81 FR 4256 - 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; 2008-2009
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 16 (January 26, 2016)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 16 (January 26, 2016)
| Page Range | 4256-4258 | |
| FR Document | 2016-01509 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 4256-4258] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-01509] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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; 2008-2009 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 Co.-Changshan v. United States, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1389 (CIT 2014) (``CPZ 08-09 II''), with respect to the Department's final results \3\ of the twenty-second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (``TRBs''), from 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 margins determined for Peer Bearing Company- Changshan and Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 15-143 (CIT 2015) (``CPZ 08-09 III''), and accompanying judgment order. \2\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 14-62 (CIT 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 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086 (January 19, 2011) (``Final Results'') and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``IDM''). \4\ Prior to September 11, 2008, Peer Bearing Company-Changshan was majority-owned by the Spungen family (``PBCD/CPZ''). On September 11, 2008, two and a half months into the period of review (``POR''), PBCD/CPZ, the sole respondent in the prior 2007-2008 POR, and its Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (``PBCD/Peer'') (collectively, ``PBCD''), were each purchased by certain companies owned by SKF. In the underlying review, we found that the post-acquisition respondent was not the successor-in- interest to the pre-acquisition respondent and, thus, were each legally distinct entities for the purposes of this antidumping duty (``AD'') review. The post-acquisition respondent is referred to as the SKF-owned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (``SKF/CPZ'') and its Illinois-based affiliate is referred to as Peer Bearing Company (``SKF/Peer'') (collectively ``SKF''). For ease of reference, the two respondents are referred to by their collective names ``PBCD'' and ``SKF'' throughout this document. For the purpose of generally referencing the physical facilities in question during the POR in its entirety, without consideration of ownership, the Changshan- based TRB production facility is referred to as ``CPZ'' and the Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate is referred to as ``Peer.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith A. Haynes, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 21, 2012, the Court issued its initial opinion and remanded the Final Results, ordering that the Department: (1) redetermine the surrogate value (``SV'') applied to PBCD/CPZ's input of bearing-quality steel bar; (2) reconsider its determination to calculate the normal value (``NV'') of subject merchandise that was imported by PBCD/Peer prior to its acquisition by SKF, but sold by SKF/Peer subsequent to the acquisition, using SKF/ CPZ's factors of production (``FOPs''); and (3) reconsider, and modify as appropriate, its determination of the country of [[Page 4257]] origin of TRBs that were finished, and assembled in Thailand from TRB component parts both finished (i.e., cups and cones) and unfinished (i.e., rollers and cages) initially produced in and subsequently exported from the PRC.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (CIT 2012) (``CPZ 08-09 I''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the First Remand Redetermination,\6\ pursuant to CPZ 08-09 I, the Department: (1) determined that Thai import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.30.90 are the best available information on the record with which to value PBCD/CPZ's bearing- quality steel bar inputs, and adjusted the margin program accordingly; and (2) re-calculated the weighted-average dumping margin for SKF so that PBCD/CPZ's FOPs (not SKF/CPZ's FOPs) were used to determine the NV of SKF/Peer's post-acquisition sales of pre-acquisition inventory.\7\ With respect to the Court's directive to reconsider the country of origin finding from the Final Results and modify its determination, as necessary, the Department reconsidered its determination in its entirety, 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 physical/chemical properties/essential character,\8\ nature/ sophistication of processing,\9\ level of investment,\10\ and cost of production (``COP'')/value-added,\11\ finding that these factors continued to support an overall finding that the third-country processing was not substantial so as to confer Thai origin. Consistent with the Court's remand order, the Department also discussed and further explained the relevance of the class-kind/scope \12\ and ultimate use \13\ criteria used in the underlying analysis. The Department did not ``reach a determination as to whether circumvention has occurred or may occur and, thus, {found{time} that this element {did{time} not preclude or support a finding of substantial transformation.'' \14\ Based on the totality of circumstances, the Department determined in the First Remand Redetermination that: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Consol. Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 12-125 (CIT 2012), dated May 13, 2013 (``First Remand Redetermination''). \7\ See First Remand Redetermination at 36-40. \8\ Id., at 16-20. \9\ Id., at 13-15. \10\ Id., at 26-32. \11\ Id., at 20-26. \12\ Id., at 10-13. \13\ Id., at 34-35. \14\ Id., at 34. {T{time} he Thai processing does not substantially transform the TRB parts and that the TRBs remain of PRC-origin. The nature and sophistication of processing indicate that the finishing processes in Thailand serve only to further refine the cup and cone's finished measurements, polish the raceway, and assemble the components together. The physical/chemical properties and essential component are imparted in the PRC, with the properties added in Thailand marginal in comparison. The COP/value added in Thailand is insignificant when compared to the COP of the finished TRB. The level of investment in Thailand was not as significant as the investment in the PRC. The ultimate use of TRB parts and final, finished TRBs is the same. These factors weigh in favor of a finding that the TRBs which are finished in Thailand are of PRC-origin. The class or kind/scope criterion is not determinative to our finding, although the fact that the upstream product is within the same class or kind and scope as the downstream product is relevant to our country-of-origin determination.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Id., at 35-36. On June 10, 2014, the CIT issued CPZ 08-09 II, in which it sustained the Department's re-determined SV for bearing-quality steel bar. However, the Court remanded, for a second time, the Department's country of origin determination.\16\ Specifically, the Court found that ``the method and criteria applied in the Remand Redetermination caused Commerce to ignore critical record evidence'' and that ``the record lacked substantial evidence to support the ultimate finding Commerce reached in the {First{time} Remand Redetermination.''\17\ The Court further noted that the product at issue (i.e., merchandise completed or assembled in a third country, Thailand) was ``of a type Congress contemplated would be the subject of an anti-circumvention inquiry, without actually conducting such an inquiry.''\18\ In so doing, the Court found that the Department ``exceeded its authority to interpret, without expanding, the scope language'' of the TRBs order.\19\ Finally, though the Court held that the Department provided adequate reasoning for using PBCD/CPZ's FOP data to calculate the NV for pre-acquisition PBCD/CPZ-produced merchandise subsequently sold by SKF/Peer during the post-acquisition portion of the POR in the First Remand Redetermination, the Court remanded for further explanation the Department's use of PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from the twenty-second POR, rather than PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from the prior POR.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See CPZ 08-09 II, 986 F. Supp. 2d at 1414. \17\ Id., at 1406. \18\ Id., at 1402-03. \19\ Id., at 1406. \20\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In compliance with the Court's instructions, the Department under protest re-determined 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, finding those TRBs to be Thai-origin.\21\ In particular, the Department explained that it ``did not conduct a circumvention analysis pursuant to section 781(b) of the {Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''){time} '' and thus could not ``find that the TRBs in question are of Chinse origin.''\22\ With respect to the remaining issue on remand, the Department explained that it is consistent with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, to use production data from the POR in which the merchandise is sold, because this best reflects the producer's production experience from the period in which the Department is determining the margin of dumping; therefore, the Department did not find that PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from the prior POR is a more accurate reflection of PBCD's production of merchandise sold by SKF during the POR.\23\ Therefore, to determine the margin for SKF/Peer's sales of merchandise produced by PBCD/CPZ, the Department continued to use PBCD/CPZ's POR-contemporaneous FOPs to calculate NV. Along with the SV changes sustained in CPZ 08-09 II, the Department calculated weighted-average dumping margins for PBCD of 21.65 percent and SKF of 19.45 percent.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See Second Remand Redetermination at 8. \22\ Id. \23\ Id, at 12-13. \24\ Id., at 17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 21, 2015, the CIT issued its decision in CPZ 08-09 III, in which it sustained the Department's Second Remand Redetermination. Specifically, the Court sustained the Department's decision regarding selection of the FOP data used to value post-acquisition sales of pre- acquisition inventory.\25\ Furthermore, with respect to the country of origin finding, the Court concluded that the Department reached an ultimate determination that is supported by substantial evidence on the record that accords with a reasonable, rather than expansive, interpretation of the scope of the antidumping duty order. The Court found that the Department's analysis presented in the Second Remand Redetermination, although suffering from some flaws in the interpretation of the Court's holding in CPZ 08-09 II, was [[Page 4258]] sufficient to allow the Court to sustain the Department's ultimate determination.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See CPZ 08-09 III, at 7. \26\ Id., at 15-19. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 As a result, of the Court's final decision with respect to this case, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to PBCD/SKF and SKF/CPZ in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for the June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, period of review are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Final percent Exporter margin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peer Bearing Company--Changshan (Spungen-owned, PBCD)... 21.65 Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (SKF-owned, SKF)... 19.45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Since the Final Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for SKF/CPZ.\27\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for SKF does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the Final Results, the Department has not established a new cash deposit rate for PBCD/CPZ. However, as explained above, in September 2008, PBCD/CPZ was acquired by AB SKF, and the Department determined via a successor-in-interest analysis that SKF/CPZ was not its successor in interest. As a consequence, PBCD/CPZ 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. 2016-01509 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![4256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices
DATES: Effective Date: January 26, 2016. 18, 2016), in alignment with the the antidumping duty order on tapered
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: deadlines of the other investigations of roller bearings and parts thereof,
Andrew Medley at (202) 482–4987, corrosion-resistant steel from the finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty People’s Republic of China, India, Italy, People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
Operations, Enforcement and and Korea.4 Accordingly, we will issue Consistent with the decision of the
Compliance, International Trade our final determination no later than United States Court of Appeals for the
Administration, U.S. Department of 135 days after the date of publication of Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution the Preliminary Determination. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. This notice is issued and published 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
30, 2015, the Department published a Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g). United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
notice of initiation of the LTFV Dated: January 13, 2016.
2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
investigations of certain corrosion- Department is notifying the public that
Paul Piquado,
resistant steel from Italy, India, the the final judgment in this case is not in
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and harmony with the Department’s Final
People’s Republic of China, Korea, and Compliance.
Taiwan.1 The period of investigation is Results and is amending the Final
[FR Doc. 2016–01566 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am]
April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. Results with respect to the dumping
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P margins determined for Peer Bearing
On January 4, 2016, the Department
published its negative Preliminary Company– Changshan and Changshan
Determination in the LTFV investigation Peer Bearing Co., Ltd.4
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
of corrosion-resistant steel from DATES: Effective Date: December 31,
Taiwan.2 On December 28, 2015, AK International Trade Administration 2015.
Steel Corporation, with the concurrence FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
of ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor [A–570–601]
Keith A. Haynes, Office III, Enforcement
Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., and Compliance, International Trade
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
California Steel Industries, and United Administration, U.S. Department of
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
States Steel Corporation (collectively Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
From the People’s Republic of China:
‘‘Petitioners’’), requested that the Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
Notice of Court Decision Not in
Department postpone its final telephone: (202) 482–5139.
Harmony With Final Results of
determination to align with the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
Antidumping Duty Administrative
deadlines of the other investigations of December 21, 2012, the Court issued its
Review and Notice of Amended Final
corrosion-resistant steel from the initial opinion and remanded the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
People’s Republic of China, India, Italy, Results, ordering that the Department:
Administrative; 2008–2009
and Korea.3 (1) redetermine the surrogate value
Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, (‘‘SV’’) applied to PBCD/CPZ’s input of
International Trade Administration, bearing-quality steel bar; (2) reconsider
Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act Department of Commerce.
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 its determination to calculate the
SUMMARY: On December 21, 2015, the normal value (‘‘NV’’) of subject
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), provide that a final United States Court of International
determination may be postponed until merchandise that was imported by
Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued its final PBCD/Peer prior to its acquisition by
not later than 135 days after the date of judgment 1 sustaining the Department of
the publication of the preliminary SKF, but sold by SKF/Peer subsequent
Commerce’s (the ‘‘Department’’) final to the acquisition, using SKF/CPZ’s
determination if, in the event of a results of redetermination 2 issued
negative preliminary determination, a factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’); and (3)
pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in reconsider, and modify as appropriate,
request for such postponement is made Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United
by the petitioner. In accordance with its determination of the country of
States, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1389 (CIT 2014)
section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 (‘‘CPZ 08–09 II’’), with respect to the 4 Prior to September 11, 2008, Peer Bearing
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), because (1) our Department’s final results 3 of the Company-Changshan was majority-owned by the
preliminary determination was negative; twenty-second administrative review of Spungen family (‘‘PBCD/CPZ’’). On September 11,
(2) the request was made by Petitioners; 2008, two and a half months into the period of
and (3) no compelling reasons for denial 4 See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel
review (‘‘POR’’), PBCD/CPZ, the sole respondent in
the prior 2007–2008 POR, and its Illinois-based U.S.
exist, we are postponing the final Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (‘‘PBCD/
determination until no later than 135 Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Peer’’) (collectively, ‘‘PBCD’’), were each purchased
Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 69
days after the publication of the (January 4, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary
by certain companies owned by SKF. In the
Preliminary Determination (i.e., to May underlying review, we found that the post-
Decision Memorandum. acquisition respondent was not the successor-in-
1 See, Peer Bearing Company—Changshan v.
interest to the pre-acquisition respondent and, thus,
1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products United States, Consol. Court No. 11–00022, Slip were each legally distinct entities for the purposes
From Italy, India, the People’s Republic of China, Op. 15–143 (CIT 2015) (‘‘CPZ 08–09 III’’), and of this antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) review. The post-
the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of accompanying judgment order. acquisition respondent is referred to as the SKF-
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 37228 2 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
owned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd.
(June 30, 2015). to Court Remand, Peer Bearing Company— (‘‘SKF/CPZ’’) and its Illinois-based affiliate is
2 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products Changshan v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11– referred to as Peer Bearing Company (‘‘SKF/Peer’’)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination 00022, Slip Op. 14–62 (CIT 2014) (‘‘Second Remand (collectively ‘‘SKF’’). For ease of reference, the two
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 72 (January Redetermination’’). respondents are referred to by their collective
4, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary Decision 3 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, names ‘‘PBCD’’ and ‘‘SKF’’ throughout this
Memorandum (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s document. For the purpose of generally referencing
3 See the letter from AK Steel Corporation Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008–2009 the physical facilities in question during the POR
entitled, ‘‘Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR in its entirety, without consideration of ownership,
Products From Taiwan: Request For Postponement 3086 (January 19, 2011) (‘‘Final Results’’) and the Changshan-based TRB production facility is
Of The Final Determination,’’ dated December 28, accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum referred to as ‘‘CPZ’’ and the Illinois-based U.S.
2015. (‘‘IDM’’). sales affiliate is referred to as ‘‘Peer.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_4272/page/1.svg)
![4258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices
sufficient to allow the Court to sustain Since the Final Results, the DATES: Electronic applications must be
the Department’s ultimate Department has not established a new received no later than 11:59 p.m.
determination.26 cash deposit rate for PBCD/CPZ. Eastern Time on April 25, 2016. Paper
However, as explained above, in applications will not be accepted.
Timken Notice
September 2008, PBCD/CPZ was Applications received after the deadline
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at acquired by AB SKF, and the will not be reviewed or considered. The
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, Department determined via a successor- approximate start date for awards under
the CAFC held that, pursuant to section in-interest analysis that SKF/CPZ was this notice and the corresponding FFO
516A(e) of the Act, the Department must not its successor in interest. As a is expected to be October 1, 2016.
publish a notice of a court decision that consequence, PBCD/CPZ effectively no When developing your submission
is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department longer exists, and its cash deposit rate timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all
determination and must suspend does not need to be updated as a result applicants are required to have a current
liquidation of entries pending a of these amended final results. registration in the System for Award
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free
Notification to Interested Parties annual registration process in the
December 21, 2015, judgment in this
case constitutes a final court decision This notice is issued and published in electronic System for Award
that is not in harmony with the accordance with sections 516A(e), Management (SAM.gov) may take
Department’s Final Results. This notice 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. between three and five business days, or
is published in fulfillment of the Dated: January 13, 2016. as long as more than two weeks; and (3)
publication requirements of Timken. Paul Piquado, electronic applicants are required to
have a current registration in
Amended Final Results Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance. Grants.gov; and (4) applicants will
As a result, of the Court’s final receive a series of email messages from
[FR Doc. 2016–01509 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am]
decision with respect to this case, the Grants.gov over a period of up to two
BILLING CODE P
Department is amending the Final business days before learning whether a
Results with respect to PBCD/SKF and Federal agency’s electronic system has
SKF/CPZ in this case. The revised DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE received its application. Please note that
weighted-average dumping margins for a federal assistance award cannot be
the June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, National Institute of Standards and issued if the designated recipient’s
period of review are as follows: Technology registration in the System for Award
Management (SAM.gov) is not current at
Final percent [Docket Number: 150302201–6024–02] the time of the award.
Exporter margin ADDRESSES: Applications must be
Award Competitions for Hollings submitted electronically through
Peer Bearing Company— Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Changshan (Spungen- www.grants.gov. NIST will not accept
(MEP) Centers in the States of applications submitted by mail,
owned, PBCD) .................. 21.65 Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Changshan Peer Bearing facsimile, or by email.
Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Company, Ltd. (SKF- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
owned, SKF) ..................... 19.45 Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
Administrative, budget, cost-sharing,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah and
and eligibility questions and other
Vermont
The Department will continue the programmatic questions should be
suspension of liquidation of the subject AGENCY: National Institute of Standards directed to Diane Henderson at Tel:
merchandise pending the expiration of and Technology (NIST), United States (301) 975–5105; Email: mepffo@nist.gov;
the period of appeal or, if appealed, Department of Commerce (DoC). Fax: (301) 963–6556. Grants Rules and
pending a final and conclusive court ACTION: Notice of funding availability. Regulation questions should be
decision. In the event the Court’s ruling addressed to: Michael Teske, Grants
is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld SUMMARY: NIST invites applications Management Division, National Institute
by the CAFC, the Department will from eligible organizations in of Standards and Technology, 100
instruct U.S. Customs and Border connection with NIST’s funding up to Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg,
Protection to assess antidumping duties thirteen (13) separate MEP cooperative MD 20899–1650; Tel: (301) 975–6358;
on unliquidated entries of subject agreements for the operation of an MEP Email: michael.teske@nist.gov; Fax:
merchandise exported by the above Center in the designated States’ service (301) 975–6368. For technical assistance
listed exporters at the rate listed above. areas and in the funding amounts with Grants.gov submissions contact
identified in the corresponding Federal Christopher Hunton at Tel: (301) 975–
Cash Deposit Requirements
Funding Opportunity (FFO). NIST 5718; Email: grants.gov@nist.gov; Fax:
Since the Final Results, the anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative (301) 975–8884. Questions submitted to
Department has established a new cash agreement for each of the identified NIST/MEP may be posted as part of an
deposit rate for SKF/CPZ.27 Therefore, States. The objective of the MEP Center FAQ document, which will be
the cash deposit rate for SKF does not Program is to provide manufacturing periodically updated on the MEP Web
need to be updated as a result of these extension services to primarily small site at http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
amended final results. and medium-sized manufacturers competitions-03.cfm.
within the States designated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
26 Id.,
at 15–19. corresponding FFO. The selected Electronic access: Applicants are
27 SeeTapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, organization will become part of the strongly encouraged to read the
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s MEP national system of extension corresponding FFO announcement
Republic of China: Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
service providers, currently located available at www.grants.gov for
Final Results of the New Shipper Review; 2012– throughout the United States and Puerto complete information about this
2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015). Rico. program, including all program
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_4272/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 12:38:28
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 12:38:28
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Dates | Effective Date: December 31, 2015. | |
| Contact | Keith A. Haynes, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 4256 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR