Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to a Final Court Decision, 47754-47756 [2016-17308]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47754
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2016 / Notices
Fees are set taking into account the
operational costs borne by ITA to
administer and supervise the Privacy
Shield program. The Privacy Shield
program will require a significant
commitment of resources and staff. The
Privacy Shield Framework includes
commitments from ITA to:
• Maintain a Privacy Shield Web site;
• verify self-certification
requirements submitted by
organizations to participate in the
program;
• expand efforts to follow up with
organizations that have been removed
from the Privacy Shield List;
• search for and address false claims
of participation;
• conduct periodic compliance
reviews and assessments of the program;
• provide information regarding the
program to targeted audiences;
• increase cooperation with EU data
protection authorities;
• facilitate resolution of complaints
about non-compliance;
• hold annual meetings with the
European Commission and other
authorities to review the program, and
• provide an update of laws relevant
to Privacy Shield.
In setting the Privacy Shield fee
schedule, ITA determined that the
services provided offer special benefits
to an identifiable recipient beyond those
that accrue to the general public. ITA
calculated the actual cost of providing
its services in order to provide a basis
for setting each fee. Actual cost
incorporates direct and indirect costs,
including operations and maintenance,
overhead, and charges for the use of
capital facilities. ITA also took into
account additional factors, including
adequacy of cost recovery, affordability,
and costs associated with alternative
options available to U.S. organizations
for the receipt of personal data from the
EU.
ITA is establishing a 5-tiered fee
schedule that will promote the
participation of small organizations in
Privacy Shield. A multiple-tiered fee
schedule allows ITA to offer the
organizations with lower revenue a
lower fee. In setting the 5 tiers, ITA
considered, in conjunction with the
factors mentioned above: (1) The Small
Business Administration’s guidance on
identifying SMEs in various industries
most likely to participate in the Privacy
Shield, such as computer services,
software and information services; (2)
the likelihood that small companies
would be expected to receive less
personal data and thereby use fewer
government resources; and (3) the
likelihood that companies with higher
revenue would have more customers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Jul 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
whose data they process, which would
use more government resources
dedicated to administering and
overseeing Privacy Shield. For example,
if a company holds more data it could
reasonably produce more questions and
complaints from consumers and the
European Union’s Data Protection
Authorities (DPAs). ITA has committed
to facilitating the resolution of
individual complaints and to
communicating with the FTC and the
DPAs regarding consumer complaints.
Lastly, the fee increases between the
tiers are based in part on projected
program costs and estimated
participation levels among companies
within each tier.
Dated: July 20, 2016.
Edward M. Dean,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Services,
International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
(‘‘Department’’) pursuant to the CIT’s
remand of the final determination in the
antidumping duty investigation on
certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires
(‘‘OTR tires’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). This case
arises out of the Department’s final
determination in the antidumping duty
(‘‘AD’’) investigation on OTR tires from
the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic
Off-The-Road-Tires from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15,
2008), as amended by Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Amended Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73
FR 51624 (September 4, 2008)
(collectively, ‘‘Final Determination’’).
The Department notified the public
that the final CIT judgment (See GPX
Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol.
Ct. No. 08–00285, Slip Op. 10–112 (Ct.
Int’l Trade October 1, 2010) (‘‘GPX III’’)
in this case was not in harmony with
the Department’s final affirmative
determination in the AD investigation of
OTR tires from the PRC on October 12,
2010. See Certain New Pneumatic Offthe-Road Tires from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Decision of
the Court of International Trade Not in
Harmony, 75 FR 62504 (October 12,
2010) (‘‘2010 Timken Notice’’). As there
is now a final and conclusive decision
in this case, the Department is
amending its final determination with
respect to the antidumping duty rate
calculated for the separate rate
companies.
[FR Doc. 2016–17508 Filed 7–21–16; 8:45 am]
DATES:
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Conclusion
Based on the information provided
above, ITA believes that its Privacy
Shield cost recovery fee schedule is
consistent with the objective of OMB
Circular A–25 to ‘‘promote efficient
allocation of the nation’s resources by
establishing charges for special benefits
provided to the recipient that are at least
as great as the cost to the U.S.
Government of providing the special
benefits . . .’’ OMB Circular A–25(5)(b).
ITA is providing the public with the
opportunity to comment on the fee
schedule, and it will consider these
comments when it reassesses the fee
schedule. ITA will reassess the fee
schedule after the first year of
implementation and, in accordance with
OMB Circular A–25, at least every two
years thereafter.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires From the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Amended Final
Determination Pursuant to a Final
Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the remand
redetermination made by the
Department of Commerce
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Effective March 23, 2015.
Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–4987.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In July 2008, the Department
published a final determination in
which it found that OTR tires from the
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold
in the United States at less-than-fairvalue (‘‘LTFV’’).1 As part of the Final
Determination, the Department
calculated a margin for the separate-rate
1 See
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
Final Determination.
22JYN1
47755
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2016 / Notices
respondents of 12.91 percent.2
Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (‘‘Starbright’’),
its importer GPX International Tire
Corporation (‘‘GPX’’), petitioners Titan
Tire Corporation and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied and
Industrial Service Workers International
Union, AFL–CIO–CLC (collectively,
‘‘Titan’’), and domestic interested party
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations,
LLC (collectively, ‘‘Bridgestone’’), each
timely challenged various aspects of the
Final Determination to the CIT. The
antidumping duty case was then
consolidated with the companion
countervailing duty case at the CIT.
With regard to the antidumping duty
case, among the issues raised before the
Court was the valuation of wire input
consumed by two of the respondent
companies, Starbright and Tianjin
United Tire & Rubber International Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘TUTRIC’’), under the factors of
production methodology to calculate
normal value in a non-market economy
country pursuant to section 773(c)(1)(B)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’).
On August 4, 2010, pursuant to the
Department’s request for a voluntary
remand, the CIT remanded the wire
input valuation issue to the Department
for reconsideration or further
explanation.3 In a remand
redetermination filed on September 3,
2010, the Department determined that
record evidence supported using a
different surrogate value for the wire
input consumed by Starbright and
TUTRIC in the production of OTR tires.4
As a result of this change, the weightedaverage dumping margin calculated for
subject merchandise produced by
Starbright and exported by Starbright/
GPX changed from 29.93 percent to
31.79 percent, the weighted average
dumping margin calculated for subject
merchandise produced and exported by
TUTRIC changed from 8.44 percent to
10.08 percent, and the weighted-average
dumping margin calculated for separate
rate companies changed from 12.91
percent to 13.92 percent.5 The CIT
affirmed the Department’s remand
redetermination on October 1, 2010.6
On October 12, 2010, the Department
notified the public that the final CIT
judgment in this case was not in
harmony with the Department’s final
affirmative determination in the AD
investigation of OTR tires from the
PRC.7 Subsequently, domestic litigation
over issues pertaining to the
consolidated countervailing duty case
continued.8 On March 13, 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’)
issued a final and conclusive decision
in this case, which no party appealed.9
Because there is now a final and
conclusive court decision in this case,
the Department is amending the final
determination for the separate rate
respondents.
Amended Final Determination
Since the Final Determination, the
Department has established a new cash
deposit rate for TUTRIC and for
Starbright.10 Therefore, this amended
final determination does not change
TUTRIC’s or Starbright’s cash deposit
rates. Because there is now a final and
conclusive court decision with respect
to the Final Determination, the revised
cash deposit rate for the separate rate
companies is 13.92 percent. For those
separate-rate companies that do not
have a superseding cash deposit rate
identified in the table below, the
Department will issue revised cash
deposit instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, adjusting the
cash deposit rate for the below separaterate companies to 13.92 percent,
effective March 23, 2015.11
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd .....................................................................
Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd ..............................
Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd .................................................................
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited .................................................
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited .................................................
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited .................................................
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd ..................................
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd ..................................
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd ..................................
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd ...................................................
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd .................................................
Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd ..............................................
Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd ..............................................
Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd ..............................................
Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd ......................................................
Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd ..........................................
Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd .....................
Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd ....................................................................
Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd .............................
Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd ................................................................
Midland Off The Road Tire Co., Ltd ............................................
Midland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd ...................................................
Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd .................................................
Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd ...................................................
Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd ........................
Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd ..........................................
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd .................................................
Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd ...............................................
Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd .................................................
Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd ...............................................
Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd ....................................................
Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd ................................................
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd .................................................
Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd ...............................................
Tengzhou Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................
Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd .................................................
Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd .....................................................
Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd .........................................
Shangdong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd ................................................
2 Id.,
73 FR at 51625.
GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 08–00285, Slip Op. 10–84 at *19–
*20, *28 (Ct. Int’l Trade August 4, 2010) (‘‘GPX II’’).
4 See Second Remand Redetermination, GPX Int’l
Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08–
00285, dated September 3, 2010, at 4–9.
5 Id. at 9–12.
6 See GPX III.
7 See 2010 Timken Notice, 75 FR 62504.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Jul 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
8 A summary of this litigation can be found in
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the Road Tires from the
People’s Republic of China: Corrected Notice of
Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in
Harmony and Corrected Notice of Amended Final
Determination, 80 FR 31889 (June 4, 2015) (‘‘2015
Timken Notice’’).
9 See GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780
F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
10 For Starbright/GPX, see Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008–2009
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
22871 (April 25, 2011). For TUTRIC, see Certain
New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 77 FR 14495
(March 12, 2012).
11 See 2015 Timken Notice; see also GPX Int’l Tire
Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08–00285,
Slip Op. 15–46 (CIT May 18, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
47756
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2016 / Notices
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd .....................
Techking Tires Limited ..................................................................
Techking Tires Limited ..................................................................
Techking Tires Limited ..................................................................
Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd ...................................................................
Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................
Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd./Kenda Global ............................
Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd .......................................................
Xingyuan Tyre Group Co., Ltd ....................................................
Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd ...................................................
Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd ........................
Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd ..........................................
Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd ..................................................................
Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd .................................................
Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd ...................................................
Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd .....................................................
Notification to Interested Parties
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Nature of the Proceeding
Section 129 of the Uruguay Rounds
Agreement Act (‘‘URAA’’) 1 allows the
Department to amend, rescind, or
modify a determination found by a
WTO dispute settlement panel or the
Appellate Body to be inconsistent with
U.S. obligations under the Antidumping
Agreement. Specifically, section
129(b)(2) provides that,
‘‘notwithstanding any provision of the
Tariff Act of 1930 . . ., ’’ within 180
days after receipt of a written request
from the U.S. Trade Representative, the
Department shall issue a determination
that would render its actions not
inconsistent with an adverse finding of
a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.2
The Statement of Administrative
Action, URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d
Cong. (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), refers variously
to such a determination by the
Department as a ‘‘new,’’ ‘‘second,’’ and
‘‘different’’ determination.3 After
consulting with the Department and the
appropriate congressional committees,
the USTR may direct the Department to
implement, in whole or in part, the new
determinations made under section 129
of the URAA.4 Pursuant to section
129(c) of the URAA, the new
determinations shall apply with respect
to unliquidated entries of the subject
merchandise that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date on
which the USTR directs the Department
to implement the new determinations.5
This determination may be subject to
judicial review separate and apart from
judicial review of the Department’s
original determination.6
Dated: June 28, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–17308 Filed 7–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of
Determination Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
and Partial Revocation of the
Antidumping Duty Order
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 18, 2016, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) issued its final
determination under a section 129
proceeding regarding the fourth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’) with respect to the Minh
Phu Group. On July 18, 2016, the U.S.
Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’)
instructed the Department to implement
the 129 Final Determination. As a result,
the Department is now implementing its
determination.
DATES: Effective July 18, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, 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)
482–6905.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Jul 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Background
At the written request of USTR, the
Department informed interested parties
1 Citation to ‘‘section 129’’ refers to section 129
of the URAA, codified at 19 U.S.C. 3538.
2 See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2).
3 See SAA at 1025, 1027.
4 See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(4).
5 See 19 U.S.C. 3538(c).
6 See 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vii).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
13.92
on May 20, 2016, that it was initiating
a proceeding under section 129 of the
URAA to implement certain findings of
the WTO dispute settlement panel in
United States—Anti-Dumping Measures
on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from VietNam (WTO/DS429) (‘‘Panel
Report’’).7 On May 20, 2016, the
Department issued its preliminary
determination in this proceeding 8 in
which the Department recalculated the
weighted-average dumping margin for
the Minh Phu Group 9 from the AR4
Amended Final 10 by eliminating the
denial of offsets for non-dumped sales
On July 6, 2016, the Department
solicited comments from interested
7 See Letter from USTR, re: ‘‘Request to Comply
with WTO Panel Report,’’ dated May 20, 2016. See
also Letter from the Department to All Interested
Parties, re: ‘‘Initiation of DS429,’’ dated May 20,
2016.
8 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, re: ‘‘Preliminary Determination Under
Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act:
Antidumping Measures on Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam,’’ dated May 20, 2016 (‘‘129 Preliminary
Determination’’). See also Memorandum to the File,
from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office V, re:
‘‘Preliminary Determination Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping
Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’)’’ (‘‘MPG 129 Prelim Memo’’), dated
May 20, 2016.
9 For purposes of this proceeding, the ‘‘Minh Phu
Group’’ includes the following companies: (1) Minh
Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and
affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat
Seafood Co., Ltd.), (2) Minh Phu Seafood Corp., (3)
Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, (4) Minh Phu
Seafood Pte, (5) Minh Qui Seafood, (6) Minh Qui
Seafood Co., Ltd., (7) Minh Qui, (8) Minh Phat
Seafood Co., Ltd., (9) Minh Phat, (10) Minh Phat
Seafood, (11) Minh Phat Seafood Corp., (12) Minh
Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, (13)
Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., (14) Minh
Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., and (15) Minh Phu
Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. See 129
Final Determination.
10 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9,
2010) (‘‘AR4 Final’’) and Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4,
2010) (‘‘AR4 Amended Final’’).
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47754-47756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17308]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-912]
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to a
Final Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the remand redetermination made by the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') pursuant to the CIT's remand of
the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on
certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (``OTR tires'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''). This case arises out of the
Department's final determination in the antidumping duty (``AD'')
investigation on OTR tires from the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-
The-Road-Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008),
as amended by Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008) (collectively, ``Final
Determination'').
The Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment (See
GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip
Op. 10-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade October 1, 2010) (``GPX III'') in this case
was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative
determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC on
October 12, 2010. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of
International Trade Not in Harmony, 75 FR 62504 (October 12, 2010)
(``2010 Timken Notice''). As there is now a final and conclusive
decision in this case, the Department is amending its final
determination with respect to the antidumping duty rate calculated for
the separate rate companies.
DATES: Effective March 23, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations,
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-
4987.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In July 2008, the Department published a final determination in
which it found that OTR tires from the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'').\1\ As
part of the Final Determination, the Department calculated a margin for
the separate-rate
[[Page 47755]]
respondents of 12.91 percent.\2\ Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.
(``Starbright''), its importer GPX International Tire Corporation
(``GPX''), petitioners Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied and
Industrial Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
(collectively, ``Titan''), and domestic interested party Bridgestone
Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
(collectively, ``Bridgestone''), each timely challenged various aspects
of the Final Determination to the CIT. The antidumping duty case was
then consolidated with the companion countervailing duty case at the
CIT. With regard to the antidumping duty case, among the issues raised
before the Court was the valuation of wire input consumed by two of the
respondent companies, Starbright and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber
International Co., Ltd. (``TUTRIC''), under the factors of production
methodology to calculate normal value in a non-market economy country
pursuant to section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Determination.
\2\ Id., 73 FR at 51625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2010, pursuant to the Department's request for a
voluntary remand, the CIT remanded the wire input valuation issue to
the Department for reconsideration or further explanation.\3\ In a
remand redetermination filed on September 3, 2010, the Department
determined that record evidence supported using a different surrogate
value for the wire input consumed by Starbright and TUTRIC in the
production of OTR tires.\4\ As a result of this change, the weighted-
average dumping margin calculated for subject merchandise produced by
Starbright and exported by Starbright/GPX changed from 29.93 percent to
31.79 percent, the weighted average dumping margin calculated for
subject merchandise produced and exported by TUTRIC changed from 8.44
percent to 10.08 percent, and the weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for separate rate companies changed from 12.91 percent to
13.92 percent.\5\ The CIT affirmed the Department's remand
redetermination on October 1, 2010.\6\ On October 12, 2010, the
Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment in this case
was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative
determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC.\7\
Subsequently, domestic litigation over issues pertaining to the
consolidated countervailing duty case continued.\8\ On March 13, 2015,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal
Circuit'') issued a final and conclusive decision in this case, which
no party appealed.\9\ Because there is now a final and conclusive court
decision in this case, the Department is amending the final
determination for the separate rate respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No.
08-00285, Slip Op. 10-84 at *19-*20, *28 (Ct. Int'l Trade August 4,
2010) (``GPX II'').
\4\ See Second Remand Redetermination, GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, dated September 3, 2010, at
4-9.
\5\ Id. at 9-12.
\6\ See GPX III.
\7\ See 2010 Timken Notice, 75 FR 62504.
\8\ A summary of this litigation can be found in Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the Road Tires from the People's Republic of China:
Corrected Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not
in Harmony and Corrected Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80
FR 31889 (June 4, 2015) (``2015 Timken Notice'').
\9\ See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780 F.3d 1136
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination
Since the Final Determination, the Department has established a new
cash deposit rate for TUTRIC and for Starbright.\10\ Therefore, this
amended final determination does not change TUTRIC's or Starbright's
cash deposit rates. Because there is now a final and conclusive court
decision with respect to the Final Determination, the revised cash
deposit rate for the separate rate companies is 13.92 percent. For
those separate-rate companies that do not have a superseding cash
deposit rate identified in the table below, the Department will issue
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, adjusting the cash deposit rate for the below separate-rate
companies to 13.92 percent, effective March 23, 2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For Starbright/GPX, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the
2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 22871 (April
25, 2011). For TUTRIC, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in
Part, 77 FR 14495 (March 12, 2012).
\11\ See 2015 Timken Notice; see also GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 15-46 (CIT May 18,
2015).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter Producer margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd............. Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd.... 13.92
Double Happiness Tyre Industries Double Happiness Tyre 13.92
Corp., Ltd. Industries Corp., Ltd.
Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd.......... Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd. 13.92
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited. Midland Off The Road 13.92
Tire Co., Ltd.
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited. Midland Specialty Tire 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Oriental Tyre Technology Limited. Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. 13.92
Co., Ltd. Ltd.
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Shandong Xingyuan 13.92
Co., Ltd. International Trade Co.
Ltd.
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Shandong Xingyuan Rubber 13.92
Co., Ltd. Co. Ltd.
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd.... Qingdao Hengda Tyres 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.. Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.. Shandong Zhentai Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.. Shifeng Double-Star Tire 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.. Weifang Longtai Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd... Qingdao Qizhou Rubber 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Sinorient International Qingdao Hengda Tyres 13.92
Ltd. Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Sinorient International Shifeng Double-Star Tire 13.92
Ltd. Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Sinorient International Tengzhou Broncho Tyre 13.92
Ltd. Co., Ltd.
Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd... Shandong Huitong Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd..... Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., 13.92
Ltd.
Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd... Shandong Taishan Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Shandong Xingyuan International Shangdong Xingda Tyre 13.92
Trading Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd.
[[Page 47756]]
Shandong Xingyuan International Xingyuan Tyre Group Co., 13.92
Trading Co., Ltd. Ltd.
Techking Tires Limited........... Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. 13.92
Ltd.
Techking Tires Limited........... Shandong Xingyuan 13.92
International Trade Co.
Ltd.
Techking Tires Limited........... Shandong Xingyuan Rubber 13.92
Co. Ltd.
Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd........... Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd.. 13.92
Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd.... Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre 13.92
Co., Ltd.
Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd./ Kenda Rubber (China) 13.92
Kenda Global. Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd...... Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., 13.92
Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: June 28, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-17308 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
