Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 36261-36262 [2016-13279]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices CFR regulation that describes types of eligible borrowers who are entities that may also participate in the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP). DATES: Effective on June 6, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1510, Room 5136–S, Washington, DC 20250–1510; Telephone: (202) 720–0736; Email: Titilayo.Ogunyale@wdc.usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2016, at 81 FR 32719, a Notice of Comment Solicitation seeking input on the Rural Energy Savings Program. Inadvertently, an inaccurate citation to the Code of Federal Register (CFR) was included in the Notice. This document removes all references to the inaccurate CFR citation published on May 24, 2016, and replaces it with the correct citation to the CFR. In the Notice of Comment Solicitation FR Doc. 2016–12192 published May 24, 2016, at 81 FR 32719, make the following correction. Remove ‘‘7 CFR 1710.10’’ and add in its place ‘‘7 CFR 1710.101’’ on the following page: Page 32719, third column, ‘‘Entities eligible to borrow from RUS and relend to consumers pursuant to RESP are not restricted to electric utilities per se; entities owned or controlled by current or former RUS borrowers and those entities described in 7 CFR 1710.101 may also participate in the RESP program.’’ Dated: May 26, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4682. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On August 13, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the initiation of the antidumping duty changed circumstances review on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to determine whether to reinstate the antidumping duty order with respect to Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. (SGBC/SKF).1 The period of review is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015. In the Initiation, the Department incorrectly stated in two places that if we determine in this changed circumstances review that SGBC/SKF resumed dumping, ‘‘effective on the date of the publication of our final results,’’ 2 we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of TRBs manufactured in the PRC and exported by SGBC/SKF. However, we intended to state the following: ‘‘If we preliminarily determine in this changed circumstances review that SGBC/SKF resumed dumping, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of TRBs manufactured in the PRC, and exported, by SGBC/SKF’’ (emphasis also added). As a result, we now correct the Initiation as noted above. This correction to the initiation of the antidumping duty changed circumstances review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. [A–570–900] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: May 26, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–13248 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P [FR Doc. 2016–13203 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P International Trade Administration sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES [A–570–601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 36261 1 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 48493 (August 13, 2015) (Initiation). 2 Id., at 48493 and 48497 (emphasis added). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 International Trade Administration Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China covering the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012 (third administrative review).1 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the Court’s final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the AR3 Final Results 2 and that the Department is amending the AR3 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, including the ATM Single Entity.3 DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement AGENCY: 1 See Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14–00148, slip op. 16–49, 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 11, 2016); Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14–00148, slip op. 15–127, (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 9, 2015), dated February 8, 2016, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/15-127.pdf (AR3 Remand Redetermination), aff’d, Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49. 2 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011– 2012, 79 FR 35723 (June 24, 2014) (AR3 Final Results). 3 The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff International Ltd. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 77098, 77099 (December 20, 2013), unchanged in AR3 Final Results. E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 36262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 24, 2014, the Department published the AR3 Final Results, in which we assigned the PRC-wide rate of 164.09 percent to companies including the ATM Single Entity that comprise the PRC-wide entity.4 The ATM Single Entity challenged our decision to treat it as part of the PRC-wide entity and assign the PRC-wide rate to it. On November 9, 2015, the Court remanded the AR3 Final Results to the Department to reconsider the PRC-wide rate in light of the remand redeterminations for the two previous reviews that the Department issued after the publication of the AR3 Final Results.5 In these two remand redeterminations, the Department found that the ATM Single Entity was not entitled to a separate rate and, therefore, was part of the PRC-wide entity, and revised the PRC-wide rate using the simple average of the margins that had been calculated for the ATM Single Entity in the underlying administrative reviews and the petition rate in the less-than-fair-value investigation, i.e., 164.09 percent.6 On remand for the third administrative review, the Department revised the PRCwide rate consistent with the immediately preceding administrative review, i.e., the second administrative review.7 On May 11, 2016, the Court 4 See AR3 Final Results, 79 FR at 35724, n.7. Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14–00148, slip op. 15–127 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 9, 2015). 6 See Final Results of Redetermination pursuant to Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 14–50 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 29, 2014), dated April 10, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ remands/14-50.pdf, aff’d, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 15–105 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 23, 2015), and Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 14–112 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 23, 2014), dated May 18, 2015, and available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-112.pdf, aff’d, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 15–116 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 21, 2015). 7 See AR3 Remand Redetermination. See also Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 2843 (January 19, 2016), for the revision of the PRCwide rate for the second administrative review. sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 5 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:36 Jun 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. upheld our AR3 Remand Redetermination in its entirety.8 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 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 Court’s final judgment affirming the AR3 Remand Redetermination constitutes the Court’s final decision which is not in harmony with the AR3 Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results of Review Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the AR3 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows: Weightedaverage dumping margin (%) Exporter PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity) .................................... 82.05 In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rate the Department determined and listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements The current cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 82.05 percent, and thus same as the cash deposit rate established in the AR3 Remand Redetermination.9 Therefore, there is no need to update the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity as a result of these amended final results. 8 See Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc., 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49. 9 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 2013, 80 FR 32344, 32345 (June 8, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–13279 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–017] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review; 2014–2016 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 25, 2016, the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review (NSR) from Shandong Xinghongyuan Tire Co., Ltd. (SXT), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c). The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that the request for a NSR of the countervailing duty order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016. DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background The Department published the countervailing duty order on passenger tires from the PRC in the Federal Register on August 10, 2015.1 On February 25, 2016, pursuant to section 1 See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 47902 (August 10, 2015). E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36261-36262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13279]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results 
of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2011-2012

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining 
to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond 
sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China 
covering the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012 (third 
administrative review).\1\ Consistent with the decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. 
Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is notifying the public that the Court's final judgment in 
this case is not in harmony with the AR3 Final Results \2\ and that the 
Department is amending the AR3 Final Results with respect to the PRC-
wide entity, including the ATM Single Entity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court 
No. 14-00148, slip op. 16-49, 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade May 11, 2016); Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to 
Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14-
00148, slip op. 15-127, (Ct. Int'l Trade Nov. 9, 2015), dated 
February 8, 2016, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/15-127.pdf (AR3 Remand Redetermination), aff'd, Gang Yan 
Diamond Products, Inc. 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49.
    \2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 35723 (June 24, 2014) (AR3 Final Results).
    \3\ The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & 
Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw 
Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff 
International Ltd. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 77098, 77099 (December 20, 
2013), unchanged in AR3 Final Results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement

[[Page 36262]]

and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-5760 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 24, 2014, the Department published the AR3 Final Results, 
in which we assigned the PRC-wide rate of 164.09 percent to companies 
including the ATM Single Entity that comprise the PRC-wide entity.\4\ 
The ATM Single Entity challenged our decision to treat it as part of 
the PRC-wide entity and assign the PRC-wide rate to it. On November 9, 
2015, the Court remanded the AR3 Final Results to the Department to 
reconsider the PRC-wide rate in light of the remand redeterminations 
for the two previous reviews that the Department issued after the 
publication of the AR3 Final Results.\5\ In these two remand 
redeterminations, the Department found that the ATM Single Entity was 
not entitled to a separate rate and, therefore, was part of the PRC-
wide entity, and revised the PRC-wide rate using the simple average of 
the margins that had been calculated for the ATM Single Entity in the 
underlying administrative reviews and the petition rate in the less-
than-fair-value investigation, i.e., 164.09 percent.\6\ On remand for 
the third administrative review, the Department revised the PRC-wide 
rate consistent with the immediately preceding administrative review, 
i.e., the second administrative review.\7\ On May 11, 2016, the Court 
upheld our AR3 Remand Redetermination in its entirety.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See AR3 Final Results, 79 FR at 35724, n.7.
    \5\ See Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. v. United States, Court 
No. 14-00148, slip op. 15-127 (Ct. Int'l Trade Nov. 9, 2015).
    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination pursuant to Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-
00078, slip op. 14-50 (Ct. Int'l Trade Apr. 29, 2014), dated April 
10, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-50.pdf, aff'd, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00078, slip op. 15-105 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 
23, 2015), and Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-
00241, slip op. 14-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 23, 2014), dated May 
18, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-112.pdf, aff'd, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 15-116 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 
21, 2015).
    \7\ See AR3 Remand Redetermination. See also Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and 
Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
81 FR 2843 (January 19, 2016), for the revision of the PRC-wide rate 
for the second administrative review.
    \8\ See Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc., 2016 Ct. Intl. Trade 
LEXIS 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 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 Court's final judgment affirming the AR3 Remand 
Redetermination constitutes the Court's final decision which is not in 
harmony with the AR3 Final Results. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject 
merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the AR3 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              dumping
                                                            margin  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity)..           82.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will 
instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the 
revised rate the Department determined and listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The current cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 82.05 
percent, and thus same as the cash deposit rate established in the AR3 
Remand Redetermination.\9\ Therefore, there is no need to update the 
cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity as a result of these amended 
final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32344, 32345 (June 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-13279 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P