Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4253 

1See 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. 

2See 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’’). 

3See 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’’). 

4See 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. 

5See CPZ 07–08 I, 804 F. Supp. 2d at 1342. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8See 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. 

9See First Remand Redetermination, at 8–17. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12See CPZ 07–08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1347. 

Dated: January 19, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. History of the Orders 

IV. Scope of the Orders 

V. Discussion of the Issues 

1. Likelihood of Continuation or 

Recurrence of Dumping 

2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely to 

Prevail 

VI. Preliminary Results of Sunset Reviews 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2016–01498 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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’’). 

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)} 

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

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

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). 

14See CPZ 07–08 II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 1356. 

15See Second Remand Redetermination at 33. 

16 Id. 

17See CPZ 07–08 III, at 30. 

‘‘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 weightedaverage dumping margin for CPZ of 6.24 

percent.16

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

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: 

Exporter 

Final 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[Application No. 97–13A03] 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Application for an 

Amended Export Trade Certificate of 

Review by Association for the 

Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc. 

(‘‘AARQ’’), Application No. 97–13A03. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce, 

through the International Trade 

Administration, Office of Trade and 

Economic Analysis (OTEA), has 

received an application for an amended 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

(‘‘Certificate’’) from AARQ. This notice 

summarizes the proposed amendment 

and seeks public comments on whether 

the amended Certificate should be 

issued. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of 

Trade and Economic Analysis, 

International Trade Administration, by 

telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not 

a toll-free number) or email at etca@

trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 

issue Export Trade Certificates of 

Review. An Export Trade Certificate of 

Review protects the holder and the 

members identified in the Certificate 

from State and Federal government 

antitrust actions and from private treble 

damage antitrust actions for the export 

conduct specified in the Certificate and 

carried out in compliance with its terms 

and conditions. The regulations 

implementing Title III are found at 15 

CFR part 325 (2016). Section 302(b)(1) 

of the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the 

Secretary to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register identifying the 

applicant and summarizing its 

application. Under 15 CFR 325.6 (a), 

interested parties may, within twenty 

days after the date of this notice, submit 

written comments to the Secretary 

through OTEA on the application. 

Request For Public Comments: 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments relevant to the determination 

whether an amended Certificate should 

be issued. If the comments include any 

privileged or confidential business 

information, it must be clearly marked 

and a nonconfidential version of the 

comments (identified as such) should be 

included. Any comments not marked as 

privileged or confidential business 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES