Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63079 

1See Artisan Mfg. Corp. v. United States, Ct. No. 

13–00169 (CIT, June 27, 2014) (Court Order 

affirming remand redetermination). 

2See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Investigation, Final 

Determination, 78 FR 13019 (February 26, 2013), 

amended by Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 

2013) (collectively, ‘‘Final Determination’’). 

definition of a modified pound net 

leader before setting their gear, provide 

managers with the knowledge that the 

offshore leaders in a portion of the 

Virginia Chesapeake Bay are configured 

in a sea turtle-safe manner, and aid in 

enforcement efforts. This collection of 

information will end when Final Rule 

0648–BB37 becomes effective and will 

be replaced by a training (consult the 

April 17, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 

21695) for details on the inspection 

program cessation). 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: October 17, 2014. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25107 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee; Notice of 

Partially Closed Meeting 

The Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet 

on November 5 and 6, 2014, 9:00 a.m., 

in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 

Room 3884, 14th Street between 

Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues 

NW., Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration on 

technical questions that affect the level 

of export controls applicable to 

information systems equipment and 

technology. 

Wednesday, November 5 

Open Session 

1. Welcome and Introductions 

2. Working Group Reports 

3. Old Business 

4. Industry Presentations 

5. New business 

Thursday, November 6 

Closed Session 

6. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov, no later 

than October 29, 2014. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to Committee members, the 

Committee suggests that public 

presentation materials or comments be 

forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 

Springer. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on December 5, 

2013, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 

(10)(d))), that the portion of the meeting 

concerning trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

deemed privileged or confidential as 

described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the 

portion of the meeting concerning 

matters the disclosure of which would 

be likely to frustrate significantly 

implementation of an agency action as 

described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The remaining portions of the meeting 

will be open to the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Dated: October 20, 2014. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25245 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–983] 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

Final Determination of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2014, the United 

States Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued its final 

judgment affirming the Department of 

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

results of redetermination pursuant to 

remand of the final determination of the 

antidumping duty investigation 

concerning drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’).1 Consistent with the decision 

of the 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 

determination 2 and is amending the 

final determination of the investigation 

with respect to the margin assigned to 

Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd. 

(‘‘Kehuaxing’’), an exporter and 

producer of subject merchandise. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mandy Mallott, Office III, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6430. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

Final Determination, Kehuaxing and its 

importer, Artisan Manufacturing 

Corporation (‘‘Artisan’’), filed a 

complaint with the CIT to challenge the 

rate assigned to Kehuaxing in the Final 

Determination. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

63080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 

3See Artisan Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 978 F. 

Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (‘‘Remand 

Order’’). 

4See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Artisan Manufacturing Corp. v. 

United States, Court No. 13–00169; Slip Op. 14–52 

(CIT 2014), dated June 4, 2014, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html. 

1See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 78 

FR 72061 (December 2, 2013) (Initiation Notice). 

2See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 79 FR 40062 (July 11, 2014) (2014 Sunset 

Review). 

3See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

4See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ 

Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00391, slip 

op. 2014–111, 2014 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 112 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade Sep. 23, 2014) (Diamond Sawblades 

Manufacturers’ Coalition). 

On May 5, 2014, the Court issued a 

remand order to the Department 

regarding the assignment of the 76.53 

percent PRC-wide rate to Kehuaxing, 

which resulted from the Department’s 

rejection of Kehuaxing’s untimely filed 

quantity and value questionnaire 

response, and the Department’s 

subsequent rejection of Kehuaxing’s 

separate rate application.3 Pursuant to 

the Court’s directive in the Remand 

Order, we requested and Kehuaxing 

timely provided these submissions for 

the record. We conducted a separate rate 

analysis and found that Kehuaxing 

demonstrated the absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

over its export activities and is thus 

eligible for a separate rate.4

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 

June 27, 2014 judgment in this case 

constitutes a final decision of that court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Determination. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

decision with respect to this case, the 

Department is amending the Final 

Determination with respect to 

Kehuaxing’s weighted-average dumping 

margin, effective July 7, 2014. The 

revised weighted-average dumping 

margin is as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent margin 

Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd ............................................ Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd ........................................... 33.51% 

Because no party appealed the CIT’s 

decision before the period of appeal 

expired on August 26, 2014, the CIT’s 

decision is now final and conclusive. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

and produced by Kehuaxing equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

listed above, effective July 7, 2014, 

adjusted, where appropriate, for export 

subsidies and domestic subsidy passthrough offsets. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 14, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25209 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With Final Results of Sunset 

Review, Notice of Rescission of Sunset 

Review, and Advance Notification of 

New Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 

(202) 482–4136. 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 of 

the Act would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy (as the case 

may be) and of material injury. 

In December 2013, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China five years 

from the imposition of the order in 

January 2009.1 On July 11, 2014, The 

Department published the 2014 Sunset 

Review.2 Notwithstanding the holding of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that ‘‘the 

statutory scheme impose{d} a 

mandatory duty on Commerce to issue 

antidumping duty orders covering the 

subject entries’’ as of January 2009,3 the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 

held, on September 23, 2014, that the 

2014 Sunset Review was unlawful and 

premature, agreeing with the plaintiff 

that the five-year period should have 

been counted from November 2009. 

Thus, the CIT ordered the Department to 

rescind the 2014 Sunset Review and to 

re-initiate the sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China on 

November 4, 2014.4

Consistent with the decision of the 

CAFC in Timken Co. v. United States, 

893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), 

as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the final judgment in this case is not in 

harmony with the Department’s 2014 

Sunset Review. The Department is 

therefore rescinding the 2014 Sunset 

Review. 

Timken Notice 

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

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC has held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 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 

September 23, 2014, judgment 

constitutes a final decision of that court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s 2014 Sunset Review. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES