International Trade Administration 2014 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for a public meeting of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).

The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from India and Turkey.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) of December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2012. We preliminarily determine that sales made by New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (New-Tec) were not below normal value (NV). In addition, we preliminarily determine that Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial Co., Ltd. (Shunhe) had no shipments during the POR (see ``Preliminary Determination of No Shipments,'' infra). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (RE&EEAC) will hold a meeting on February 12, 2014. The meeting is open to the public and the room is disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India. Specifically, based upon a request filed by Navneet Education Limited (Navneet Education), a producer/exporter to the United States of subject merchandise, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Navneet Education is the successor-in-interest of Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. (Navneet Publications), a mandatory respondent in several prior administrative reviews of the CLPP Order.\1\

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013.

The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined the allocation for Calendar Year 2014 of imports of certain worsted wool fabrics under tariff rate quotas established by Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-200), as amended by the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210), the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004 (Public law 108-249), and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280), and further amended pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-343). The companies that are being provided an allocation are listed below.

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).

As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') and the International Trade Commission (the ``ITC'') that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (``nails'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.

On August 16, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the 2011-2012 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from Brazil.\1\ This review covers one respondent, Terphane Ltda., and Terphane's U.S. affiliate, Terphane, Inc. (collectively, Terphane). The petitioners in this proceeding are Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). For these final results of review we continue to find that Terphane had no reviewable entries of PET film subject to the order.

On September 3, 2013, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') initiated the first five-year (``sunset'') review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.

The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is partially rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013, based on the withdrawal of a certain request for review.

On November 7, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews and intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (PRC),\1\ with respect to certain rectangular wire. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results and received no comments other than support for partial revocation of the orders. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results of reviews and we are revoking the orders with respect to certain rectangular wire. The partial revocations are effective November 12, 2010 (for AD) and September 7, 2010 (for CVD).

The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic of China for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. On June 10, 2013, we published the preliminary results of this review and the post- preliminary results were completed on November 7, 2013.\1\

The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is November 12, 2010, through April 30, 2012. These final results cover 62 companies for which an administrative review was initiated,\1\ and for which this administrative review was not rescinded in the Preliminary Results.\2\ For these final results, the Department examined two mandatory respondents which include three companies for which this review was initiated. The first mandatory respondent is Kromet International, Inc. (``Kromet'') for which the Department finds for these final results did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. The second mandatory respondent the Department has continued to find is a single entity, collectively Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya, comprised of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. a.k.a. Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited (``Zhongya''); Guangya Aluminum Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Guang Ya''), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminum Co., Ltd. (``Guangcheng'') \3\ (collectively ``Guang Ya Group''); and Foshan Nanhai Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (``Xinya'').\4\ The Department finds for these final results that the Zhongya/Guang Ya Group/Xinya entity failed to demonstrate that it was eligible for a separate rate and thus it is part of the PRC-wide entity. Furthermore, the Department finds that ten (including Kromet) of the other companies under review have established their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department finds that the remaining companies under review either failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate or were not responsive, and, therefore, these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.