18200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices 

1See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 

Fed. Appx. 778, 785–86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson 

CAFC 2014); see also Certain Steel Threaded Rod 

from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 4, 

2009) (AD Order). 

platform user instructions, and 

demonstration plans and scripts 

necessary to demonstrate the desired 

capabilities. Each prospective 

participant will train NIST personnel as 

necessary, to operate its product in 

capability demonstrations to the 

financial services community. 

Following successful demonstrations, 

NIST will publish a description of the 

security platform and its performance 

characteristics sufficient to permit other 

organizations to develop and deploy 

security platforms that meet the security 

objectives of the Access Rights 

Management for the Financial Services 

sector use case. These descriptions will 

be public information. Under the terms 

of the consortium agreement, NIST will 

support development of interfaces 

among participants’ products by 

providing IT infrastructure, laboratory 

facilities, office facilities, collaboration 

facilities, and staff support to 

component composition, security 

platform documentation, and 

demonstration activities. 

The dates of the demonstration of the 

Access Rights Management for the 

Financial Services sector capability will 

be announced on the NCCoE Web site 

at least two weeks in advance at 

http://nccoe.nist.gov/. The expected 

outcome of the demonstration is to 

improve access rights management 

across an entire financial services sector 

enterprise. Participating organizations 

will gain from the knowledge that their 

products are interoperable with other 

participants’ offerings. 

For additional information on the 

NCCoE governance, business processes, 

and NCCoE operational structure, visit 

the NCCoE Web site http://

nccoe.nist.gov/. 

Richard Cavanagh, 

Acting Associate Director for Laboratory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07590 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration 

Commerce Data Advisory Council 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Economic and Statistics 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Economic and Statistics 

Administration (ESA) is giving notice of 

a meeting of Commerce Data Advisory 

Council (CDAC). The CDAC will 

address areas such as data management 

practices; common, open data 

standards; policy issues related to 

privacy, latency, and consistency; 

effective models for public-private 

partnership; external uses of Commerce 

data; and, methods to build new 

feedback loops between the Department 

and data users. The CDAC will meet in 

a plenary session on April 23–24, 2015. 

Last-minute changes to the schedule are 

possible, which could prevent giving 

advance public notice of schedule 

adjustments. 

DATES: April 23–24, 2015. On April 23, 

the meeting will begin at approximately 

12:00 p.m. and end at approximately 

5:00 p.m. On April 24, the meeting will 

begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and 

end at approximately 1:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Google Washington, DC, 25 

Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 900, 

Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Burton Reist, BReist@doc.gov Director of 

External Communication and DFO, 

CDAC, Department of Commerce, 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration, 1401 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 

(202) 482–3331. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CDAC 

comprises as many as 20 members. The 

Committee provides an organized and 

continuing channel of communication 

between recognized experts in the data 

industry (collection, compilation, 

analysis, dissemination and privacy 

protection) and the Department of 

Commerce. The CDAC provides advice 

and recommendations, to include 

process and infrastructure 

improvements, to the Secretary, DOC 

and the DOC data-bureau leadership on 

ways to make Commerce data easier to 

find, access, use, combine and 

disseminate. The aim of this advice 

shall be to maximize the value of 

Commerce data to all users including 

governments, businesses, communities, 

academia, and individuals. 

The Committee meeting is in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Title 5, United States 

Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)). 

All meetings are open to the public. 

A brief period will be set aside at the 

meeting for public comment on April 

24, 2015. However, individuals with 

extensive questions or statements must 

submit them in writing to: 

DataAdvisoryCouncil@doc.gov (subject 

line ‘‘APRIL 2015 CDAC Meeting Public 

Comment’’), or by letter submission to 

the Director of External Communication 

and DFO, CDAC, Department of 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, 1401 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. Such 

submissions will be included in the 

record for the meeting if received by 

Friday, April 17, 2015. 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to persons with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to the 

Director of External Communication as 

soon as possible, preferably two weeks 

prior to the meeting. If you plan to 

attend the meeting, please register by 

Monday, April 20, 2015. You may 

access the online registration from the 

following link: https://

www.regonline.com/cdac_april_2015_

meeting. 

Seating is available to the public on 

a first-come, first-served basis. 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Austin Durrer, 

Chief of Staff for Under Secretary for 

Economic Affairs, Economics and Statistics 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07773 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–932] 

Steel Threaded Rod From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With the 

Final Results of Scope Ruling on 

Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of 

Amended Final Results of Scope 

Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 22, 2014, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a 

decision that engineered steel coil rod 

(coil rod) imported by A.L. Patterson, 

Inc. (Patterson) was outside the scope of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

steel threaded rod from the People’s 

Republic of China on threaded rod from 

the PRC.1 On December 29, 2014, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT or Court) issued an order for 

the Department to take action on 

remand in accordance with the CAFC’s 

decision and to find that Patterson’s 

engineered steel coil rod is outside the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices 18201 

2See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 11–00192 (CIT December 29, 2014) (CIT Second 

Remand Order). 

3See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand, A.L. Patterson v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 11–00192 (Jan. 26, 2015), available at: 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/ (Final 

Second Remand Redetermination). 

4See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 

People’s Republic of China: A.L. Patterson Final 

Scope Ruling, A–570–932 (May 24, 2011) (Final 

Scope Ruling); see also AD Order. 

5See Final Scope Ruling at 5. 

6 Id., at 5–6. 

7See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, 34 Int’l 

Trade Rep. (BNA) 1894 (CIT 2012) (CIT First 

Remand Order). 

8See CIT First Remand Order at 9–17. 

9 Id., at 18. 

10See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Remand (December 4, 2012) at 14 (First Remand 

Redetermination). 

11 Id., at 14 and 16–19. 

12 Id., at 14. 

13See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 11–00192 (CIT May 22, 2013). 

14See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 

Fed. Appx. 778, 785–86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson 

CAFC 2014). 

15 Id.; Cf. Sango Int’l, L.P. v. United States, 484 

F. 3d 1371, 1380–1 (CAFC 2007). 

16See Patterson CAFC 2014 at 15. 

17See CIT Second Remand Order. 

18Final Second Remand Determination. 

19See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 11–00192 (CIT March 3, 2015). 

scope of the AD Order.2 On March 3, 

2015, the CIT issued final judgment in 

A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, 

Consol. Court No. 11–00192, affirming 

the Department of Commerce’s (the 

Department) final results of 

redetermination pursuant to remand.3

Consistent with section 516A of the 

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

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 scope ruling on the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

threaded rod from the People’s Republic 

of China, and is amending the final 

results with respect to coil rod imported 

by Patterson. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Gillman, Office V, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6433. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In our initial scope ruling, the 

Department found coil rod imported by 

Patterson within the scope of the AD 

Order on threaded rod from the PRC.4 In 

that scope ruling, the Department stated 

that the description of the product 

contained in the petition, the initial 

investigation, and the determinations by 

the Department (including prior scope 

determinations) and the International 

Trade Commission (ITC) were, in fact, 

dispositive with respect to Patterson’s 

engineered steel coil rod.5 Therefore, 

the Department conducted the scope 

determination pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.225(k)(1). Based on that analysis, as 

the scope language of the AD Order was 

clear in its requirement that subject 

merchandise consist of products with 

solid, circular cross sections, with 

threading along greater than 25 percent 

threading of their total length, and 

Patterson’s coil rod met these specific 

requirements of the scope of AD Order, 

the Department found that Patterson’s 

coil rod was within the scope of the AD 

Order.6

Patterson challenged the Department’s 

Final Scope Ruling in the CIT. On 

August 6, 2012, the CIT remanded the 

Final Scope Ruling to the Department to 

reconsider its decision that the 

engineered steel coil rod imported by 

Patterson falls within the scope of the 

AD Order.7 Specifically, the Court held 

that: (1) The Department’s decision that 

the scope language encompasses 

Patterson’s product is not supported by 

substantial evidence; (2) if there is no 

finding of injury or sales at less-thanfair-value (LTFV) for Patterson’s 

product, the Department’s 

determination is not in accordance with 

law; and (3) the Department failed to 

adequately explain the reasons for its 

determination.8 The CIT instructed the 

Department on remand ‘‘to reconsider 

whether the language of the order 

includes Patterson’s coil rod, following 

the interpretive procedure established 

in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).’’ 9

On remand, the Department reexamined the language of the petition, 

prior scope determinations, and original 

investigations of the Department and 

ITC, and the Department continued to 

find that Patterson’s coil rod is within 

the scope of the AD Order.10 After 

reviewing the petition, the ITC reports, 

and the original investigations, the 

Department found that Patterson’s coil 

rod matched the physical description of 

the same class or kind of merchandise 

previously considered by the 

Department and the ITC based on 

carbon content, threading along the rod, 

and circular cross-section.11

Accordingly, the Department found that 

Patterson’s coil rod was within the 

scope of the AD Order under an analysis 

conducted pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.225(k)(1).12

On May 22, 2013, the CIT sustained 

the Department’s First Remand 

Redetermination.13 Patterson appealed 

the CIT’s judgment to the CAFC. 

On September 22, 2014, the CAFC 

reversed the CIT’s judgment sustaining 

the First Remand Redetermination. As 

detailed below, the CAFC concluded, 

among other things, that substantial 

evidence did not support the 

Department’s determination that the coil 

rod at issue was part of the ITC’s 

domestic industry analysis during its 

investigation.14 Specifically, the CAFC 

found that ‘‘the record before us shows 

that the investigations that supported 

the antidumping order was {sic} not on 

Patterson’s coil rod but rather other 

kinds of steel threaded rods.’’ 15

Therefore, the CAFC concluded that 

‘‘there is insufficient evidence to 

conclude that Patterson’s coil rod, a 

distinctly different product than steel 

threaded rod, was part of the {ITC}’s 

material injury investigation,’’ and as 

such, found that Patterson’s engineered 

steel coil rod is not subject to the AD 

order.16 On December 29, 2014, the CIT 

issued an order for the Department to 

take action on remand in accordance 

with the CAFC’s decision in Patterson 

CAFC 2014 and to find that Patterson’s 

engineered steel coil rod is outside the 

scope of the AD Order.17 In the Final 

Second Remand Redetermination, and 

in following the express directive of the 

CIT Second Remand Order, which 

instructed the Department to act in 

accordance with the CAFC’s decision in 

Patterson CAFC 2014, the Department 

found that the AD Order did not cover 

Patterson’s coil rod.18 The CIT affirmed 

the Department’s Final Second Remand 

Determination in its entirety on March 

3, 2015, and entered judgment.19

Statutory Notice 

The CAFC’s decision in Patterson 

CAFC 2014 and the CIT’s March 3, 2015, 

judgment affirming the Final Second 

Remand Determination constitutes final 

court decisions that are not in harmony 

with the Final Scope Ruling. This notice 

is published in fulfillment of the 

statutory publication requirements. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

the Final Scope Ruling with respect to 

Patterson’s coil rod as redetermined in 

the Final Second Remand 

Redetermination and finds engineered 

steel coil rod imported by imported by 

A.L. Patterson, Inc. to be outside the 

scope of the AD Order. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because we now find that the scope 

of the AD Order does not cover 

Patterson’s coil rod, no cash deposits for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices 

1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

estimated antidumping duties on future 

entries of Patterson’s coil rod 

merchandise will be required. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 27, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07771 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has received 

requests to conduct administrative 

reviews of various antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders and findings 

with February anniversary dates. In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, we are initiating those 

administrative reviews. 

DATES: Effective Dates: April 3, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–4735. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department has received timely 

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), for administrative reviews of 

various antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders and findings with February 

anniversary dates. With respect to the 

antidumping duty orders of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India 

and Thailand, the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

for these cases will be published in a 

separate initiation notice. 

All deadlines for the submission of 

various types of information, 

certifications, or comments or actions by 

the Department discussed below refer to 

the number of calendar days from the 

applicable starting time. 

Notice of No Sales 

If a producer or exporter named in 

this notice of initiation had no exports, 

sales, or entries during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’), it must notify the 

Department within 30 days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. All submissions must be filed 

electronically at http://access.trade.gov 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1

Such submissions are subject to 

verification in accordance with section 

782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). Further, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), 

a copy must be served on every party on 

the Department’s service list. 

Respondent Selection 

In the event the Department limits the 

number of respondents for individual 

examination for administrative reviews, 

the Department intends to select 

respondents based on U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. 

imports during the POR. We intend to 

release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties having an APO 

within seven days of publication of this 

initiation notice and to make our 

decision regarding respondent selection 

within 21 days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within five days of placement of the 

CBP data on the record of the applicable 

review. Rebuttal comments will be due 

five days after submission of initial 

comments. 

In the event the Department decides 

it is necessary to limit individual 

examination of respondents and 

conduct respondent selection under 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act: 

In general, the Department has found 

that determinations concerning whether 

particular companies should be 

‘‘collapsed’’ (i.e., treated as a single 

entity for purposes of calculating 

antidumping duty rates) require a 

substantial amount of detailed 

information and analysis, which often 

require follow-up questions and 

analysis. Accordingly, the Department 

will not conduct collapsing analyses at 

the respondent selection phase of this 

review and will not collapse companies 

at the respondent selection phase unless 

there has been a determination to 

collapse certain companies in a 

previous segment of this antidumping 

proceeding (i.e., investigation, 

administrative review, new shipper 

review or changed circumstances 

review). For any company subject to this 

review, if the Department determined, 

or continued to treat, that company as 

collapsed with others, the Department 

will assume that such companies 

continue to operate in the same manner 

and will collapse them for respondent 

selection purposes. Otherwise, the 

Department will not collapse companies 

for purposes of respondent selection. 

Parties are requested to (a) identify 

which companies subject to review 

previously were collapsed, and (b) 

provide a citation to the proceeding in 

which they were collapsed. Further, if 

companies are requested to complete 

the Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

Questionnaire for purposes of 

respondent selection, in general each 

company must report volume and value 

data separately for itself. Parties should 

not include data for any other party, 

even if they believe they should be 

treated as a single entity with that other 

party. If a company was collapsed with 

another company or companies in the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding where the Department 

considered collapsing that entity, 

complete Q&V data for that collapsed 

entity must be submitted. 

Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a 

party that has requested a review may 

withdraw that request within 90 days of 

the date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review. The 

regulation provides that the Department 

may extend this time if it is reasonable 

to do so. In order to provide parties 

additional certainty with respect to 

when the Department will exercise its 

discretion to extend this 90-day 

deadline, interested parties are advised 

that the Department does not intend to 

extend the 90-day deadline unless the 

requestor demonstrates that an 

extraordinary circumstance has 

prevented it from submitting a timely 

withdrawal request. Determinations by 

the Department to extend the 90-day 

deadline will be made on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

administrative review in an NME 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES