81_FR_4269 81 FR 4253 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2007-2008

81 FR 4253 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2007-2008

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 16 (January 26, 2016)

Page Range4253-4254
FR Document2016-01573

On December 21, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') issued its final judgment \1\ sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') final results of redetermination \2\ issued pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (CIT 2013) (``CPZ 07-08 II''), with respect to the Department's final results \3\ of the 2007-2008 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 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 is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results and is amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin determined for the sole mandatory respondent in the underlying review, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan (``CPZ''). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016) 
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4253-4254]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2007-2008

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 21, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') issued its final judgment \1\ sustaining 
the Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') final results of 
redetermination \2\ issued pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Peer 
Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (CIT 
2013) (``CPZ 07-08 II''), with respect to the Department's final 
results \3\ of the 2007-2008 administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''). 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 is notifying the 
public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Department's Final Results and is amending the Final Results with 
respect to the dumping margin determined for the sole mandatory 
respondent in the underlying review, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan 
(``CPZ'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Peer Bearing Company (Changshan) v. United States, Court 
No. 10-00013, Slip Op. 15-142 (CIT December 21, 2015) (``CPZ 07-08 
III''), and accompanying judgment order.
    \2\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan. v. United States, Court No. 
10-00013, Slip Op. 13-72 (CIT 2013), dated April 30, 2014 (``Second 
Remand Redetermination'').
    \3\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 
75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010) (``Final Results'') and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``IDM'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Rosen, Office III, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-7814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 21, 2011, the CIT issued its 
initial opinion on the underlying proceeding and remanded the Final 
Results, ordering that the Department: (1) Redetermine the surrogate 
value used to value bearing-quality steel bar inputs; (2) redetermine 
the surrogate value used to value bearing-quality steel wire rod 
inputs; and (3) reconsider, and modify as appropriate, its 
determination of the country of origin of merchandise finished and 
assembled into finished TRBs by a CPZ affiliate in Thailand from 
finished and unfinished TRB component parts manufactured in the PRC by 
CPZ.\4\ Specifically, with respect to the latter issue of country of 
origin, the Court held that the Department's findings that the ``third-
country processor's costs as compared to each product's COM {(Cost of 
Manufacture){time}  are not significant,'' is ``not supported by 
substantial evidence on the record, which contains evidence that the 
processing costs in Thailand accounted for 42 percent of the total cost 
of manufacturing.'' \5\ The Court held that the Department ``may not 
disregard record evidence that detracts significantly from, and appears 
to refute, one of the findings on which the Department relied.'' \6\ 
The Court instructed the Department ``to ensure that its 
redetermination. . . is based on findings supported by substantial 
evidence on the record of this case.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, 804 F. 
Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2011) (``CPZ 07-08 I''). While the third county 
in which the further processing took place was treated as business 
proprietary information in the underlying administrative review, 
along with the percentage cost of manufacture (discussed below), CPZ 
made this information public during the litigation.
    \5\ See CPZ 07-08 I, 804 F. Supp. 2d at 1342.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2012, pursuant to the Court's orders in CPZ 07-08 I, 
the Department: (1) Reconsidered the Indian data used to value bearing-
quality steel bar inputs in the Final Results and instead valued CPZ's 
steel bar inputs using Thai import data, and (2) revised the surrogate 
value used to value CPZ's steel wire rod inputs using data 
corresponding to steel rod that is ``of circular cross-section.'' \8\ 
With respect to the country of origin issue, the Department 
reconsidered its determination, applying its established criteria for 
determining whether merchandise is substantially transformed in another 
country. The Department expanded upon and further supported the 
existing findings as to the substantial transformation test employed in 
the Final Results.\9\ The Department reconsidered one finding with 
respect to the significance of the quantitative value added by Thai 
processing (i.e., one of six aspects of the underlying analysis in the 
First Remand Redetermination), finding that this prong of the analysis 
could support a determination that the Thai processing substantially 
transformed the merchandise in question.\10\ However, because further 
analysis of the remaining substantial transformation criteria continued 
to support the initial finding from the Final Results, the Department 
ultimately determined that the totality of the circumstances indicated 
that the processing that took place in Thailand during the period of 
review (``POR'') did not constitute substantial transformation so as to 
confer a new country of origin of the merchandise in question for 
antidumping purposes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, Court No. 
10-00013, Slip Op. 11-143 (CIT 2011), dated April 10, 2012 (``First 
Remand Redetermination''), at 4-6 and 28.
    \9\ See First Remand Redetermination, at 8-17.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 6, 2013, the CIT issued CPZ 07-08 II, in which it sustained 
the Department's redetermination of the surrogate values for CPZ's 
steel bar and steel wire rod inputs,\12\ but again remanded the 
Department's country of origin determination. Specifically, citing

[[Page 4254]]

``flaws in the Department's analysis'' \13\ with respect to each of the 
six criteria comprising the Department's substantial transformation 
test, the Court instructed the Department to ``reach a new country of 
origin determination because the record lacked substantial evidence to 
support the Department's determination that the TRBs which achieved 
final processing in Thailand were products of China for purposes of the 
antidumping duty order.'' \14\ Consistent with the CIT's remand order, 
the Department under protest redetermined the country of origin for 
certain merchandise under review and revised the dumping margin 
calculations to exclude U.S. sales of TRBs further processed in 
Thailand.\15\ In particular, the Department revised its findings with 
respect to five of the six criteria in its substantial transformation 
test, consistent with the Court's order. Along with the surrogate value 
changes sustained in CPZ 07-08 II, the Department calculated a 
weighted-average dumping margin for CPZ of 6.24 percent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CPZ 07-08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1347.
    \13\ Id., 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1351. The Government subsequently 
moved for clarification regarding whether the Court in CPZ 07-08 II 
required the Department to find that TRBs were substantially 
transformed in Thailand, or whether the Court permitted the 
Department to make new findings under each of the substantial 
transformation criteria. On February 13, 2014, the Court responded 
to the Government's motion, though the Court did not modify its 
previous ruling or provide further clarification. See Peer Bearing 
Company--Changshan v. United States, Court No. 10-00013, Slip Op. 
14-15 (CIT 2014).
    \14\ See CPZ 07-08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1356.
    \15\ See Second Remand Redetermination at 33.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2015, the CIT issued its decision in CPZ 07-08 III, 
in which it sustained the Department's Second Remand Redetermination. 
The Court concluded that though the Department made certain errors in 
construing the Court's opinion, the Department reached an ultimate 
determination that is supported by substantial evidence on the record 
and that accords with a reasonable, rather than expansive, 
interpretation of the scope of the antidumping duty order.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CPZ 07-08 III, at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's December 21, 2015, 
judgment in this case constitutes a final court decision that is not in 
harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published 
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this 
case, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to CPZ 
in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for the June 
1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, period of review is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Final
                          Exporter                             percent
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer Bearing Company--Changshan............................        6.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the 
subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, 
if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the 
event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the 
CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject 
merchandise exported by the above listed exporters at the rate listed 
above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    In September 2008, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan was acquired by 
AB SKF, and the Department determined via a successor-in-interest 
analysis that the post-acquisition entity was not its successor in 
interest to the pre-acquisition exporter. As a consequence, Peer 
Bearing Company--Changshan effectively no longer exists, and its cash 
deposit rate does not need to be updated as a result of these amended 
final results.

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-01573 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4253 Dated: January 19, 2016. the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Department relied.’’ 6 The Court Paul Piquado, Consistent with the decision of the instructed the Department ‘‘to ensure Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and United States Court of Appeals for the that its redetermination. . . is based on Compliance. Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co. findings supported by substantial Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. evidence on the record of this case.’’ 7 the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by On April 10, 2012, pursuant to the Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. Court’s orders in CPZ 07–08 I, the I. Summary United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. II. Background Department: (1) Reconsidered the Indian 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the III. History of the Orders data used to value bearing-quality steel Department is notifying the public that IV. Scope of the Orders bar inputs in the Final Results and V. Discussion of the Issues the final judgment in this case is not in instead valued CPZ’s steel bar inputs 1. Likelihood of Continuation or harmony with the Department’s Final using Thai import data, and (2) revised Recurrence of Dumping Results and is amending the Final the surrogate value used to value CPZ’s 2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely to Results with respect to the dumping Prevail margin determined for the sole steel wire rod inputs using data VI. Preliminary Results of Sunset Reviews mandatory respondent in the underlying corresponding to steel rod that is ‘‘of VII. Recommendation review, Peer Bearing Company— circular cross-section.’’ 8 With respect to [FR Doc. 2016–01498 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] Changshan (‘‘CPZ’’). the country of origin issue, the BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Department reconsidered its DATES: Effective Date: December 31, determination, applying its established 2015. criteria for determining whether DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex merchandise is substantially Rosen, Office III, Enforcement and transformed in another country. The International Trade Administration Compliance, International Trade Department expanded upon and further [A–570–601] Administration, U.S. Department of supported the existing findings as to the Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution substantial transformation test Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; employed in the Final Results.9 The Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, telephone: (202) 482–7814. Department reconsidered one finding From the People’s Republic of China: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On with respect to the significance of the Notice of Court Decision Not in November 21, 2011, the CIT issued its quantitative value added by Thai Harmony With Final Results of initial opinion on the underlying processing (i.e., one of six aspects of the Antidumping Duty Administrative proceeding and remanded the Final underlying analysis in the First Remand Review and Notice of Amended Final Results, ordering that the Department: Redetermination), finding that this Results of Antidumping Duty (1) Redetermine the surrogate value prong of the analysis could support a Administrative Review; 2007–2008 used to value bearing-quality steel bar determination that the Thai processing AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, inputs; (2) redetermine the surrogate substantially transformed the International Trade Administration, value used to value bearing-quality steel merchandise in question.10 However, Department of Commerce. wire rod inputs; and (3) reconsider, and because further analysis of the SUMMARY: On December 21, 2015, the modify as appropriate, its determination remaining substantial transformation United States Court of International of the country of origin of merchandise criteria continued to support the initial Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued its final finished and assembled into finished finding from the Final Results, the judgment 1 sustaining the Department of TRBs by a CPZ affiliate in Thailand Department ultimately determined that Commerce’s (the ‘‘Department’’) final from finished and unfinished TRB the totality of the circumstances results of redetermination 2 issued component parts manufactured in the indicated that the processing that took pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in PRC by CPZ.4 Specifically, with respect place in Thailand during the period of Peer Bearing Company—Changshan v. to the latter issue of country of origin, review (‘‘POR’’) did not constitute United States, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1343 the Court held that the Department’s substantial transformation so as to (CIT 2013) (‘‘CPZ 07–08 II’’), with findings that the ‘‘third-country confer a new country of origin of the respect to the Department’s final processor’s costs as compared to each merchandise in question for results 3 of the 2007–2008 product’s COM {(Cost of Manufacture)} antidumping purposes.11 administrative review of the are not significant,’’ is ‘‘not supported by substantial evidence on the record, On June 6, 2013, the CIT issued CPZ antidumping duty order on certain 07–08 II, in which it sustained the tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, which contains evidence that the processing costs in Thailand accounted Department’s redetermination of the finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from surrogate values for CPZ’s steel bar and for 42 percent of the total cost of 1 See Peer Bearing Company (Changshan) v. manufacturing.’’ 5 The Court held that steel wire rod inputs,12 but again United States, Court No. 10–00013, Slip Op. 15–142 the Department ‘‘may not disregard remanded the Department’s country of (CIT December 21, 2015) (‘‘CPZ 07–08 III’’), and record evidence that detracts origin determination. Specifically, citing accompanying judgment order. 2 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant significantly from, and appears to refute, 6 Id. to Court Remand, Peer Bearing Company— one of the findings on which the 7 Id. Changshan. v. United States, Court No. 10–00013, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant Slip Op. 13–72 (CIT 2013), dated April 30, 2014 4 See Peer Bearing Company—Changshan v. (‘‘Second Remand Redetermination’’). United States, 804 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2011) to Court Remand, Peer Bearing Company— 3 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, (‘‘CPZ 07–08 I’’). While the third county in which Changshan v. United States, Court No. 10–00013, the further processing took place was treated as Slip Op. 11–143 (CIT 2011), dated April 10, 2012 Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s business proprietary information in the underlying (‘‘First Remand Redetermination’’), at 4–6 and 28. Republic of China: Final Results of the 2007–2008 9 See First Remand Redetermination, at 8–17. Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty administrative review, along with the percentage 10 Id. Order, 75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010) (‘‘Final Results’’) cost of manufacture (discussed below), CPZ made and accompanying Issues and Decision this information public during the litigation. 11 Id. Memorandum (‘‘IDM’’). 5 See CPZ 07–08 I, 804 F. Supp. 2d at 1342. 12 See CPZ 07–08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1347. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1

4254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices ‘‘flaws in the Department’s analysis’’ 13 that is not in harmony with the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE with respect to each of the six criteria Department’s Final Results. This notice comprising the Department’s substantial is published in fulfillment of the International Trade Administration transformation test, the Court instructed publication requirements of Timken. [Application No. 97–13A03] the Department to ‘‘reach a new country of origin determination because the Amended Final Results Export Trade Certificate of Review record lacked substantial evidence to Because there is now a final court support the Department’s determination ACTION:Notice of Application for an decision with respect to this case, the Amended Export Trade Certificate of that the TRBs which achieved final processing in Thailand were products of Department is amending the Final Review by Association for the China for purposes of the antidumping Results with respect to CPZ in this case. Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. duty order.’’ 14 Consistent with the CIT’s The revised weighted-average dumping (‘‘AARQ’’), Application No. 97–13A03. remand order, the Department under margin for the June 1, 2007, through protest redetermined the country of May 31, 2008, period of review is as SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce, origin for certain merchandise under follows: through the International Trade review and revised the dumping margin Administration, Office of Trade and calculations to exclude U.S. sales of Final Economic Analysis (OTEA), has TRBs further processed in Thailand.15 Exporter percent received an application for an amended margin Export Trade Certificate of Review In particular, the Department revised its findings with respect to five of the six (‘‘Certificate’’) from AARQ. This notice Peer Bearing Company— criteria in its substantial transformation Changshan .............................. 6.24 summarizes the proposed amendment test, consistent with the Court’s order. and seeks public comments on whether Along with the surrogate value changes the amended Certificate should be The Department will continue the issued. sustained in CPZ 07–08 II, the suspension of liquidation of the subject Department calculated a weighted- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: average dumping margin for CPZ of 6.24 merchandise pending the expiration of Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of percent.16 the period of appeal or, if appealed, Trade and Economic Analysis, On December 21, 2015, the CIT issued pending a final and conclusive court International Trade Administration, by its decision in CPZ 07–08 III, in which decision. In the event the Court’s ruling telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not it sustained the Department’s Second is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld a toll-free number) or email at etca@ Remand Redetermination. The Court by the CAFC, the Department will trade.gov. concluded that though the Department instruct U.S. Customs and Border made certain errors in construing the Protection to assess antidumping duties SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of Court’s opinion, the Department on unliquidated entries of subject the Export Trading Company Act of reached an ultimate determination that 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) merchandise exported by the above is supported by substantial evidence on authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to listed exporters at the rate listed above. the record and that accords with a issue Export Trade Certificates of reasonable, rather than expansive, Cash Deposit Requirements Review. An Export Trade Certificate of interpretation of the scope of the Review protects the holder and the In September 2008, Peer Bearing members identified in the Certificate antidumping duty order.17 Company—Changshan was acquired by from State and Federal government Timken Notice AB SKF, and the Department antitrust actions and from private treble In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at determined via a successor-in-interest damage antitrust actions for the export 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, analysis that the post-acquisition entity conduct specified in the Certificate and the CAFC held that, pursuant to section was not its successor in interest to the carried out in compliance with its terms 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as pre-acquisition exporter. As a and conditions. The regulations amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department consequence, Peer Bearing Company— implementing Title III are found at 15 must publish a notice of a court Changshan effectively no longer exists, CFR part 325 (2016). Section 302(b)(1) decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with and its cash deposit rate does not need of the Export Trading Company Act of a Department determination and must to be updated as a result of these 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the suspend liquidation of entries pending amended final results. Secretary to publish a notice in the a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s Federal Register identifying the December 21, 2015, judgment in this Notification to Interested Parties applicant and summarizing its case constitutes a final court decision application. Under 15 CFR 325.6 (a), This notice is issued and published in interested parties may, within twenty 13 Id., 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1351. The Government accordance with sections 516A(e), days after the date of this notice, submit subsequently moved for clarification regarding 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. written comments to the Secretary whether the Court in CPZ 07–08 II required the Department to find that TRBs were substantially Dated: January 13, 2016. through OTEA on the application. transformed in Thailand, or whether the Court Paul Piquado, Request For Public Comments: permitted the Department to make new findings Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Interested parties may submit written under each of the substantial transformation comments relevant to the determination criteria. On February 13, 2014, the Court responded Compliance. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES to the Government’s motion, though the Court did [FR Doc. 2016–01573 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] whether an amended Certificate should not modify its previous ruling or provide further be issued. If the comments include any BILLING CODE P clarification. See Peer Bearing Company— privileged or confidential business Changshan v. United States, Court No. 10–00013, Slip Op. 14–15 (CIT 2014). information, it must be clearly marked 14 See CPZ 07–08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1356. and a nonconfidential version of the 15 See Second Remand Redetermination at 33. comments (identified as such) should be 16 Id. included. Any comments not marked as 17 See CPZ 07–08 III, at 30. privileged or confidential business VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1


Document Created: 2018-02-02 12:38:13
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 12:38:13
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
DatesEffective Date: December 31, 2015.
ContactAlex Rosen, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7814.
FR Citation81 FR 4253 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR