Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 305 

1See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the 

Federal Republic of Germany: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 85 FR 80011 

(December 11, 2020) (Final Determination), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(IDM). 

2 Id., 85 FR at 80012. 

3See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the 

People’s Republic of China, the Federal Republic of 

Germany, India, and Italy: Countervailing Duty 

Orders, and Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination for the People’s 

Republic of China, 86 FR 7535 (January 29, 2021) 

(Order). 

4See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United 

States, 600 F.Supp.3d 1241 (CIT 2022) (First 

Remand Order). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to the First Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen 

GmbH v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21– 

00080; Slip. Op. 22–117 (CIT October 12, 2022), 

dated January 9, 2023 (First Remand Results) at 18, 

available at https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 

States, 639 F.Supp.3d 1237, 1242 (CIT 2023) 

(Second Remand Order). 

9 Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1243–44. 

the appendix to this notice. 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). ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http://access.

trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

at https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review 

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 

752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce 

determines that revocation of the Order 

would likely lead to the continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and that the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the Order was revoked is up 

to 101.10 percent. 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to an APO of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under an APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). 

Timely 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 violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing, and publishing notice 

of, the results of this sunset review in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(5)(ii). 

Dated: December 27, 2024. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. History of the Order 

V. Legal Framework 

VI. Discussion of the Issues 

1. Likelihood of Continuation or 

Recurrence of Dumping 

2. Magnitude of the Margin of Dumping 

Likely to Prevail 

VII. Final Results of Sunset Review 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2024–31592 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–428–848] 

Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From 

Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not 

in Harmony With the Final 

Determination of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation; Notice of Amended Final 

Determination and Amended 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 26, 2024, the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in BGH 

Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 

States, Court No. 21–00080, Slip Op. 

24–148 (CIT December 26, 2024), 

sustaining the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (Commerce) fourth remand 

redetermination pertaining to the 

countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) 

from the Germany covering the period 

of investigation, January 1, 2018, 

through December 31, 2018. Commerce 

is notifying the public that the CIT’s 

final judgment is not in harmony with 

Commerce’s final determination in that 

investigation, and that Commerce is 

amending the final determination and 

resulting CVD order with respect to the 

countervailable subsidy rates assigned 

to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH 

Siegen), Schmiedewerke Gro ̈ditz GmbH 

(SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group 

(voestalpine Bohler), and all others. 

DATES: Applicable January 3, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Palmer or Shane Subler, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–9068 or (202) 482–6241, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 11, 2020, Commerce 

published its final determination in the 

CVD investigation of FEBs from 

Germany.1 Commerce calculated 

countervailable subsidy rates of 5.86 

percent for BGH Siegen, 6.71 percent for 

SWG, 14.81 percent for voestalpine 

Bohler, and 6.29 percent for all other 

producers/exporters of FEBs in 

Germany.2 Commerce subsequently 

published the CVD order on FEBs from 

Germany.3

BGH Siegen appealed Commerce’s 

Final Determination. On October 12, 

2022, the CIT remanded the Final 

Determination to Commerce, directing 

Commerce to: (1) consider in the first 

instance whether to account for the 

compliance costs in its calculation of 

the CVD rates for subsidy programs 

under the Electricity Tax Act and 

Energy Tax Act; and (2) explain or 

reconsider its determination that the 

Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) 

Program is a specific subsidy.4

In the First Remand Results, issued in 

January 2023, Commerce explained its 

determination not to account for 

compliance costs in its calculation of 

the CVD rates for programs under the 

Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act.5

Commerce also further explained its 

determination that the KAV Program is 

specific.6 However, Commerce made no 

changes to the final subsidy rates 

calculated during the investigation.7

In its Second Remand Order, the CIT 

sustained Commerce’s First Remand 

Results with respect to the Electricity 

Tax Act and Energy Tax Act.8 However, 

with respect to the KAV Program, the 

CIT held that Commerce’s First Remand 

Results failed to explain: (1) how the 

amount of electricity consumed or the 

electricity prices paid by companies are 

not economic in nature; and (2) how 

criteria based solely on electricity 

consumption and pricing are not 

horizontal in application.9 Regarding 

the latter, the CIT explained that for the 

KAV Program’s criteria to be vertical in 

application, the criteria would need to 

expressly limit the program’s 

application to specifically named 

enterprises or industries or a group of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
306 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 

10 Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1244 (citing section 

771(5A)(D)(i) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act)). 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to the Second Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen 

GmbH v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21– 

00080; Slip. Op. 23–71 (CIT May 9, 2023), dated 

August 7, 2023 (Second Remand Results) at 11, 

available at https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 

14 Id. (citing Certain Softwood Lumber Products 

from Canada: Final Results and Final Rescission, in 

Part, of the Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 2020, 87 FR 48455 (August 9, 2022), and 

accompanying IDM at Comment 103). 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 

States, 663 F.Supp.3d 1378, 1384 (CIT 2023) (Third 

Remand Order). 

18 Id. (citing Statement of Administrative Action 

Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 

Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 4242). 

19 Id. 

20See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to the Third Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen 

GmbH v. United States, 663 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (CIT 

2023), dated February 12, 2024 (Third Remand 

Results) at 9, available at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 

21 Id.; see also Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 

343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

22See Third Remand Results at 9. 

23 Id. at 9–10; see also Memorandum, 

‘‘Calculation of the Non-Selected Rate,’’ dated 

January 16, 2024 (All-Others Rate Memorandum). 

24See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 

States, 704 F.Supp.3d 1372 (CIT 2024) (Fourth 

Remand Order). 

25 Id., 704 F. Supp.3d at 1380. 

26See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to the Fourth Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen 

GmbH v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (CIT 

2024), dated September 16, 2024 (Fourth Remand 

Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx. 

27 Id. at 13. 

28 Id. at 19. 

29See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 

States, Consol. Court No. 21–00080, Slip Op. 24– 

148 (CIT December 26, 2024). 

30See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

31See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

32See All-Others Rate Memorandum. 

33See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from 

Germany: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2022, 89 FR 64875 (August 

8, 2024). 

enterprises or industries.10 The CIT 

elaborated that the Government of 

Germany’s (GOG) eligibility criteria for 

the KAV Program did not expressly 

limit the program’s application to 

specific enterprises or industries or 

groups of enterprises or industries.11

Accordingly, the CIT, again, remanded 

for Commerce to further explain or 

reconsider its determination.12

In the Second Remand Results, 

Commerce found that the GOG’s 

eligibility criteria for the KAV Program 

were not horizontal in application, and 

thus, not neutral, pursuant to section 

771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act.13 Commerce 

explained that ‘‘where an authority, by 

law, limits eligibility to a group of 

enterprises or industries (e.g., those that 

operate specific types of ‘stationary 

equipment’), it cannot {emphasis 

added} do so uniformly.’’ 14 Further, 

Commerce explained that ‘‘by expressly 

limiting eligibility to certain groups that 

the authority, itself, defines, the 

authority has, in effect, established 

criteria that are vertical in nature.’’ 15 On 

this basis, Commerce found the 

eligibility criteria for the KAV Program 

to be vertical in application.16

In its Third Remand Order, the CIT 

held that Commerce’s position that a 

subsidy is de jure specific where 

‘‘implementing legislation expressly 

limit{s} access to the ‘group’ that the 

legislation itself created’’ was contrary 

to law.17 The CIT elaborated that ‘‘{t}he 

statute allows a subsidy to be limited to 

fewer than all enterprises or industries 

in an economy, so long as that criteria 

creating that legislation is objective.’’ 18

On this basis, the CIT remanded for 

Commerce to further explain or 

reconsider its determination that the 

KAV Program is de jure specific.19

In the Third Remand Results, 

Commerce reconsidered its 

determination that the KAV Program is 

de jure specific.20 Commerce found, 

under respectful protest, that the KAV 

Program is not de jure specific pursuant 

to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.21

Consequently, Commerce determined 

that the KAV Program did not constitute 

a countervailable subsidy.22 Commerce 

removed the KAV Program from the 

overall subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, 

SWG, and voestalpine Bohler, and 

recalculated the all-others rate.23

In the Fourth Remand Order, the CIT 

remanded for Commerce to further 

explain or reconsider its determination 

in the Third Remand Results.24

Specifically, the CIT held that 

Commerce ‘‘failed to conduct a de facto 

specificity analysis despite there being 

reasons to believe the KAV Program is 

specific as a matter of fact.’’ 25

In the Fourth Remand Results, 

Commerce further explained its 

determination that the KAV Program 

does not constitute a countervailable 

subsidy because it is neither de jure nor 

de facto specific.26 Commerce 

continued to find, based on facts 

otherwise available in accordance with 

776(a)(1) of the Act, that the KAV 

Program does not constitute a 

countervailable subsidy.27 Commerce 

made no changes to the final subsidy 

rates calculated in the Third Remand 

Results.28

On December 26, 2024, the CIT 

sustained Commerce’s Fourth Remand 

Results.29

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,30 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,31 the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 

516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce 

must publish a notice of court decision 

that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a 

Commerce determination and must 

suspend liquidation of entries pending 

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

December 26, 2024, judgment 

constitutes a final decision of the CIT 

that is not in harmony with Commerce’s 

Final Determination. Thus, this notice is 

published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

judgment, Commerce is amending its 

Final Determination with respect BGH 

Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler, 

and all others as follows: 

Company 

Subsidy rate 

(percent 

ad valorem) 

BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH ............. 5.81 

Schmiedewerke Gro ̈ditz GmbH ........... 6.64 

voestalpine Bohler Group ................... 14.74 

All Others ............................................ 6.18 

Amended CVD Order 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, Commerce is amending its 

Final Determination and Order. As a 

result of this amended final 

determination, Commerce is hereby 

revising the subsidy rates for BGH 

Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler. 

Additionally, because the all-others rate 

was based on BGH Siegen’s and SWG’s 

rates, Commerce is also revising the allothers rate.32

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because BGH Siegen has a 

superseding cash deposit rate, this 

notice will not affect the current cash 

deposit rate for BGH Siegen.33 For all 

companies that do not have a 

superseding cash deposit rate, 

Commerce will issue revised cash 

deposit instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 307 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c) and 

(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 30, 2024. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31587 Filed 12–30–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE570] 

North Pacific Albacore United States 

Stakeholder Meeting; Meeting 

Announcement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a U.S. 

stakeholder meeting to discuss North 

Pacific albacore (NPALB) management. 

This meeting is intended to prepare for 

potential discussions at the 2025 annual 

meetings of the Inter-American Tropical 

Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Western 

and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission Northern Committee 

(WCPFC NC) related to the results of the 

Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) 

for NPALB fisheries. The meeting topics 

are described under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. 

DATES: The virtual meeting will be held 

on February 20, 2025, from 1 p.m. to 4 

p.m. PST (11 a.m.–2 p.m. HST). You 

must complete the registration process 

by February 13, 2025, if you plan to 

attend the meeting (see ADDRESSES). 

ADDRESSES: If you plan to attend the 

meeting, which will be held by webinar, 

please register at https://forms.gle/ 

7hDuYGSCtJbnHedS9. Instructions for 

attending the meeting will be emailed to 

meeting participants before the meeting 

occurs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Reynolds, Pacific Islands 

Regional Office, tel. 808–725–5039 or 

emily.reynolds@noaa.gov or Tyler 

Lawson, West Coast Region Office, tel. 

503–230–5421 at tyler.lawson@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2024, 

the WCPFC NC and IATTC requested 

the International Scientific Committee 

on Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the 

North Pacific Ocean (ISC) provide 

recommendations to relate fishing 

intensity to catch and/or effort. 

Additionally, the ISC’s Albacore 

Working Group developed criteria for 

identifying exceptional circumstances 

for the NPALB MSE. This stakeholder 

meeting is intended to discuss these 

items as well as to prepare for 

anticipated discussions at the IATTC 

and WCPFC NC in 2025. For more 

information on fishing intensity 

recommendations and identifying 

exceptional circumstances, please see 

the ISC24 Plenary Report: https://

isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC24/ISC24_Plenary_

Report_r1.pdf. 

NPALB U.S. Stakeholder Meeting 

Topics 

The meeting agenda will be 

distributed to participants in advance of 

the meeting. The meeting agenda will 

include a discussion on translating 

fishing intensity into catch and/or effort 

limits for NPALB, identifying 

exceptional circumstances for the 

NPALB MSE, and logbook updates. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be indicated when registering for 

the meeting (see ADDRESSES) by 

February 13, 2025. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 6901 

et seq. 

Dated: December 30, 2024. 

Kelly Denit, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31557 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XE576] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public webinar of its Joint 

Herring Committee and Advisory Panel 

to consider actions affecting New 

England fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This webinar will be held on 

Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Webinar registration URL 

information: https://nefmc-org.zoom.us/ 

meeting/register/tJwpduyopz4uGtSP_

pFIKrgZkz5BehDTaWUCouncil address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Atlantic Herring Committee and 

Advisory Panel will meet to discuss 

Amendment 10 and the timeline for the 

action and an update from the Plan 

Development Team (PDT) on draft 

analysis to date. They also plan to 

discuss Specifications for 2025—a 

summary of fishing year 2024 

preliminary catch information and 

updated catch projections from the PDT, 

and recommendations for next steps, 

make recommendation to the 

Committee/Council as appropriate. 

Other business will be discussed, if 

necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained on the agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. The public also should be 

aware that the meeting will be recorded. 

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy 

of the recording is available upon 

request. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: December 30, 2024. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31572 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1