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 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