Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35217 

1See 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). 

2See 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. 

4The 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). 

5See 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). 

6See 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. 

38. HoneyBear Growers LLC, Brewster, WA 

39. Honey Bear Tree Fruit Co LLC, 

Wenatchee, WA 

40. Hood River Cherry Company, Hood River, 

OR 

41. Ice Lakes LLC, East Wenatchee, WA 

42. JackAss Mt. Ranch, Pasco, WA 

43. Jenks Bros Cold Storage & Packing, Royal 

City, WA 

44. Kershaw Fruit & Cold Storage, Co., 

Yakima, WA 

45. L & M Companies, Union Gap, WA 

46. Larson Fruit Co., Selah, WA 

47. Legacy Fruit Packers LLC, Wapato, WA 

48. Manson Growers Cooperative, Manson, 

WA 

49. Matson Fruit Company, Selah, WA 

50. McDougall & Sons, Inc., Wenatchee, WA 

51. Monson Fruit Co., Selah, WA 

52. Morgan’s of Washington dba Double 

Diamond Fruit, Quincy, WA 

53. Naumes, Inc., Medford, OR 

54. Northern Fruit Company, Inc., 

Wenatchee, WA 

55. Olympic Fruit Co., Moxee, WA 

56. Oneonta Trading Corp., Wenatchee, WA 

57. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR 

58. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, 

Yakima, WA 

59. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA 

60. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East 

Wenatchee, WA 

61. Pine Canyon Growers LLC, Orondo, WA 

62. Polehn Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR 

63. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc., 

Yakima, WA 

64. Pride Packing Company LLC, Wapato, 

WA 

65. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA 

66. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA 

67. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA 

68. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA 

69. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA 

70. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., MiltonFreewater, OR, and Zillah, WA 

71. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA 

72. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA 

73. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID 

74. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC, 

Dallesport, WA 

75. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co., 

Bingen, WA 

76. Valicoff Fruit Company Inc., Wapato, WA 

77. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin, 

WA 

78. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima, 

WA 

79. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC, 

Yakima, WA 

80. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit 

Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA 

81. WP Packing LLC, Wapato, WA 

82. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA 

83. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima, 

WA 

84. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA 

Dated: July 20, 2018. 

Joseph Flynn, 

Director, Office of Trade and Economic 

Analysis, International Trade Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15925 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35218 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

8See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) 

Co. v. United States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2014). 9See 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}’’. 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. 

10See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United 

States, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) 

(Changzhou Hawd 2015). 

11See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United 

States, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(Changzhou Hawd 2017). 

12See 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). 

13See 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). 

14See Changzhou Hawd 2015, 77 F. Supp. 3d 

1351; Changzhou Hawd 2017, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008. 

15See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Order, Court No. 12–00020, dated February 

15, 2017 (Fifth Remand Redetermination). 

16See 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. 

19 Id. 

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

Commerce was subsequently 

remanded by the CIT 10 and the CAFC11

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 deminimis 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

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. 

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

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. 

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 weightedaverage dumping margins for these 

companies are as follows: 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35219 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

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, 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG367 

NOAA’s Implementation of the 

Department of Commerce 2018–2022 

Strategic Plan; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Under Secretary 

of Commerce (USEC) for Oceans and 

Atmosphere is holding multiple 

listening sessions to provide 

information and receive stakeholder 

input regarding implementation of the 

Department of Commerce’s 2018–2022 

Strategic Plan. Focal topics will be 

implementation of the Weather 

Research and Forecasting Innovation 

Act of 2017, reducing the seafood trade 

deficit, supporting maritime commerce, 

fisheries, recreation and tourism. The 

listening sessions will include 

presentations and time for stakeholder 

input into the development of priority 

objectives. The meeting topics are 

described under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the notice. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

between August and November 2018. 

For specific dates and times, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The 

meetings will be held in Norman, OK; 

Juneau, AK; St. Petersburg, FL; 

Madison, WI; Charleston, SC; Seattle, 

WA; San Diego, CA and Durham, NC. 

For specific locations, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Kay Roberts, Director of 

Communications, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; telephone: 

202–482–6090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has several 

initiatives underway to support the 

Department of Commerce (DOC) 2018– 

2022 Strategic Plan. NOAA will address 

the priority of reducing extreme weather 

impacts through the implementation of 

the Weather Research and Forecasting 

Innovation Act (Act). Among other 

requirements, the Act directs NOAA to 

improve seasonal and sub-seasonal 

forecasts, an area of forecasting that 

presents significant opportunity for 

improvement. NOAA is also interested 

in ideas to expand marine aquaculture 

across the United States as a means of 

creating quality jobs in coastal 

communities and reducing the seafood 

trade deficit. Other aspects to support 

domestic fisheries include reducing 

regulatory burden for wild-caught 

fisheries, implementing and enforcing 

recent regulations that establish 

minimum standards for imported 

seafood, and increasing foreign market 

access for U.S. seafood products. NOAA 

is also interested in pursuing efforts to 

support commerce through expanding 

precision maritime navigation products, 

ecotourism through the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Program, and harnessing the 

deep sea through ocean exploration. 

NOAA also intends to re-energize the 

National Oceanographic Partnership 

Program—a federal program that 

facilitates public-private partnerships to 

fund marine research. 

For the listening sessions, the Office 

of Under Secretary of Commerce (USEC) 

for Oceans and Atmosphere will present 

background on these ideas and solicit 

comment from stakeholders. The focus 

of each public meeting and structure of 

public comment will be at the discretion 

of the presenters and NOAA staff. The 

USEC schedule, location, and agenda for 

the following eight meetings are as 

follows with exact times and locations 

to be released at least 14 days in 

advance of the events at http://

www.noaa.gov/stories/noaa-startsnationwide-listening-sessions: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES