80 FR 69640 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Pursuant to Court Decision
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 217 (November 10, 2015)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 217 (November 10, 2015)
| Page Range | 69640-69641 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28668 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 69640-69641] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28668] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-968] Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Pursuant to Court Decision AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 23, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) results of redetermination pursuant to court remand, which recalculated the all-others subsidy rate in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (the PRC),\1\ pursuant to the CIT's MacLean-Fogg Remand Order.\2\ Consistent with the clarification in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision in Diamond Sawblades,\3\ we are amending the Final Determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011) and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 74466 (December 14, 2012) (collectively, Final Determination). \2\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11- 00209, Slip Op. 15-85 (CIT August 2015) (MacLean-Fogg Remand Order). \3\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Effective date: November 2, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Determination, the Department assigned a total adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 374.14 percent to the three non-cooperating mandatory respondents and calculated company-specific net subsidy rates for two participating voluntary respondents. The Department averaged the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and applied that rate as the all-others rate, calculated pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Final Determination, 76 FR at 18523, and accompanying Issues and Decision at Comment 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In MacLean-Fogg I, the CIT held that the statute was ambiguous concerning whether the Department is required to base the all-others rate on rates calculated for mandatory respondents and therefore the Department was permitted to use the mandatory respondents' rates in calculating the all-others rate provided it did so in a reasonable manner.\5\ Nonetheless, the CIT remanded the all-others rate to the Department for reconsideration because the Department failed to articulate a connection between the mandatory respondent rates, based on AFA, and the all-others companies.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1373-1374 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg I). \6\ Id., at 1376. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In MacLean-Fogg II, the CIT held that the Department's preliminary all-others rate in the Preliminary Determination \7\ was also subject to review under the same reasonableness standard because it had legal effect on the entries made during the interim time period between the issuance of the preliminary and final CVD rates, both as a cash deposit rate and, if an annual review was sought, as a cap on the final rate for those particular entries.\8\ Thus, in MacLean-Fogg II, the Court held that it would consider the reasonableness of the preliminary rate when it reviewed the Department's remand determination.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 (September 7, 2010) (Preliminary Determination). \8\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg II). \9\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT considered the Department's remand results.\10\ On remand, the Department did not recalculate the all- others rate, but rather, provided data indicating that the rate calculated for the mandatory respondents was logically connected to the all-others companies because the mandatory respondents comprised a significant portion of the PRC extruded aluminum producers and exporters, and thus were representative of the PRC extruded aluminum industry as a whole.\11\ The CIT held that ``nothing in the statute requires that the mandatory respondents' rates, even when based on AFA, may only be used to develop rates for uncooperative respondents.'' \12\ However, in MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT also concluded that the Department failed to explain how the calculated all-others rate was remedial and not punitive when it assumed use of all subsidy programs identified in the investigation.\13\ Therefore, the CIT remanded again to the Department for re-consideration of the issue.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (2012) (MacLean-Fogg III). \11\ Id. \12\ Id., at 1341. \13\ Id., at 1342-1343. \14\ Id., at 1343. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the second results of redetermination pursuant to remand issued in this litigation, the Department designated the all-others rate as equal to the preliminary rate it calculated for the mandatory respondents, i.e., 137.65 percent.\15\ In MacLean-Fogg IV, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand results, holding that the Department's selection of this all-others rate was reasonable.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated September 13, 2012, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands. \16\ See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (MacLean Fogg IV) at 11-12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CIT's holdings were appealed to the CAFC. On June 3, 2014, the CAFC held that section 351.204(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, which directs the Department to exclude voluntary respondents' rates from its calculation of the all-others rate, was inconsistent [[Page 69641]] with the statute.\17\ Accordingly, the CAFC held that the Department must include rates calculated for voluntary respondents in determining an all-others rate.\18\ As the Department had not used the rates calculated for the voluntary respondents in the underlying investigation to determine the all-others rate, the CAFC therefore held that the Department was required to recalculate the all-others rate using the voluntary respondents' rates. The CIT subsequently remanded the issue to the Department for reconsideration in light of the CAFC's holding.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States (CAFC), 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014). \18\ Id., at 1245. \19\ See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 32 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (CIT 2014) (MacLean-Fogg V). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On remand, the Department recalculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the voluntary respondents' rates.\20\ Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that, in general, the all-others rate ``shall be an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated . . . .'' However, the Department explained in the Third Remand Results that the use of a weighted average would have revealed the proprietary information of the voluntary respondents to each other.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated March 17, 2015 (Third Remand Results) at 6, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands. \21\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners \22\ argued that the Department should have requested publicly ranged versions of proprietary data on the record from the voluntary respondents to use in its calculation of the all-others rate, but in the Third Remand Results, the Department instead calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the rates of the two voluntary respondents, which resulted in a rate of 7.42 percent.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ Petitioners are the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. \23\ See Third Remand Result. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the Third Remand Results, the CIT remanded to the Department the all-others rate calculation, explaining that the ``statute unequivocally and without exception requires that the Department base the all-others rate on the weighted average of individually-investigated non-zero, non-de minimis, non-AFA rates.'' \24\ Furthermore, the CIT emphasized that 19 CFR 351.304(c)(1) requires all proprietary information ``to be accompanied by public versions `in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information.' '' \25\ The CIT thus directed the Department on remand to either request the publicly ranged data from the voluntary respondents, or publicly range the companies' information itself, and reconsider its determination to use a simple average of their subsidy rates.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, at 21. \25\ Id., at 30. \26\ Id., at 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department requested and received from the voluntary respondents (i.e., Guang Ya Companies and Zhongya Companies) their publicly ranged sales value and volume data for exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the 2009 investigation period. Using that data, the Department calculated a weighted-average all- others subsidy rate of 7.37 percent.\27\ In accordance with the MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, the Department reconsidered its decision to rely on the simple average of the voluntary respondents' rates in determining the all-others rate.\28\ Specifically, because the subsidy rate determined based on the publicly ranged data, rather than the subsidy rate determined based on a simple average, is closer to the subsidy rate that would have resulted from weighting the voluntary respondents' rates based on proprietary sales values, the Department revised the all-others rate to 7.37 percent in its Final Remand Results.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated October 15, 2015 (Final Remand Results), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands. \28\ Id. \29\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 23, 2015, in MacLean Fogg Remand Order, the CIT affirmed the Department's Final Remand Results, upholding that the Department's all-others rate of 7.37 percent.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15- 119, Court No. 11-00209 (October 23, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Final Determination, the Department amends its Final Determination. The following revised net subsidy rate exists: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Company Subsidy rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All-Others........................ 7.37 percent ad valorem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For companies subject to the all-others rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above and the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection accordingly. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and consistent with the clarification in Diamond Sawblades. Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-28668 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![69640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
with the regulations and the terms of an MacLean-Fogg Remand Order.2 during the interim time period between
APO is a sanctionable violation. Consistent with the clarification in the the issuance of the preliminary and final
We are issuing and publishing these United States Court of Appeals for the CVD rates, both as a cash deposit rate
results in accordance with sections Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision in and, if an annual review was sought, as
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 Diamond Sawblades,3 we are amending a cap on the final rate for those
CFR 351.213. the Final Determination. particular entries.8 Thus, in MacLean-
Dated: November 3, 2015. DATES: Effective date: November 2, Fogg II, the Court held that it would
Paul Piquado, 2015. consider the reasonableness of the
preliminary rate when it reviewed the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Compliance. Department’s remand determination.9
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, In MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, considered the Department’s remand
the Issues and Decision Memorandum U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th results.10 On remand, the Department
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., did not recalculate the all-others rate,
Summary Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
A. Background but rather, provided data indicating that
482–4793. the rate calculated for the mandatory
B. Scope of the Order
C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the respondents was logically connected to
Review Final Determination, the Department the all-others companies because the
D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and assigned a total adverse facts available mandatory respondents comprised a
Adverse Inferences (AFA) rate of 374.14 percent to the three significant portion of the PRC extruded
E. Subsidy Valuation Information non-cooperating mandatory respondents aluminum producers and exporters, and
F. Analysis of Programs and calculated company-specific net thus were representative of the PRC
G. Analysis of Comments
subsidy rates for two participating extruded aluminum industry as a
Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan’s Stainless
Steel Supplier is an Authority voluntary respondents. The Department whole.11 The CIT held that ‘‘nothing in
Comment 2: The Department’s Refusal to averaged the rates calculated for the the statute requires that the mandatory
Meet With Counsel for Dongyuan mandatory respondents and applied that respondents’ rates, even when based on
Comment 3: The Department’s Refusal to rate as the all-others rate, calculated AFA, may only be used to develop rates
Permit the GOC to Submit Factual pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the for uncooperative respondents.’’ 12
Information After the Preliminary Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).4 However, in MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
Results In MacLean-Fogg I, the CIT held that also concluded that the Department
Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil the statute was ambiguous concerning failed to explain how the calculated all-
Industry in China is Distorted by
whether the Department is required to others rate was remedial and not
Government Presence in the Market
Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans base the all-others rate on rates punitive when it assumed use of all
are a Part of the Policy Lending Program calculated for mandatory respondents subsidy programs identified in the
H. Recommendation and therefore the Department was investigation.13 Therefore, the CIT
[FR Doc. 2015–28664 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
permitted to use the mandatory remanded again to the Department for
respondents’ rates in calculating the all- re-consideration of the issue.14
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
others rate provided it did so in a In the second results of
reasonable manner.5 Nonetheless, the redetermination pursuant to remand
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CIT remanded the all-others rate to the issued in this litigation, the Department
Department for reconsideration because designated the all-others rate as equal to
International Trade Administration the Department failed to articulate a the preliminary rate it calculated for the
connection between the mandatory mandatory respondents, i.e., 137.65
[C–570–968] percent.15 In MacLean-Fogg IV, the CIT
respondent rates, based on AFA, and the
Aluminum Extrusions From the all-others companies.6 affirmed the Department’s remand
People’s Republic of China: Amended In MacLean-Fogg II, the CIT held that results, holding that the Department’s
the Department’s preliminary all-others selection of this all-others rate was
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
rate in the Preliminary Determination 7 reasonable.16
Determination Pursuant to Court
was also subject to review under the The CIT’s holdings were appealed to
Decision the CAFC. On June 3, 2014, the CAFC
same reasonableness standard because it
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, had legal effect on the entries made held that section 351.204(d)(3) of the
International Trade Administration, Department’s regulations, which directs
Department of Commerce. Duty Determination and Notice of Amended Final the Department to exclude voluntary
SUMMARY: On October 23, 2015, the Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 respondents’ rates from its calculation
United States Court of International FR 74466 (December 14, 2012) (collectively, Final of the all-others rate, was inconsistent
Determination).
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of 2 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol.
Commerce’s (the Department’s) results Court No. 11–00209, Slip Op. 15–85 (CIT August
8 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
of redetermination pursuant to court 2015) (MacLean-Fogg Remand Order). Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg II).
9 Id.
remand, which recalculated the all- 3 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
10 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
others subsidy rate in the countervailing United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades). Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (2012) (MacLean-Fogg III).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum 4 See Final Determination, 76 FR at 18523, and 11 Id.
extrusions from the People’s Republic of accompanying Issues and Decision at Comment 9. 12 Id., at 1341.
China (the PRC),1 pursuant to the CIT’s 5 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 836 F. 13 Id., at 1342–1343.
Supp. 2d 1367, 1373–1374 (CIT 2012) (MacLean- 14 Id., at 1343.
1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Fogg I). 15 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
6 Id., at 1376. to Court Remand, dated September 13, 2012,
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011) 7 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 16 See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States,
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (MacLean Fogg IV)
Harmony With Final Affirmative Countervailing (September 7, 2010) (Preliminary Determination). at 11–12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Nov 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_69857/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 69641
with the statute.17 Accordingly, the understanding of the substance of the Act and consistent with the clarification
CAFC held that the Department must information.’ ’’ 25 The CIT thus directed in Diamond Sawblades.
include rates calculated for voluntary the Department on remand to either Dated: November 4, 2015.
respondents in determining an all- request the publicly ranged data from Paul Piquado,
others rate.18 As the Department had not the voluntary respondents, or publicly
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
used the rates calculated for the range the companies’ information itself, Compliance.
voluntary respondents in the underlying and reconsider its determination to use
[FR Doc. 2015–28668 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
investigation to determine the all-others a simple average of their subsidy rates.26
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
rate, the CAFC therefore held that the The Department requested and
Department was required to recalculate received from the voluntary respondents
the all-others rate using the voluntary (i.e., Guang Ya Companies and Zhongya DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
respondents’ rates. The CIT Companies) their publicly ranged sales
subsequently remanded the issue to the value and volume data for exports of International Trade Administration
Department for reconsideration in light subject merchandise to the United
of the CAFC’s holding.19 States during the 2009 investigation [A–201–830]
On remand, the Department period. Using that data, the Department
recalculated the all-others rate using a Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
calculated a weighted-average all-others
simple average of the voluntary Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results
subsidy rate of 7.37 percent.27 In
respondents’ rates.20 Section of Antidumping Duty Administrative
accordance with the MacLean-Fogg
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that, Review; 2013–2014
Remand Order, the Department
in general, the all-others rate ‘‘shall be reconsidered its decision to rely on the AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
an amount equal to the weighted simple average of the voluntary International Trade Administration,
average countervailable subsidy rates respondents’ rates in determining the U.S. Department of Commerce.
established for exporters and producers all-others rate.28 Specifically, because
individually investigated . . . .’’ SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
the subsidy rate determined based on (the Department) is conducting an
However, the Department explained in the publicly ranged data, rather than the
the Third Remand Results that the use administrative review of the
subsidy rate determined based on a antidumping duty order on carbon and
of a weighted average would have simple average, is closer to the subsidy
revealed the proprietary information of certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod)
rate that would have resulted from from Mexico. The period of review
the voluntary respondents to each weighting the voluntary respondents’
other.21 (POR) is October 1, 2013 through
rates based on proprietary sales values, September 30, 2014.1 This review
Petitioners 22 argued that the
the Department revised the all-others covers two producers/exporters of
Department should have requested
rate to 7.37 percent in its Final Remand subject merchandise: ArcelorMittal Las
publicly ranged versions of proprietary
Results.29 Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and
data on the record from the voluntary
On October 23, 2015, in MacLean Deacero S.A. de C.V. We preliminarily
respondents to use in its calculation of
Fogg Remand Order, the CIT affirmed determine that AMLT and Deacero
the all-others rate, but in the Third
the Department’s Final Remand Results, made sales of subject merchandise at
Remand Results, the Department
instead calculated the all-others rate upholding that the Department’s all- less than normal value (NV) during the
using a simple average of the rates of the others rate of 7.37 percent.30 POR. Interested parties are invited to
two voluntary respondents, which Amended Final Determination comment on these preliminary results.
resulted in a rate of 7.42 percent.23 DATES: Effective date: November 10,
After considering the Third Remand Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final 2015.
Results, the CIT remanded to the
Department the all-others rate Determination, the Department amends FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
calculation, explaining that the ‘‘statute its Final Determination. The following James Terpstra (for Deacero) or Jolanta
unequivocally and without exception revised net subsidy rate exists: Lawska (for AMLT), AD/CVD
requires that the Department base the Operations, Office III, Enforcement and
Company Subsidy rate Compliance, International Trade
all-others rate on the weighted average
of individually-investigated non-zero, Administration, U.S. Department of
All-Others ............. 7.37 percent ad valorem. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
non-de minimis, non-AFA rates.’’ 24
Furthermore, the CIT emphasized that Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
For companies subject to the all- telephone: 202–482–3965 and 202–482–
19 CFR 351.304(c)(1) requires all others rate, the cash deposit rate will be
proprietary information ‘‘to be 8362, respectively.
the rate listed above and the Department
accompanied by public versions ‘in will instruct U.S. Customs and Border SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
sufficient detail to permit a reasonable Protection accordingly. This notice is Scope of the Order
issued and published in accordance
17 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States (CAFC), The merchandise covered by the Wire
with sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Rod Order is carbon and certain alloy
18 Id., at 1245.
steel wire rod. The product is currently
19 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 32 F. 25 Id.,at 30.
classified under the Harmonized Tariff
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Supp. 3d 1358 (CIT 2014) (MacLean-Fogg V). 26 Id.,at 31.
20 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 27 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
to Court Remand, dated March 17, 2015 (Third to Court Remand, dated October 15, 2015 (Final item numbers 7213.91.3000,
Remand Results) at 6, available at http:// Remand Results), available at http:// 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011,
enforcement.trade.gov/remands. enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
21 Id. 28 Id. 1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon
22 Petitioners are the Aluminum Extrusions Fair 29 Id.
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,
Trade Committee. 30 See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,
23 See Third Remand Result.
Slip Op. 15–119, Court No. 11–00209 (October 23, and Ukraine 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire
24 See MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, at 21. 2015). Rod Order).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Nov 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_69857/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-03-01 11:24:41
Document Modified: 2018-03-01 11:24:41
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Dates | Effective date: November 2, 2015. | |
| Contact | Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4793. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 69640 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR