under respectful protest, that the KAV Program is not de jure 
specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.\21\ 
Consequently, Commerce determined that the KAV Program did not 
constitute a countervailable subsidy.\22\ Commerce removed the KAV 
Program from the overall subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, SWG, and 
voestalpine Bohler, and recalculated the all-others rate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Third 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 F. 
Supp. 3d 1378 (CIT 2023), dated February 12, 2024 (Third Remand 
Results) at 9, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \21\ Id.; see also Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    \22\ See Third Remand Results at 9.
    \23\ Id. at 9-10; see also Memorandum, ``Calculation of the Non-
Selected Rate,'' dated January 16, 2024 (All-Others Rate 
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Fourth Remand Order, the CIT remanded for Commerce to 
further explain or reconsider its determination in the Third Remand 
Results.\24\ Specifically, the CIT held that Commerce ``failed to 
conduct a de facto specificity analysis despite there being reasons to 
believe the KAV Program is specific as a matter of fact.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 
F.Supp.3d 1372 (CIT 2024) (Fourth Remand Order).
    \25\ Id., 704 F. Supp.3d at 1380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Fourth Remand Results, Commerce further explained its 
determination that the KAV Program does not constitute a 
countervailable subsidy because it is neither de jure nor de facto 
specific.\26\ Commerce continued to find, based on facts otherwise 
available in accordance with 776(a)(1) of the Act, that the KAV Program 
does not constitute a countervailable subsidy.\27\ Commerce made no 
changes to the final subsidy rates calculated in the Third Remand 
Results.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Fourth 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F. 
Supp. 3d 1372 (CIT 2024), dated September 16, 2024 (Fourth Remand 
Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \27\ Id. at 13.
    \28\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 26, 2024, the CIT sustained Commerce's Fourth Remand 
Results.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\30\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\31\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 
that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must 
publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending 
a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's December 26, 2024, judgment 
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Determination. Thus, this notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \31\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Determination with respect BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine 
Bohler, and all others as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Subsidy
                                                                 rate
                          Company                              (percent
                                                             ad valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH..................................         5.81
Schmiedewerke Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH............................         6.64
voestalpine Bohler Group...................................        14.74
All Others.................................................         6.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended CVD Order

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
its Final Determination and Order. As a result of this amended final 
determination, Commerce is hereby revising the subsidy rates for BGH 
Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler. Additionally, because the all-
others rate was based on BGH Siegen's and SWG's rates, Commerce is also 
revising the all-others rate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See All-Others Rate Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because BGH Siegen has a superseding cash deposit rate, this notice 
will not affect the current cash deposit rate for BGH Siegen.\33\ For 
all companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, 
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from Germany: Final 
Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022, 89 
FR 64875 (August 8, 2024).

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

[[Page 307]]

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: December 30, 2024.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-31587 Filed 12-30-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.