13828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

5On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD 

Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). 

The Web site location was changed from http://

iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The 

Final Rule changing the references to the 

Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 

(November 20, 2014). 

1See Final Second Remand Redetermination, 

Consol. Court No. 06–250, available at: http://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-13.pdf (Final 

Second Remand). 

2See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 

2006) (AFBs 16). 3See JTEKT Corporation v. United States, 675 F. 

Supp. 2d (CIT 2009). 4See Final Results of Redetermination, JTEKT 

Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06– 

00250 (CIT December 18, 2009), dated May 17, 2010 

(Final First Remand), available at: http://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/09-147.pdf. 5See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 

2d 1357 (CIT 2011). 6 Id. 

7Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). 8See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court 

No. 06–00250, slip op. 14–13 at 7 (CIT February 10, 

2014) (JTEKT III). 9See Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 

JTEKT Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court 

No. 06–00250 (CIT January 29, 2010 and February 

10, 2014), dated May 17, 2010 (Final Second 

Remand). 

were revoked. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov and to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit in 

Room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. 

Final Results of Reviews 

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 

752(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, we 

determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty finding/orders on PC 

strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, 

Korea, and Thailand would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping up to the following weightedaverage margin percentages: 

Country 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Brazil ..................................... 118.75 

India ...................................... 102.07 

Japan .................................... 13.30 

Korea .................................... 54.19 

Mexico .................................. 77.20 

Thailand ................................ 12.91 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these final results and notice 

in accordance with sections 751(c), 

752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218. 

Dated: March 3, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05815 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–804] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With the Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2004–2005 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 25, 2015, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT or Court) issued final 

judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United 

States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250 

(JTEKT Corp.), affirming the Department 

of Commerce’s (the Department) final 

results of redetermination pursuant to 

remand.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 final results of 

the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from Japan, covering 

the period May 1, 2004 through April 

30, 2005, and is amending the final 

results with respect to Nachi-Fujikoshi 

Corporation and NTN Corporation. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 14, 2006, the Department 

published AFBs 16.2 Nachi-Fujikoshi 

Corporation (Nachi), NTN Corporation 

(NTN), and other parties appealed AFBs 

16 to the CIT. On December 18, 2009, 

the CIT remanded AFBs 16 for the 

Department to, inter alia, (1) 

redetermine NTN’s freight expenses 

using a method that is consistent with 

the Department’s treatment of the freight 

expense of other respondents in the 

administrative review and (2) to 

redetermine the application of facts 

otherwise available for information that 

Nachi submitted on physical bearing 

characteristics.3 On May 17, 2010, the 

Department filed its results of 

redetermination pursuant to remand in 

accordance with the CIT’s order.4

On July 29, 2011, the CIT affirmed, in 

part, the Department’s first remand, 

which resulted in a weighted-average 

dumping margin of 13.91 percent for 

Nachi and a weighted-average dumping 

margin of 8.02 percent for NTN.5 The 

Court remanded issues regarding Nachi, 

NTN, and other respondent companies, 

relating to the Department’s use of 

zeroing and model match methodology.6

On June 4, 2012, the Court stayed the 

proceedings pending the appeal of 

Union Steel v. United States, which 

concerned zeroing.7 After the Federal 

Circuit issued its opinion in Union 

Steel, the Court lifted the stay and 

‘‘relieve[d] Commerce of the directive 

concerning zeroing’’ in JTEKT III but 

‘‘maintain[ed] the directive . . . as to 

the claim brought by NTN’’ pertaining 

to the model match methodology.8 In 

Final Second Remand, the Department 

further explained its analysis of this 

issue but did not further recalculate the 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

any respondents in the litigation.9 The 

Court affirmed the Department’s second 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13829 

10See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 15–18 (CIT February 

25, 2015). 

11See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

Japan and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping 

Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014). 

1See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Silicomanganese from Australia,’’ dated February 

19, 2015 (‘‘Petition’’). 

2See Petition, at 2–3. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese 

from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding 

Industry Support,’’ dated February 20, 2015. 

4See Industry Support Supplement to the 

Petition, dated February 23, 2015 (‘‘First Petition 

Supplement’’). 

5See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese 

from Australia: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated 

February 24, 2015. 

6See Supplement to the Petition, dated February 

27, 2015 (‘‘Second Petition Supplement’’). 

7See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the 

File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone 

Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 

3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the 

File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone 

Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 

4, 2015. 

8See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, 

2015 (‘‘Third Petition Supplement’’). 

9See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ section below. 

remand in its entirety on February 25, 

2015, and entered judgment.10

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 (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 CIT’s 

February 25, 2015, judgment affirming 

the Final Second Remand constitutes a 

final decision of that court that is not in 

harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is 

published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi’s and 

NTN’s weighted-average dumping 

margins as redetermined in the Final 

First Remand. The revised weightedaverage dumping margin for the period 

May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for 

Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 

2005, for NTN is 8.02 percent. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. In the event 

the Court’s ruling is not appealed, or if 

appealed and upheld by the Federal 

Circuit, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

appropriate entries of the subject 

merchandise from NTN or Nachi using 

the revised assessment rates calculated 

by the Department in the Final First 

Remand. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because we revoked the antidumping 

duty order on ball bearings and parts 

thereof from Japan effective September 

15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated 

antidumping duties on future entries of 

subject merchandise will be required.11

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: March 11, 2015. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06137 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–602–808] 

Silicomanganese From Australia: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok at (202) 482–4162 or 

Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936, 

Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On February 19, 2015, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received 

an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of silicomanganese 

from Australia filed in proper form on 

behalf of Felman Production, LLC 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 Petitioner is a domestic 

producer of silicomanganese.2

On February 20, 2015, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification with respect to the industry 

support section of the Petition.3

Petitioner filed a response to this 

request on February 23, 2015.4 On 

February 24, 2015, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification on certain portions of the 

Petition.5 Petitioner filed a response to 

this request on February 27, 2015.6 On 

March 3 and 4, 2015, Department 

personnel spoke with Petitioner’s 

counsel via telephone, requesting 

additional information and 

clarification.7 Petitioner filed a response 

to these requests on March 5, 2015.8

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

silicomanganese from Australia is being, 

or is likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value within the 

meaning of section 731 of the Act and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) 

of the Act, the Petition is accompanied 

by information reasonably available to 

Petitioner supporting its allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department 

also finds that Petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the AD investigation 

that Petitioner is requesting.9

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petition was filed on 

February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2014 through 

December 31, 2014. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is silicomanganese from 

Australia. For a full description of the 

scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of 

this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioner 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petition would be an accurate reflection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES