Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13825 

1See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 2013– 

2014, 79 FR 68856 (November 19, 2014) 

(Preliminary Results) and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum). 

2 Id. at 68857. 

3The scope described in the order refers to the 

HTSUS subheading 8545.11.0000. We note that, 

starting in 2010, imports of small diameter graphite 

electrodes are classified in the HTSUS under 

subheading 8545.11.0010 and imports of large 

diameter graphite electrodes are classified under 

subheading 8545.11.0020. 

4HTSUS subheading 3801.10 was added to the 

scope of the SDGE Order based on a determination 

in Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the 

People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 47596 (August 9, 

2012) (first circumvention determination). The 

products covered by the first circumvention 

determination are SDGE (or graphite pin joining 

system) that were 1) produced by UK Carbon and 

Graphite Co., Ltd. (UKCG) from PRC-manufactured 

artificial/synthetic graphite forms, of a size and 

shape (e.g., blanks, rods, cylinders, billets, blocks, 

etc.), 2) which required additional machining 

processes (i.e., tooling and shaping) that UKCG 

performed in the United Kingdom (UK), and 3) 

were re-exported to the United States as UK-origin 

merchandise. 

5HTSUS subheading 8545.11.0020 was added to 

the scope of the SDGE Order based on a 

determination in Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order and Rescission of 

Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention 

Inquiry, 78 FR 56864 (September 16, 2013) (second 

circumvention determination). The products 

covered by the second circumvention determination 

are SDGE produced and/or exported by Jilin Carbon 

Import and Export Company with an actual or 

nominal diameter of 17 inches. 

6Pursuant to the Department’s change in practice, 

the Department no longer considers the non-market 

economy entity as an exporter conditionally subject 

to administrative reviews. See Preliminary Results 

at note 3 and Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 

4. 

7See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China, 74 

FR 2049, 2053–54 (January 14, 2009). 

8See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

satisfactorily, there must be written 

guides and rules, which in this case are 

regulations for the provider and user. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

Agricultural Marketing Service will 

collect information to ensure that the 

dairy inspection program products are 

produced under sanitary conditions and 

buyers are purchasing a quality product. 

The information collected through 

recordkeeping are routinely reviewed 

and evaluated during the inspection of 

the dairy plant facilities for USDA 

approval. Without laboratory testing 

results required by recordkeeping, the 

inspectors would not be able to evaluate 

the quality of dairy products. 

Description of Respondents: Business 

or other for-profit. 

Number of Respondents: 487. 

Frequency of Responses: 

Recordkeeping. 

Total Burden Hours: 1,388. 

Charlene Parker, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05998 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2013–2014 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 19, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on small 

diameter graphite electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC), 

covering the period February 1, 2013, 

through January 31, 2014.1 We invited 

parties to comment on the Preliminary 

Results. We received no comments from 

interested parties. Accordingly, for the 

final results, we continue to find that 

during the period of review (POR) 

Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

(Henan Sanli) made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Romani, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office I, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0198. 

Background 

On November 19, 2014, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results of this review. The Department 

gave interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results.2

We received no comments from 

interested parties. 

We conducted this review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

includes all small diameter graphite 

electrodes of any length, whether or not 

finished, of a kind used in furnaces, 

with a nominal or actual diameter of 

400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and 

whether or not attached to a graphite 

pin joining system or any other type of 

joining system or hardware. The 

merchandise covered by the order also 

includes graphite pin joining systems 

for small diameter graphite electrodes, 

of any length, whether or not finished, 

of a kind used in furnaces, and whether 

or not the graphite pin joining system is 

attached to, sold with, or sold separately 

from, the small diameter graphite 

electrode. Small diameter graphite 

electrodes and graphite pin joining 

systems for small diameter graphite 

electrodes are most commonly used in 

primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and 

specialty furnace applications in 

industries including foundries, smelters, 

and steel refining operations. Small 

diameter graphite electrodes and 

graphite pin joining systems for small 

diameter graphite electrodes that are 

subject to the order are currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings 8545.11.0010,3 3801.10,4

and 8545.11.0020.5 The HTSUS 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, but the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department made no changes to 

its Preliminary Results. As a result, the 

Department determines that Henan 

Sanli is not entitled to a separate rate 

and should remain part of the PRC-wide 

entity.6 The rate previously established 

for the PRC-wide entity in this 

proceeding is 159.64 percent.7

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries covered by 

this review.8 Consistent with our 

determination that Henan Sanli is part 

of the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct 

CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment 

rate of 159.64 percent to all entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

which were exported by Henan Sanli. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

the subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

13826 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

1See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Court No. 13–00229, dated 

January 9, 2015, available at: http://enforcement.

trade.gov/remands/index.html (‘‘PET Film Final 

Remand’’); see also DuPont Teijin Films China 

Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 

13–00229, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT 2015) (‘‘Remand 

Opinion and Order’’). 

2See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2010–2011, 78 FR 35245 (June 12, 2013) 

(‘‘PET Film Final Results’’). 

3See DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. v. United 

States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (CIT 2014). 

4 Id. at 1347–51. 

5 Id. at 1359. 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of this proceeding, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

that have not been found to be entitled 

to a separate rate, including Henan 

Sanli, the cash deposit rate will be that 

for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this POR. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

These final results of review are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06105 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–924] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip 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 of 

Administrative Review Pursuant to 

Court Decision 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015 the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final 

results of remand redetermination, 

pursuant to the CIT’s remand order, in 

DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et 

al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT 

February 27, 2015).1

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’’), the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the final judgment in this case is not in 

harmony with the Department’s PET 

Film Final Results 2 and is amending the 

final results with respect to DuPont 

Teijin Film China Limited Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘DuPont’’) and Tianjin Wanhua Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Wanhua’’) for the period of 

review from November 1, 2010, through 

October 31, 2011. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement 

& Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 12, 2013, the Department 

published the PET Film Final Results. 

Interested parties DuPont, DuPont 

Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd., DuPont 

Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd., 

DuPont Teijin Films U.S. Limited 

Partnership, and Wanhua, appealed the 

PET Film Final Results to the CIT. On 

September 11, 2014, the CIT remanded 

several issues with respect to the PET 

Film Final Results.3 Specifically, the 

CIT held that: (1) The Department’s 

approach of valuing DuPont’s recycled 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) 

chips factor of production, while 

denying its by-product offset for 

recyclable PET waste, was unreasonable 

because it resulted in double-counting, 

and the Department must ‘‘reconsider 

its approach, and adopt a methodology 

that does not result in double-counting 

costs, insofar as reasonably avoidable;’’ 

and (2) the Department’s brokerage and 

handling calculation for DuPont 

‘‘incorrectly assumes that a shipment 

weighing less will incur lower 

document preparation and customs 

clearance costs, while a shipment 

weighing more will incur higher 

preparation costs,’’ and that the 

brokerage and handling figure therefore 

required ‘‘recalculation.’’ 4 The CIT also 

held that because Wanhua’s separate 

rate was based on DuPont’s rate, ‘‘any 

change to DuPont’s margin following 

remand shall be applied to Wanhua’s 

rate as well.’’ 5

Pursuant to the CIT’s remand 

instructions, the Department reexamined record evidence and made the 

following changes. The Department 

revised its calculation of DuPont’s 

margin in two ways. First, the 

Department reopened the record to 

allow DuPont an opportunity to 

substantiate its by-product offset, and 

granted that offset. Second, the 

Department adjusted DuPont’s 

brokerage and handling surrogate value 

calculation by dividing the surrogate 

value for document preparation and 

customs clearance costs by the weight of 

DuPont’s shipments. In addition, the 

Department revised its calculation of 

Wanhua’s separate rate by adjusting it 

for any changes to DuPont’s margin, 

given that its margin was solely based 

on DuPont’s margin. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 

516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), the Department must 

publish a notice of a court decision that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES