82 FR 10333 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 27 (February 10, 2017)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 27 (February 10, 2017)
| Page Range | 10333-10335 | |
| FR Document | 2017-02791 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 10333-10335] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-02791] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-904] Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) second remand results pertaining to the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results. DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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) 482-9068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 25, 2014, the Department issued AR6 Final Results.\1\ The petitioners \2\ and Carbon Activated Corporation (Carbon Activated), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, challenged certain aspects of AR6 Final Results. The petitioners challenged the Department's final results regarding the surrogate value (SV) used to value the mandatory respondents' \3\ anthracite coal. Carbon Activated challenged several aspects of the Department's final results as they pertained to Shanxi DMD Corporation (Shanxi DMD), which supplied Carbon Activated's imports of subject merchandise and was found to be part of the PRC-wide entity in AR6 Final Results. On January 20, 2016, the Court in Calgon I remanded the Department's AR6 Final Results and instructed the Department to reconsider its selection of the anthracite coal SV, and directed the Department to ``assign Shanxi DMD the all- others rate.'' \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 70163 (November 25, 2014) (AR6 Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (IDM). \2\ Calgon Carbon Corporation and Cabot Norit Americas (collectively, the petitioners). \3\ The mandatory respondents are Jacobi Carbons AB (Jacobi) and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet). \4\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1322-23, 1326-29 (CIT 2016) (Calgon I). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 25, 2016, the Department filed Remand I with the Court.\5\ Based on Calgon I, which had ordered the Department to ``reconsider its selection of an SV for anthracite coal'' in AR6 Final Results, and based on the Department's finding that there were multiple SVs of equal reliability for anthracite coal on the record, the Department determined to select the anthracite coal SV based on which secondary surrogate country was the most significant producer of comparable merchandise.\6\ As a result of relying on significant production of comparable merchandise in Remand I, the Department valued anthracite coal using contemporaneous SV data from Thailand.\7\ Accordingly, the margins for Cherishmet and Jacobi (the mandatory respondents) were revised to $0.52/kilogram (kg) and to $0.51/kg, respectively.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-4, Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court Remand, dated May 25, 2016, (Remand I). \6\ See Remand I at 15-17, 31-36. \7\ Id. at 15-17, 31-35. \8\ Id. at 49. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, we recalculated the margin for those separate rate companies whose entries were subject to this litigation using the same method we used in AR6 Final Results.\9\ Thus, we calculated a weighted- average margin of $0.51/kg based on the publicly ranged U.S. sales quantities of the mandatory respondents.\10\ The [[Page 10334]] separate rate companies that received this revised rate in Remand I were: (1) Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Tianjin); (2) Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Juqiang); (3) Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Yunguang); (4) Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. (Jilin Bright); (5) Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Huahui); (6) Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited (Ningxia Mineral); (7) Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. (Sincere); and (8) Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Channel).\11\ Finally, in Remand I, and under protest, the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the separate rate of $0.51/kg, which the Department explained ``will pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the PRC to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.'' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Id. at 50-51. Specifically, in AR6 Final Results, we calculated the separate rate by using the ranged total sales quantities reported by the mandatory respondents from the public versions of their submissions to calculate a weighted-average margin because we found that methodology is more appropriate than calculating a simple average of the mandatory respondents' margins. See AR6 Final Results, 79 FR at 70164. \10\ See Remand I at 50-51. \11\ Id. \12\ Id. at 17-20, 49-50, 51. The Department also explained that, although the Court ordered the Department to assign Shanxi DMD the ``all-others rate,'' the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the separate rate because ``the Department understands the Court as ordering the assignment of the separate rate to Shanxi DMD.'' Id. at 19-20. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 18, 2016, the Court in Calgon II sustained the Department's assignment of a separate rate to Shanxi DMD, but again remanded to the Department its SV selection for anthracite coal.\13\ Although the Court in Calgon II held that the Department's ``finding that the Thai SV is reliable {,{time} is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence,'' \14\ the Court nonetheless found that the Department's determination to select significant production over import volumes as the methodology for selecting the anthracite coal SV was not supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the Court remanded the matter and ordered the Department ``to reconsider its selection of an SV for anthracite coal, . . . by either further explaining its selection methodology and basing that explanation on the record evidence or by choosing its other selection methodology based on import volume.'' \15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-107 (CIT November 18, 2016) (Calgon II). \14\ Id. at 23. \15\ Id. at 24-32. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 3, 2017, the Department filed Remand II with the Court.\16\ The Department relied on the quantity of imports of anthracite coal to select a SV among the potential SV sources for that input that are equally reliable. As a result, the Department revised its SV choice and relied on a SV from South Africa to value the mandatory respondents' anthracite coal factor of production.\17\ Consequently, Cherishmet's \18\ and Jacobi's \19\ final margins were revised to $0.28/kg and $0.18/kg, respectively.\20\ The separate rate was revised to $0.22/kg for: (1) Calgon Tianjin; (2) Juqiang; (3) Yunguang; (4) Jilin Bright; (5) Huahui; (6) Ningxia Mineral; (7) Sincere; and (8) Tianjin Channel.\21\ The Department used the same methodology for calculating the separate rate that was used in AR6 Final Results and Remand I, discussed above. Finally, because the Court held in Calgon II that ``any resulting changes to the value of the separate rate should be reflected in the rate ultimately assigned to Shanxi DMD,'' \22\ the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the revised separate rate of $0.22/kg, ``which will only pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the People's Republic of China (`PRC') to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.'' \23\ On January 27, 2017, the Court sustained Remand II in Calgon III.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-107, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated December 29, 2016 (Remand II). \17\ Id. at 5-6. \18\ In the first administrative review, the Department found that Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these companies to be part of a single entity in subsequent reviews. Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317, 21319 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995, 57998 (November 10, 2009). \19\ In the third administrative review, the Department found that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these companies part of a single entity in the fourth and fifth administrative reviews. Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142, 67145 n.25 (October 31, 2011); see also Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China; 2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 n.22 (November 9, 2012). \20\ See Remand II at 6-7. \21\ See Remand II at 8. \22\ See Calgon II at 8-9. \23\ See Remand II at 8-9. \24\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 17-6 (CIT January 27, 2017) (Calgon III). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,\25\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\26\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's January 27, 2017, judgment in Calgon III constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR6 Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, a final and conclusive court decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). \26\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends AR6 Final Results with respect to the companies identified below. Based on Remand II, as affirmed by the Court in Calgon III, the revised weighted-average dumping margins for the companies listed below during the period April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, are as follows: [[Page 10335]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted-average dumping margins Exporter (dollars per kilogram) \27\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacobi Carbons AB............................. 0.18 Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 0.28 Co., Ltd..................................... Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.............. 0.22 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd...... 0.22 Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon 0.22 Co., Ltd..................................... Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.... 0.22 Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd...... 0.22 Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited.......... 0.22 Shanxi DMD Corporation \28\................... 0.22 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd............ 0.22 Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd.............. 0.22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, are upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ In the second administrative review, the Department determined that it would calculate per-unit assessment and cash deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70211 (November 17, 2010); see also AR6 Final Results, 79 FR at 70165 n.29. \28\ As discussed above, this rate ``will only pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the People's Republic of China (`PRC') to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.'' See Remand II at 8-9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cash Deposit Requirements Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for the companies identified above, the cash deposit rates will remain the rates established in the most recently-completed AR8 Final Results, which are $1.76/kg and $0.02 for Jacobi and Juqiang, respectively, and $1.36/kg for Calgon Tianjin, Cherishmet, Yunguang, Jilin Bright, Huahui, Ningxia Mineral, Sincere, Shanxi DMD, and Tianjin Channel.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 6, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017-02791 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Notices 10333
accordance with the amended final CFR 351.224(e) of the Department’s surrogate value (SV) used to value the
results of this review. If the Department regulations. mandatory respondents’ 3 anthracite
determines that an exporter under Dated: February 6, 2017. coal. Carbon Activated challenged
review had no shipments of subject Ronald K. Lorentzen,
several aspects of the Department’s final
merchandise, any suspended entries results as they pertained to Shanxi DMD
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
that entered under that exporter’s case Corporation (Shanxi DMD), which
and Compliance.
number will be liquidated at the PRC- supplied Carbon Activated’s imports of
[FR Doc. 2017–02789 Filed 2–9–17; 8:45 am]
wide rate.7 The Department intends to subject merchandise and was found to
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 be part of the PRC-wide entity in AR6
days after the date of publication of Final Results. On January 20, 2016, the
these amended final results of review. Court in Calgon I remanded the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Cash Deposit Requirements Department’s AR6 Final Results and
International Trade Administration instructed the Department to reconsider
The following cash deposit its selection of the anthracite coal SV,
requirement will be effective July 19, [A–570–904] and directed the Department to ‘‘assign
2016, for all shipments of the subject Shanxi DMD the all-others rate.’’ 4
merchandise entered, or withdrawn Certain Activated Carbon From the
On May 25, 2016, the Department
from warehouse, for consumption on or People’s Republic of China: Notice of
filed Remand I with the Court.5 Based
after that date, as provided for by Court Decision Not in Harmony With
on Calgon I, which had ordered the
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For Final Results of Administrative Review
Department to ‘‘reconsider its selection
Anying, which had no reviewable and Notice of Amended Final Results
of an SV for anthracite coal’’ in AR6
transactions during the POR, the cash AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Final Results, and based on the
deposit rate will remain unchanged International Trade Administration, Department’s finding that there were
from the rate assigned in the most Department of Commerce. multiple SVs of equal reliability for
recently completed review of the anthracite coal on the record, the
SUMMARY: The Court of International
company. Department determined to select the
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the
Notifications to Importers Department of Commerce’s (the anthracite coal SV based on which
This notice also serves as a final Department’s) second remand results secondary surrogate country was the
reminder to importers of their pertaining to the sixth administrative most significant producer of comparable
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) review of the antidumping duty order merchandise.6 As a result of relying on
to file a certificate regarding the on certain activated carbon from the significant production of comparable
reimbursement of antidumping duties People’s Republic of China (PRC) merchandise in Remand I, the
prior to liquidation of the relevant covering the period of April 1, 2012, Department valued anthracite coal using
entries during this review period. through March 31, 2013. The contemporaneous SV data from
Failure to comply with this requirement Department is notifying the public that Thailand.7 Accordingly, the margins for
could result in the Secretary’s the final judgment in this case is not in Cherishmet and Jacobi (the mandatory
presumption that reimbursement of harmony with the final results of the respondents) were revised to $0.52/
antidumping duties occurred and the administrative review, and that the kilogram (kg) and to $0.51/kg,
subsequent assessment of double Department is amending the final respectively.8
antidumping duties. results. Additionally, we recalculated the
margin for those separate rate
Administrative Protective Order DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2017.
companies whose entries were subject
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This notice also serves as a reminder to this litigation using the same method
Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations we used in AR6 Final Results.9 Thus,
to parties subject to administrative
Office VIII, Enforcement and we calculated a weighted-average
protective orders (APO) of their
Compliance, International Trade margin of $0.51/kg based on the
responsibility concerning the return or
Administration, U.S. Department of publicly ranged U.S. sales quantities of
destruction of proprietary information
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue the mandatory respondents.10 The
disclosed under APO in accordance
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
with 19 CFR 35 1.305(a)(3), which
(202) 482–9068. 3 The mandatory respondents are Jacobi Carbons
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AB (Jacobi) and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet).
of the proceeding. Timely written Background 4 See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145
notification of the return/destruction of F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1322–23, 1326–29 (CIT 2016)
On November 25, 2014, the
APO materials, or conversion to judicial (Calgon I).
Department issued AR6 Final Results.1 5 See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States,
protective order, is hereby requested.
The petitioners 2 and Carbon Activated Consol. Court No. 14–00326, Slip Op. 16–4, Final
Failure to comply with the regulations
Corporation (Carbon Activated), a U.S. Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
and the terms of an APO is a Remand, dated May 25, 2016, (Remand I).
importer of subject merchandise,
sanctionable violation. 6 See Remand I at 15–17, 31–36.
challenged certain aspects of AR6 Final 7 Id. at 15–17, 31–35.
Notification to Interested Parties Results. The petitioners challenged the 8 Id. at 49.
This correction to the final results of Department’s final results regarding the 9 Id. at 50–51. Specifically, in AR6 Final Results,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
administrative review is issued and we calculated the separate rate by using the ranged
1 Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s total sales quantities reported by the mandatory
published in accordance with sections Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping respondents from the public versions of their
751(h) and 777(i)(2)(i) of the Act, and 19 Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR submissions to calculate a weighted-average margin
70163 (November 25, 2014) (AR6 Final Results) and because we found that methodology is more
7 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non- accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum appropriate than calculating a simple average of the
Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: (IDM). mandatory respondents’ margins. See AR6 Final
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 2 Calgon Carbon Corporation and Cabot Norit Results, 79 FR at 70164.
(October 24, 2011). Americas (collectively, the petitioners). 10 See Remand I at 50–51.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM 10FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_10360/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Notices 10335
Weighted-average
Exporter dumping margins
(dollars per kilogram) 27
Jacobi Carbons AB ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.18
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .............................................................................................. 0.28
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... 0.22
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................... 0.22
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................................................................. 0.22
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd ..................................................................................................................... 0.22
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................... 0.22
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited .............................................................................................................................. 0.22
Shanxi DMD Corporation 28 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.22
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 0.22
Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... 0.22
In the event that the CIT’s rulings are COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
not appealed or, if appealed, are upheld PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR I certify that the following action will
by a final and conclusive court decision, SEVERELY DISABLED not have a significant impact on a
the Department will instruct U.S. substantial number of small entities.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to Procurement List; Additions and The major factors considered for this
assess antidumping duties on Deletions certification were:
unliquidated entries of subject 1. The action will not result in any
merchandise based on the revised AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From
additional reporting, recordkeeping or
dumping margins listed above. People Who Are Blind or Severely
other compliance requirements for small
Disabled.
Cash Deposit Requirements entities other than the small
ACTION: Additions to and Deletions from organizations that will furnish the
Because there have been subsequent the Procurement List. products and service to the Government.
administrative reviews for the 2. The action will result in
companies identified above, the cash SUMMARY: This action adds products and authorizing small entities to furnish the
deposit rates will remain the rates a service to the Procurement List that products and service to the Government.
established in the most recently- will be furnished by nonprofit agencies 3. There are no known regulatory
completed AR8 Final Results, which are employing persons who are blind or alternatives which would accomplish
$1.76/kg and $0.02 for Jacobi and have other severe disabilities, and the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-
Juqiang, respectively, and $1.36/kg for deletes products from the Procurement O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in
Calgon Tianjin, Cherishmet, Yunguang, List previously furnished by such connection with the products and
Jilin Bright, Huahui, Ningxia Mineral, agencies. service proposed for addition to the
Sincere, Shanxi DMD, and Tianjin Procurement List.
DATES: Effective Date: 3/12/2017.
Channel.29 End of Certification
ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase
Notification to Interested Parties From People Who Are Blind or Severely Accordingly, the following products
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite and services are added to the
This notice is issued and published in 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149. Procurement List:
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Products
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603– NSN(s)—Product Name(s):
Dated: February 6, 2017. 9905–00–NIB–0376—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
Ronald K. Lorentzen, x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Orange
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.
9905–00–NIB–0377—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Pink
and Compliance.
9905–00–NIB–0378—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
[FR Doc. 2017–02791 Filed 2–9–17; 8:45 am] Additions x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Orange
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 9905–00–NIB–0379—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
On 11/28/2016 (81 FR 85538–85540) x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Red
27 In
and 12/30/2016 (81 FR 96442–96443), 9905–00–NIB–0380—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
the second administrative review, the
Department determined that it would calculate per-
the Committee for Purchase From x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Yellow
unit assessment and cash deposit rates for all future People Who Are Blind or Severely 9905–00–NIB–0384—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon from the Disabled published notices of proposed x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Yellow
People’s Republic of China: Final Results and additions to the Procurement List. 9905–00–NIB–0386—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Red
Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70211 After consideration of the material 9905–00–NIB–0387—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″
(November 17, 2010); see also AR6 Final Results, presented to it concerning capability of x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Orange
79 FR at 70165 n.29. qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 9905–00–NIB–0389—Flag, Marking, 4″ x
28 As discussed above, this rate ‘‘will only pertain
the products and services and impact of 5″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Orange
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
to entries during the period of review that were 9905–00–NIB–0390—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″
exported from the People’s Republic of China the additions on the current or most
recent contractors, the Committee has 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Pink
(‘PRC’) to the United States by Shanxi DMD and
9905–00–NIB–0391—Flag, Marking, 4″ x
imported by Carbon Activated.’’ See Remand II at determined that the products and 5″, 21″ Staff, Orange
8–9. service listed below are suitable for
29 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s 9905–00–NIB–0392—Flag, Marking, 4″ x
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
procurement by the Federal Government 5″, 21″ Staff, Red
Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 9905–00–NIB–0393—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″
62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016). 51–2.4. 21″ Staff, Yellow
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM 10FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_10360/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-02-11 18:15:27
Document Modified: 2017-02-11 18:15:27
| 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: February 6, 2017. | |
| Contact | 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) 482-9068. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 10333 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR