Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 61291 

5See 19 CFR 351.216(d); see also Notice and 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 75 FR 67685 (Nov. 3, 

2010). 

6See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 

Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 75 FR 61702, 61703 (Oct. 6, 2010) 

(Shrimp from Thailand) (unchanged in Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (Dec. 1, 2010); 

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 14, 1994). 

7See Shrimp from Thailand, 75 FR at 61703. 

8 Id.; see also Notice of Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 

58 (Jan. 2, 2002); and Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France: Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, 75 FR 34688 (June 10, 2010). 

9See CCR Request, at 7 and 10. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 9. 12 Id. 13See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Initiation 

and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Canned Pineapple 

Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 30878 (June 1, 2004). 

14See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679 (Mar. 

23, 2006). 

15See 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing 

requirements. 

demonstrates changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant such a review.5

In accordance with the abovereferenced regulation, the Department is 

initiating a CCR to determine whether 

PPL is the successor-in-interest to PMP. 

In determining whether one company is 

the successor-in-interest to another, the 

Department examines a number of 

factors including, but not limited to, 

changes in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, and 

customer base.6 While no single factor 

or combination of these factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor-in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor.7 Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the prior company, the Department will 

assign the new company the cash 

deposit rate of its predecessor.8

In its August 22, 2014, submission, 

PPL provided information to 

demonstrate that it is the successor-ininterest to PMP. PPL states that the 

company’s management, production 

facilities and customer/supplier 

relationships have not changed as a 

result of its conversion to a private 

limited company. To support its claims, 

PPL submitted the following 

documents: (1) PMP’s partnership deed 

from 1986; (2) PPL’s new partnership 

deed from 2013; (3) the particulars of 

PPL’s capital shares and percent of 

shareholdings for each partner; (4) the 

certificate of incorporation; (5) the 

Memorandum of Association and 

Articles of Association of PPL showing 

details of the partnership; (6) PMP’s and 

PPL’s certificates issued by the Export 

Inspection Council of India showing the 

same address for the production facility; 

(7) a list of the suppliers of PMP before, 

and PPL after, the conversion to a 

private limited company; (8) a list of the 

customers of PMP before, and PPL after, 

the conversion; and, (9) a list of the 

employees of PMP before, and PPL after, 

the conversion. 

Based on the evidence on the record, 

we preliminarily find that PPL is the 

successor-in-interest to PMP. We find 

that, while PPL expanded to seven 

partners from two after its conversion to 

a private limited company, the original 

two partners retained a majority stake in 

PPL and no managers or other 

employees changed as a result of the 

conversion.9 As a result, we find that 

PPL operates as the same business entity 

as PMP. Moreover, PPL: (1) Retained the 

same production facility as PMP; 10 (2) 

continued to purchase raw shrimp from 

a majority of the same suppliers as 

PMP; 11 and (3) continued to supply the 

same U.S. customers.12 Therefore, we 

also find that the production facility, 

supplier relationships, and customers 

have not changed as a result of PMP’s 

conversion to PPL. Thus, we 

preliminarily find that PPL should 

receive the same AD deposit rate (i.e., 

2.49 percent) with respect to the subject 

merchandise as PMP, its predecessor 

company. 

When it concludes that expedited 

action is warranted, the Department 

may publish the notice of initiation and 

preliminary results for a CCR 

concurrently.13 We have determined 

that expedition of this CCR is warranted 

because we have the information 

necessary to make a preliminary finding 

already on the record.14 Should our 

final results remain the same as these 

preliminary results, effective the date of 

publication of the final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to suspend entries of subject 

merchandise produced or exported by 

PPL at PMP’s cash deposit rate (i.e., 2.49 

percent), effective on the publication 

date of our final results. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 14 days of publication of this 

notice.15 Parties will be notified of the 

time and date of any hearing, if 

requested. Interested parties may submit 

case briefs and/or written comments not 

later than 14 days after the publication 

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, and 

rebuttals to written comments, which 

must be limited to issues raised in such 

briefs or comments, may be filed not 

later than 21 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this changed circumstance review are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Interested parties who wish to comment 

on the preliminary results must file 

briefs electronically using Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

IA ACCESS is available to registered 

users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the date the document is due. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), 

we intend to issue the final results of 

this changed circumstance review no 

later than 270 days after the date on 

which this review was initiated, or 

within 45 days of publication of these 

preliminary results if all parties agree to 

our preliminary finding. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

finding and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 

351.221(c)(3)(ii). 

Dated: October 6, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24277 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–912] 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2012–2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 

1 In Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 78 FR 67104, 67108 (November 

8, 2013) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), the review was 

initiated on Double Coin Group Rugao Tyre Co., 

Ltd.—renamed Double Coin Group Jiangsu Tyre 

Co., Ltd.—(‘‘DC Rugao/Jiangsu’’), Double Coin 

Group Shanghai Donghai Tyre Co., Ltd. (‘‘DC 

Donghai’’), and Double Coin Holdings, Ltd. (‘‘DCH’’ 

or ‘‘Double Coin’’). The respondent in this review 

is DCH, which exported all subject merchandise 

produced by both its wholly-owned and affiliate 

factories during the POR. DC Donghai is an 

affiliated producer of subject merchandise that did 

not produce OTR tires for export in the POR. See, 

e.g., Letter from Double Coin entitled, ‘‘Section A 

Response of Double Coin Holdings and China 

Manufacturers Alliance, LLC,’’ dated January 22, 

2014 (‘‘Double Coin SAQR’’). DC Rugao/Jiangsu is 

a majority DCH-owned subsidiary factory which, 

along with the 100 percent DCH-owned production 

factory (i.e., Double Coin Lorry Tyre Branch, a.k.a., 

Shanghai Heavy Tire), produced the subject 

merchandise in question during the POR. Id. The 

International Trade Department of DCH is 

responsible for all export sales of merchandise 

under consideration produced by both DCH’s 

Shanghai Heavy Tire factory and the DC Rugao/

Jiangsu factory. Id. Additionally, the China 

Manufacturers Alliance (‘‘CMA’’) is DCH’s U.S. 

sales affiliate for all POR sales, and has provided 

and certified to relevant and requested sales-related 

information on behalf of the respondent. Id. 

Accordingly, for ease of reference we use ‘‘Double 

Coin’’ to collectively refer to each of the above 

production, export, and sales entities that comprise 

the respondent in this review, but note that DCH 

is the actual exporter-respondent. Furthermore, as 

discussed below, we have collapsed DCH 

(including Shanghai Heavy Tire), DC Rugao/

Jiangsu, and DC Donghai into a single entity for the 

purposes of this review. 

2This review was initiated on Hangzhou Zhongce 

Rubber Co., Ltd.; however, in the final results of a 

changed circumstances review, which was 

completed after the instant review initiated, the 

Department determined that Zhongce was the 

successor-in-interest to Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber 

Co., Ltd. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 79 FR 8463 (February 12, 

2014). 

3For a complete description of the scope of the 

order, see the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, entitled, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated September 30, 2014 (‘‘Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum’’). 

4See Letter from Trelleborg, entitled, ‘‘Trelleborg 

Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. Statement 

of No Shipments during the POR: New Pneumatic 

Off-The-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated November 20, 2013. 

5See CBP Message Number 3352302, dated 

December 18, 2013. 

6See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694, 65694–95 (October 24, 2011) and the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section, below. 

7For further discussion of the Department’s 

affiliation and collapsing decision, see 

Memorandum to the File, entitled, ‘‘2012–2013 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Double 

Coin Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum,’’ 

dated September 30, 2014 (‘‘Double Coin Affiliation 

and Collapsing Memo’’). 

8See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 78 FR 67104, 

61704–05 (November 8, 2013) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain new 

pneumatic off-the-road tires (‘‘OTR 

tires’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2012, through 

August 31, 2013. The review covers the 

following exporters of subject 

merchandise: Mandatory respondents 

Double Coin Holdings Ltd. (‘‘Double 

Coin’’) 1 and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./

Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘GTC’’), and nonexamined respondents Zhongce Rubber 

Group Company Limited (‘‘Zhongce’’),2

Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Zhongwei’’), and Trelleborg Wheel 

System (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Trelleborg’’). We preliminarily find 

that GTC made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value, 

Zhongce and Zhongwei are eligible for 

a separate rate, Double Coin failed to 

demonstrate eligibility for separate rate 

status and thus has been included in the 

PRC-wide entity, and Trelleborg had no 

shipments during the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Quinn or Andrew Medley, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–5848 or (202) 482–4987, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Order 3

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes new pneumatic tires 

designed for off-the-road and offhighway use, subject to certain 

exceptions. The subject merchandise is 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 

4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 

4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 

4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 

4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 

4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 

4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only; the written product description of 

the scope of the order is dispositive. 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

Trelleborg submitted a timely-filed 

certification indicating that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.4

Consistent with its practice, the 

Department asked U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to conduct a 

query on potential shipments made by 

Trelleborg during the POR; CBP did not 

provide any evidence that contradicts 

Trelleborg’s claim of no shipments.5

Based on Trelleborg’s certification and 

our analysis of CBP information, we 

preliminarily determine that Trelleborg 

did not have any reviewable 

transactions during the POR. Consistent 

with a recently announced refinement 

to its assessment practice in non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) cases, the 

Department is not rescinding this 

review, in part, but intends to complete 

the review with respect to Trelleborg.6

Preliminary Determination of 

Affiliation and Collapsing 

Based on the evidence presented in 

Double Coin’s questionnaire responses, 

we preliminarily find that DCH 

(including Shanghai Heavy Tire), DC 

Rugao/Jiangsu, and DC Donghai are 

affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) 

of the Act. In addition, based on the 

evidence presented in the questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

DCH (including its Shanghai Heavy Tire 

factory), DC Rugao/Jiangsu, and DC 

Donghai should be treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of this review 

(collectively, the ‘‘DCH Single Entity’’). 

This finding is based on the 

determination that there is significant 

potential for manipulation of price 

between the parties pursuant to the 

criteria laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f), 

due to the high level of common 

ownership, interlocking boards and 

managers, and intertwined operations.7

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice,8 we informed 

parties of the opportunity to request a 

separate rate. In proceedings involving 

NME countries, the Department begins 

with a rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the NME country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single weightedaverage dumping margin. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

administrative review involving an 

NME country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Companies 

that wanted to be considered for a 

separate rate in this review were 

required to timely file a separate-rate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 61293 

9See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. For 

further analysis, including business proprietary 

information details, with respect to the denial of 

Double Coin’s separate rate, see also the 

Department’s memorandum to the File, entitled, 

‘‘2012–2013 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 

Results Margin Calculation for Double Coin 

Holdings, Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this 

memorandum. 

10See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. For 

further analysis, including business proprietary 

information details, with respect to the approval of 

GTC’s separate rate request, see also the 

Department’s memorandum to the File, entitled, 

‘‘2012–2013 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 

Results Margin Calculation for Guizhou Tyre Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this memorandum. 

11See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

12See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. 

13See 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, 40489 (July 

15, 2008) (‘‘LTFV Investigation’’). 

application or a separate-rate 

certification to demonstrate their 

eligibility for a separate rate. Separaterate applications and separate-rate 

certifications were due to the 

Department within 60 calendar days of 

the publication of the Initiation Notice. 

In this review, all exporters for which 

a review was requested submitted 

separate-rate information to rebut the 

presumption that, like all companies 

within the PRC, they are subject to 

government control with respect to 

export activities. As further discussed in 

the Preliminarily Decision 

Memorandum,9 we determine that the 

mandatory respondent Double Coin has 

not demonstrated that it operates free 

from government control with respect to 

export activities. Thus, we preliminary 

determine that Double Coin is part of 

the PRC-wide entity. 

The remaining mandatory respondent 

(i.e., GTC) and non-examined 

respondents (i.e., Zhongce and 

Zhongwei) submitted sufficient 

information for the Department to 

preliminarily determine that they are 

entitled to a separate rate.10 A full 

discussion of the basis for granting these 

companies a separate rate can be found 

in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum. 

Rate for Non-Examined Companies 

Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate 

Normally, the Department’s practice 

is to look for guidance from section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), to assign to 

separate rate companies that were not 

individually examined a rate equal to 

the average of the rates calculated for 

the individually examined respondents, 

excluding any rates that are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on adverse 

facts available.11 In this case, one 

mandatory respondent, Double Coin, is 

preliminarily found to be part of the 

PRC-wide entity. The other mandatory 

respondent, GTC, is receiving a separate 

rate for these preliminary results 

calculated from its own sales and 

production data. To determine a rate for 

the unselected separate rate companies, 

we find it appropriate to use the margin 

calculated for GTC, which was also 

found to be separate from the PRC-wide 

entity with respect to its export 

activities, and which rate is not zero or 

de minimis nor based entirely on facts 

available. Therefore, we are 

preliminarily assigning GTC’s 

calculated margin as the rate assigned to 

non-examined entities which have 

demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

Double Coin, one of the companies 

that the Department selected as a 

mandatory respondent in this 

administrative review, failed to 

demonstrate absence of de facto 

government control over export 

activities due to the fact that its 

controlling shareholder is whollyowned by the State-owned Assets 

Supervision and Administration 

Commission of the State Council and 

the significant level of control this 

majority shareholder wields over the 

respondent’s Board of Directors.12 As a 

result, we preliminarily determine that 

Double Coin is part of the PRC-wide 

entity. 

Because Double Coin provided the 

Department with its verified sales and 

production data, we are able to calculate 

a margin for an unspecified portion of 

a single PRC-wide entity, but cannot do 

so for the remaining unspecified portion 

of the entity. As the Department must 

calculate a single margin for the PRCwide government controlled entity and 

there is insufficient information on the 

record with respect to the composition 

of the PRC-wide entity, we thus 

preliminarily calculated a simple 

average of the previously assigned PRCwide rate (210.48 percent) 13 and Double 

Coin’s calculated margin (0.69 percent) 

as the rate applicable to the PRC-wide 

entity. Accordingly, the Department 

revised the PRC-wide entity rate to 

105.59 percent for these preliminary 

results. For a further discussion of the 

PRC-wide entity rate, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

Methodology 

The Department conducted this 

review in accordance with section 

751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Export and 

constructed export prices were 

calculated in accordance with sections 

772(a) and (b) of the Act. Because the 

PRC is a NME within the meaning of 

section 771(18) of the Act, the 

Department calculated normal value in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

preliminary results, please see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the topics included in the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is 

attached as an Appendix to this notice. 

The Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). IA ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http://

iaaccess.trade.gov, and it is available to 

all parties in the Central Records Unit, 

room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. 

The signed Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 

14The review was initiated on Guizhou Advance 

Rubber Co., Ltd. (‘‘GAR’’), Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd., 

and Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. See 

Initiation Notice, 78 FR at 67108. These three 

companies were collapsed into a collective entity, 

GTC, in the investigation. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 73 FR 9278, 9283 (February 

20, 2008), unchanged in LTFV Investigation. GAR 

does not export subject merchandise; as such, we 

have only listed GTC in this section of the notice. 

15As noted above, the review was initiated on 

DCH, DC Rugao/Jiangsu), and DC Donghai, and each 

company has been preliminarily collapsed and 

treated as the DCH Single Entity for the purposes 

of this review. 16See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

17See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

18See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

19See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

20See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

21 In these preliminary results, the Department 

applied the assessment rate calculation method 

adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation 

of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 

Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 

(February 14, 2012). 

22See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694, 65694–95 (October 24, 2011). 

Exporter Weighted average 

dumping margin 

Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd./Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd.14 ................................................................................. 16.18 

Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited ......................................................................................................................... 16.18 

Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 16.18 

PRC-Wide Entity (includes the DCH Single Entity 15) ......................................................................................................... 105.59 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department intends to disclose to 

the parties the calculations performed 

for these preliminary results within five 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs no later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of these 

preliminary results of review.16 Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed no later than 

five days after the case briefs are filed.17

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice.18 Hearing requests should 

contain the following information: (1) 

The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the case 

and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230.19

Unless otherwise extended, the 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results of 

this review, the Department will 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review.20 The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

For GTC, whose weighted-average 

dumping margin is not zero or de 

minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we 

will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of dumping 

calculated for the importer’s examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1).21 For duty assessment 

rates calculated on this basis, we will 

direct CBP to assess the resulting ad 

valorem rate against the entered 

customs values for the subject 

merchandise. If the weighted-average 

dumping margin for the exporter is zero 

or de minimis, or if the importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de 

minimis, then the Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate 

entries without regard to antidumping 

duties. 

On October 24, 2011, the Department 

announced a refinement to its 

assessment practice in NME cases. 

Pursuant to this refinement in practice, 

for entries that were not reported in the 

U.S. sales databases submitted by 

companies individually examined 

during this review, the Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the 

Department determines that an exporter 

under review had no shipments of the 

subject merchandise, any suspended 

entries that entered under that 

exporter’s case number (i.e., at that 

exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the 

PRC-wide rate.22

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results 

of this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements for estimated antidumping 

duties, when imposed, will apply to all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) If the 

companies preliminarily determined to 

be eligible for a separate rate receive a 

separate rate in the final results of this 

administrative review, their cash 

deposit rate will be equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

established in the final results of this 

review, as adjusted for domestic 

subsidies (except, if that rate is de 

minimis, then the cash deposit rate will 

be zero); (2) for any previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporter that is not under review in 

this segment of the proceeding but that 

received a separate rate in the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding; 

(3) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be equal to the cash 

deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, 

which will be equal to the rate assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity in the final 

results of this administrative review; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter(s) that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 61295 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing notice 

of these results in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

1. Background 

2. Scope of the Order 

3. Affiliation and Collapsing 

4. Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

5. Non-Market Economy Country 

6. Separate Rates 

7. Margin for the Separate Rate Companies 

8. PRC-Wide Entity 

9. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

10. Surrogate Country 

11. Economic Comparability 

12. Significant Producers of Identical or 

Comparable Merchandise 

13. Data Availability 

14. Date of Sale 

15. Comparisons to Normal Value 

16. Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

17. Value-Added Tax 

18. Normal Value 

19. Factor Valuations 

20. Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the 

Act 

21. Currency Conversion 

[FR Doc. 2014–24275 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD540 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Scallop Advisory Panel on to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 32 

Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI 

02903; telephone: (401) 272–1191; fax: 

(401) 272–1416. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisors will review recommendations 

from the Scallop Plan Development 

Team for FY 2015 and FY 2016 (default) 

fishery specifications (Framework 26). 

The Advisors will also provide input on 

other measures under consideration in 

Framework 26: (1) measures to allow 

fishing in state waters after federal 

Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) TAC is 

reached; (2) measures to make turtle 

regulations consistent in the scallop 

fishery; (3) measures to modify the 

existing area closure accountability 

measures in place for Georges Bank and 

Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic 

yellowtail flounder, and develop new 

accountability measures for northern 

windowpane flounder; and (4) consider 

an inshore transit corridor for limited 

access scallop vessels to declare out of 

the fishery. Other business may be 

discussed if time permits. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: October 7, 2014. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24237 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD541 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Scallop Committee on to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting Address: The meeting will be 

held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 32 

Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI 

02903; telephone: (401) 272–1191; fax: 

(401) 272–1416. 

Council Address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee will review 

recommendations from the Scallop Plan 

Development Team for FY 2015 and FY 

2016 (default) fishery specifications 

(Framework 26). The Committee will 

also provide input on other measures 

under consideration in Framework 26: 

(1) Measures to allow fishing in state 

waters after federal Northern Gulf of 

Maine (NGOM) TAC is reached; (2) 

measures to make turtle regulations 

consistent in the scallop fishery; (3) 

measures to modify the existing area 

closure accountability measures in place 

for Georges Bank and Southern New 

England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail 

flounder, and develop new 

accountability measures for northern 

windowpane flounder; and (4) consider 

an inshore transit corridor for limited 

access scallop vessels to declare out of 

the fishery. Other business may be 

discussed if time permits. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES