83 FR 35217 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Second Amended Final Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 143 (July 25, 2018)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 143 (July 25, 2018)
| Page Range | 35217-35219 | |
| FR Document | 2018-15878 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 35217-35219] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-15878] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Second Amended Final Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) entered its final judgment in Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, sustaining, in part, the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the less-than-fair- value (LTFV) investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in the LTFV investigation of multilayered wood flooring from China. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the order. DATES: Applicable July 13, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The litigation in this case relates to Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering multilayered wood flooring from China,\1\ which was later amended.\2\ In the First Amended Final Determination and Order, Commerce assigned a rate of 3.30 percent to all separate rate respondents.\3\ Commerce derived this rate by averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents with weighted-average margins above de minimis, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to a series of remand orders issued by the Court that resulted in five remand redeterminations, Commerce (1) revised its calculation of dumping margins for two mandatory respondents and the China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain findings regarding the dumping margins that were calculated for eight separate rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the litigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) (Final Determination). \2\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011) (First Amended Final Determination and Order). \3\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the investigation, on April 23, 2014, the Court granted a consent motion for severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States with respect to Layo Wood and the Samling Group.\4\ Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), Commerce gave notice of this decision, as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent calculated for Layo Wood and Samling Group.\5\ Further, because Commerce changed the surrogate values in its first remand redetermination for mandatory respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group,\6\ the highest calculated transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, which Commerce assigned to the China-wide entity.\7\ The CIT sustained Commerce's remand redetermination as it pertained to Layo [[Page 35218]] Wood and Samling Group\.8\ Consequently, pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), Commerce excluded Layo Wood and Samling Group from the Order.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The full names of those companies are Zheijiang Layo Wood Industry Co. Ltd. (Layo Wood) and Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global USA, Inc., Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Times Flooring Co., Ltd. (collectively Samling Group). \5\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 25109 (May 2, 2014) (Second Amended Final Determination). \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United States, dated November 14, 2013 (First Remand Redetermination), at 2-3. \7\ Id. \8\ See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014). \9\ See First Remand Redetermination, dated November 14, 2013. On May 23, 2014, Commerce provided liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for both Layo Wood and Samling Group explaining that Commerce has determined that merchandise produced and exported by Layo Wood and Samling Group are ``excluded from the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from {China{time} ''. See CBP Message from Commerce, ``Liquidation instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (A-570-970-001),'' dated May 23, 3014, Message Number 4143303; see also CBP Message from Commerce, ``Liquidation instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by the Samling Group (A-570-970-002),'' dated May 23, 3014, Message Number 4143304. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commerce was subsequently remanded by the CIT \10\ and the CAFC \11\ to revise its determination of the separate rate. Specifically, in its third remand redetermination, Commerce assigned seven of the eight separate rate respondents, which were plaintiffs in the litigation, an unspecified above de-minimis rate.\12\ In the fourth remand redetermination, Commerce assigned the eighth separate rate plaintiff, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., a cash deposit rate consistent with the other separate rate plaintiffs, until Changzhou Hawd's' new cash deposit and assessment rate was established in the final results of the second administrative review.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (Changzhou Hawd 2015). \11\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Changzhou Hawd 2017). \12\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, dated October 16, 2014 (Third Remand Redetermination). Commerce inferred that the margins of the separate rate plaintiffs were above-de minimis in the second remand redetermination. Commerce based this inference on two primary considerations. First, Commerce observed that 110 companies did not respond to the quantity and value questionnaire, that certain of those companies could have been selected as mandatory respondents, and that it is reasonable to infer those companies would have received above-de minimis rates. Second, Commerce corroborated this inference using the intervening results of the first administrative review, where Commerce found continued dumping. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United States, dated May 30, 2014 (Second Remand Redetermination). \13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, dated March 24, 2015 (Fourth Remand Redetermination). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CIT sustained Commerce's determinations; however, the CAFC vacated the CIT's judgment and remanded back to the CIT with instructions to remand to Commerce to revise its determination of the separate rate and apply the ``expected method'' under section 735(c)(5) of the Act, or to justify any departure.\14\ In its fifth remand redetermination, Commerce was unable to make the necessary findings to justify departure from the expected method, and thus applied the expected method for the separate rate, averaging the calculated rates for the mandatory respondents, resulting in a zero rate.\15\ Commerce further determined that the relevant statutory and regulatory provision, section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), did not provide a basis for excluding from the order producers that were not individually investigated and assigned individual dumping margins. Commerce also denied a request to terminate the order completely for lack of any individually calculated dumping margins above de minimis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See Changzhou Hawd 2015, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351; Changzhou Hawd 2017, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008. \15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated February 15, 2017 (Fifth Remand Redetermination). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth remand redetermination.\16\ The CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to terminate the order because the order was imposed, in part, based on indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a finding which was not challenged.\17\ With respect to the separate rate plaintiffs, the CIT ordered exclusion from the order for three separate respondents that sought voluntary examination in the investigation, but were denied: Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. The CIT held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 18-82 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 3, 2018). \17\ Id. at 11-12. \18\ Id. at 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment affirming the Fifth Remand Redetermination,\19\ sustaining the recalculated separate rate of zero (applicable to the separate rate plaintiffs), and ordering the exclusion of Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the order constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third Amended Final Determination There is now a final court decision with respect to the Second Amended Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate respondents listed below. As of the date of this notice, all eight companies have received updated cash deposit rates, and their rates will not change as a result of this litigation. Accordingly, Commerce is amending the Second Amended Final Determination. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted- average Exporter dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co.............................. 0.00 Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd................ 0.00 Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd................ 0.00 Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd................. 0.00 Kunshan Yingy-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd............. 0.00 [[Page 35219]] Karly Wood Product Limited.............................. 0.00 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited....................... 0.00 Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.............. 0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Further, pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, Commerce is also excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., from the order. Section 735(c)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act instructs Commerce to terminate suspension of liquidation and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit, in the event of a negative determination. Here, suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the appeals process (in accordance with Timken and as discussed above), and, therefore, we will continue to instruct CBP at this time to (A) continue suspension at a cash deposit rate of zero percent until instructed otherwise; and (B) release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made pursuant to the order by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or appealed and upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate those unliquidated entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a violation subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2018-15878 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35217
38. HoneyBear Growers LLC, Brewster, WA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE separate rate respondents.3 Commerce
39. Honey Bear Tree Fruit Co LLC, derived this rate by averaging the rates
Wenatchee, WA International Trade Administration of the two individually investigated
40. Hood River Cherry Company, Hood River,
[A–570–970] respondents with weighted-average
OR
41. Ice Lakes LLC, East Wenatchee, WA margins above de minimis, pursuant to
42. JackAss Mt. Ranch, Pasco, WA Multilayered Wood Flooring From the section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of
43. Jenks Bros Cold Storage & Packing, Royal People’s Republic of China: Notice of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to
City, WA Court Decision Not in Harmony With a series of remand orders issued by the
44. Kershaw Fruit & Cold Storage, Co., the Second Amended Final Court that resulted in five remand
Yakima, WA Determination and Notice of Third redeterminations, Commerce (1) revised
45. L & M Companies, Union Gap, WA Amended Final Determination of the its calculation of dumping margins for
46. Larson Fruit Co., Selah, WA Antidumping Duty Investigation two mandatory respondents and the
47. Legacy Fruit Packers LLC, Wapato, WA
48. Manson Growers Cooperative, Manson, AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain
WA International Trade Administration, findings regarding the dumping margins
49. Matson Fruit Company, Selah, WA Department of Commerce. that were calculated for eight separate
50. McDougall & Sons, Inc., Wenatchee, WA rate respondents that were plaintiffs in
SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the United
51. Monson Fruit Co., Selah, WA the litigation.
States Court of International Trade (CIT
52. Morgan’s of Washington dba Double Regarding the dumping margins for
Diamond Fruit, Quincy, WA
or Court) entered its final judgment in
53. Naumes, Inc., Medford, OR Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. two mandatory respondents in the
54. Northern Fruit Company, Inc., United States, sustaining, in part, the investigation, on April 23, 2014, the
Wenatchee, WA final results of remand redetermination Court granted a consent motion for
55. Olympic Fruit Co., Moxee, WA pursuant to court order by the severance and entered final judgment in
56. Oneonta Trading Corp., Wenatchee, WA Department of Commerce (Commerce) Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan)
57. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR pertaining to the less-than-fair-value Company, Limited v. United States with
58. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, (LTFV) investigation on multilayered respect to Layo Wood and the Samling
Yakima, WA wood flooring from the People’s Group.4 Consistent with the decision of
59. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA Republic of China (China). Commerce is the United States Court of Appeals for
60. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East notifying the public that the final
Wenatchee, WA the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken
judgment in this case is not in harmony Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed.
61. Pine Canyon Growers LLC, Orondo, WA
with Commerce’s final determination in Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by
62. Polehn Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR
63. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc.,
the LTFV investigation of multilayered Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
Yakima, WA wood flooring from China. Pursuant to United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
64. Pride Packing Company LLC, Wapato, the CIT’s final judgment, Dunhua City
2010) (Diamond Sawblades), Commerce
WA Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine
gave notice of this decision, as well as
65. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and
the amended dumping margins of zero
66. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan)
67. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the percent calculated for Layo Wood and
68. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA order. Samling Group.5 Further, because
69. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA Commerce changed the surrogate values
70. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., Milton- DATES: Applicable July 13, 2018. in its first remand redetermination for
Freewater, OR, and Zillah, WA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mandatory respondents Layo Wood and
71. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV, Samling Group,6 the highest calculated
72. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA Enforcement and Compliance, transaction-specific rate on the record
73. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID International Trade Administration, became 25.62 percent, which Commerce
74. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Dallesport, WA
assigned to the China-wide entity.7 The
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, CIT sustained Commerce’s remand
75. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co., DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3147.
Bingen, WA redetermination as it pertained to Layo
76. Valicoff Fruit Company Inc., Wapato, WA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
77. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin, Background
WA 3 Id.
78. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima, The litigation in this case relates to 4 The full names of those companies are Zheijiang
WA Commerce’s final determination in the Layo Wood Industry Co. Ltd. (Layo Wood) and
79. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC, antidumping duty investigation Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.,
Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant
Yakima, WA covering multilayered wood flooring Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global
80. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit from China,1 which was later amended.2 USA, Inc., Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou
Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA In the First Amended Final Times Flooring Co., Ltd. (collectively Samling
81. WP Packing LLC, Wapato, WA Determination and Order, Commerce Group).
82. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA 5 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
assigned a rate of 3.30 percent to all People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court
83. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima,
WA Decision Not in Harmony With the Final
84. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA
1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the Determination and Amended Final Determination
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 25109
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (May 2, 2014) (Second Amended Final
Dated: July 20, 2018. Determination).
(October 18, 2011) (Final Determination).
Joseph Flynn, 2 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
Director, Office of Trade and Economic People’s Republic of China: Amended Final to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries
Analysis, International Trade Administration. Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and (Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December States, dated November 14, 2013 (First Remand
[FR Doc. 2018–15925 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 8, 2011) (First Amended Final Determination and Redetermination), at 2–3.
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P Order). 7 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_35360/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35219
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
Karly Wood Product Limited ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................... 0.00
Further, pursuant to the CIT’s July 3, Dated: July 18, 2018. Communications, National Oceanic and
2018, final judgment, Commerce is also Gary Taverman, Atmospheric Administration; telephone:
excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 202–482–6090.
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong National Oceanic and Atmospheric
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Administration (NOAA) has several
Enforcement and Compliance.
from the order. Section 735(c)(2)(A)–(B) initiatives underway to support the
[FR Doc. 2018–15878 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am]
of the Act instructs Commerce to Department of Commerce (DOC) 2018–
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
terminate suspension of liquidation and 2022 Strategic Plan. NOAA will address
to release any bond or other security, the priority of reducing extreme weather
and refund any cash deposit, in the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE impacts through the implementation of
event of a negative determination. Here, the Weather Research and Forecasting
suspension of liquidation must continue National Oceanic and Atmospheric Innovation Act (Act). Among other
during the pendency of the appeals Administration requirements, the Act directs NOAA to
process (in accordance with Timken and improve seasonal and sub-seasonal
RIN 0648–XG367
as discussed above), and, therefore, we forecasts, an area of forecasting that
will continue to instruct CBP at this NOAA’s Implementation of the presents significant opportunity for
time to (A) continue suspension at a Department of Commerce 2018–2022 improvement. NOAA is also interested
cash deposit rate of zero percent until Strategic Plan; Public Meetings in ideas to expand marine aquaculture
instructed otherwise; and (B) release across the United States as a means of
any bond or other security, and refund AGENCY: National Oceanic and
creating quality jobs in coastal
any cash deposit made pursuant to the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
communities and reducing the seafood
order by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Commerce.
trade deficit. Other aspects to support
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
domestic fisheries include reducing
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong SUMMARY: The Office of Under Secretary regulatory burden for wild-caught
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. In of Commerce (USEC) for Oceans and fisheries, implementing and enforcing
the event that the CIT’s ruling is not Atmosphere is holding multiple recent regulations that establish
appealed, or appealed and upheld by listening sessions to provide minimum standards for imported
the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP information and receive stakeholder seafood, and increasing foreign market
to terminate the suspension of input regarding implementation of the access for U.S. seafood products. NOAA
liquidation and to liquidate those Department of Commerce’s 2018–2022 is also interested in pursuing efforts to
unliquidated entries of subject Strategic Plan. Focal topics will be support commerce through expanding
merchandise without regard to implementation of the Weather precision maritime navigation products,
antidumping duties. Research and Forecasting Innovation ecotourism through the National Marine
Act of 2017, reducing the seafood trade Sanctuaries Program, and harnessing the
Notification to Interested Parties deep sea through ocean exploration.
deficit, supporting maritime commerce,
This notice serves as a reminder to fisheries, recreation and tourism. The NOAA also intends to re-energize the
parties subject to administrative listening sessions will include National Oceanographic Partnership
protective order (APO) of their presentations and time for stakeholder Program—a federal program that
responsibility concerning the input into the development of priority facilitates public-private partnerships to
disposition of proprietary information objectives. The meeting topics are fund marine research.
described under the SUPPLEMENTARY For the listening sessions, the Office
disclosed under APO in accordance
INFORMATION section of the notice. of Under Secretary of Commerce (USEC)
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the destruction of DATES: The meetings will be held for Oceans and Atmosphere will present
APO materials or conversion to judicial between August and November 2018. background on these ideas and solicit
protective order is hereby requested. For specific dates and times, see comment from stakeholders. The focus
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. of each public meeting and structure of
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of the APO is a violation ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The public comment will be at the discretion
subject to sanction. meetings will be held in Norman, OK; of the presenters and NOAA staff. The
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Juneau, AK; St. Petersburg, FL; USEC schedule, location, and agenda for
This notice is issued and published in Madison, WI; Charleston, SC; Seattle, the following eight meetings are as
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), WA; San Diego, CA and Durham, NC. follows with exact times and locations
735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. For specific locations, see to be released at least 14 days in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. advance of the events at http://
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie www.noaa.gov/stories/noaa-starts-
Kay Roberts, Director of nationwide-listening-sessions:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_35360/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-25 00:44:37
Document Modified: 2018-07-25 00:44:37
| 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 | Applicable July 13, 2018. | |
| Contact | Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 35217 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR