78396 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 

3See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

4See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

5See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734, 

39735 (July 11, 2005). 

1See Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab 

Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2011–2013, 79 FR 35721 

(June 24, 2014) (Preliminary Results). 

2See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations ‘‘Certain Steel 

Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Extension of 

Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2011–2013’’ dated 

September 30, 2014. 

3For details on our affiliation determination, see 

Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Office Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office I, ‘‘Certain Steel Nails 

from the United Arab Emirates—Affiliation 

Memorandum for Dubai Wire FZE’’ dated May 28, 

2014. 

4 Id. 

Producer/Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percentage) 

Akzo Nobel Functional 

Chemicals B.V. ................. 0.00 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries in this review, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of these final 

results of review. Because we have 

calculated a zero margin for Akzo Nobel 

in the final results of this review, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate the 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003.3 This clarification applies 

to entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced and exported by 

Akzo Nobel for which it did not know 

that the merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

effective during the POR if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction.4

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for Akzo Nobel will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not covered 

in this review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this or any previous review or in the 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation 

but the manufacturer is, the cashdeposit rate will be the rate established 

for the most recent period for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 

(4) if neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review or the 

investigation, the cash-deposit rate will 

continue to be the all-others rate of 

14.57 percent, which is the all-others 

rate established by the Department in 

the LTFV investigation.5 These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation, 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30547 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–520–804] 

Certain Steel Nails from the United 

Arab Emirates: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2011–2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 24, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

steel nails from the United Arab 

Emirates (UAE). The period of review 

(POR) is November 3, 2011, through 

April 30, 2013. The review covers two 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise, Dubai Wire FZE (Dubai 

Wire) and Precision Fasteners, L.L.C. 

(Precision). For these final results, we 

continue to find subject merchandise 

has been sold in the United States at 

less than normal value. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 30, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Hansen or Michael Romani, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3683 or (202) 482– 

0198, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2014, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

nails from the United Arab Emirates.1

On September 30, 2014, we extended 

the due date for the final results to 

December 22, 2014.2 On October 16, 

2014, we issued a post-preliminary 

analysis finding that: (i) Dubai Wire’s 

affiliated 3 importer, Itochu Building 

Products Inc., and affiliated 4

distributor, PrimeSource Building 

Products Inc., (collectively, IBP) 

employed an acceptable constructed 

export price (CEP) sales reporting 

methodology; (ii) certain submissions by 

Dubai Wire accompanied by 

certifications signed by a representative 

of IBP meet the requirements of 19 CFR 

351.303(g); (iii) it was appropriate to 

rely on facts available without an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 78397 

5See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab 

Emirates—Post-Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum; 2011–2013’’ dated October 16, 2014 

(Post-Preliminary Results). 

6See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab 

Emirates: Amended Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 

77 FR 27421 (May 10, 2012) (Order). 

7For a full description of the scope of the order, 

See the memorandum from Deputy Assistant 

Secretary Christian Marsh to Assistant Secretary 

Paul Piquado entitled ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from the 

United Arab Emirates: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2013’’ dated 

concurrently with and hereby adopted by this 

notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

8See the company-specific final analysis 

memorandum for Dubai Wire dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

9For a full discussion of this clarification, see 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 

(May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

10The all-others rate established in the Order. 

adverse inference with respect to certain 

reported CEP sales data; and (iv) using 

the revised export price (EP) and CEP 

databases, we recalculated Dubai Wire’s 

margin.5

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results 

and Post-Preliminary Results. We 

received case briefs from Mid Continent 

Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), and 

IBP on October 31, 2014, concerning 

Dubai Wire. These parties submitted 

rebuttal comments on November 5, 

2014. We received no case or rebuttal 

briefs concerning Precision. A hearing 

was requested by IBP, but that request 

was later withdrawn. 

The Department conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the 

Order 6 is certain steel nails from the 

UAE. The products are currently 

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, 

and 7317.00.75. The HTSUS numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive.7

Analysis of the Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

is in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and attached to this 

notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file electronically 

via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 

registered users at https://

access.trade.gov and it is available to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the internet at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/

index.html. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made certain 

revisions to the weighted-average 

dumping margin calculation for Dubai 

Wire, which we included in the PostPreliminary Results, where applicable. 

A detailed discussion of each change 

made is in the company-specific 

analysis memorandum dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

on file electronically via ACCESS and in 

the CRU of the main Commerce 

building.8 No changes have been made 

with respect to our determination for 

Precision. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period November 3, 2011, 

through April 30, 2013: 

Company 

Weightedaverage 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Dubai Wire FZE ................ 18.13 

Precision Fasteners, 

L.L.C. ............................. 184.41 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries covered by 

this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for Dubai Wire, we 

calculated an importer- (or customer-) 

specific assessment rate on the basis of 

the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for an 

importer’s examined sales and the total 

entered value of such sales. We have 

continued to rely on adverse facts 

available to establish Precision’s 

weighted-average dumping margin in 

these final results, and therefore, we 

will instruct CBP to apply an ad 

valorem assessment rate of 184.41 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR which 

were produced and/or exported by 

Precision. We will instruct CBP to take 

into account the ‘‘provisional measures 

cap’’ in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(d). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003.9 This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by Dubai Wire 

for which it did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. 

We intend to issue instructions to 

CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of certain steel 

nails from the UAE entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication as provided by section 

751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 

rate for Dubai Wire and Precision will 

be the rates established in the final 

results of this administrative review; (2) 

for previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the original investigation but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise for the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for 

all other manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be 4.30 percent.10 These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notifications 

This notice serves as a final 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 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 doubled antidumping 

duties. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78398 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 

1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances Determination, in Part, and 

Alignment of Final Determination With Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination, 79 FR 71093 

(December 1, 2014) (Preliminary Determination). 

2See Letter from CTP, ‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle 

and Light Truck Tires from China: Request for 

Meeting,’’ December 2, 2014 (CTP Scope 

Comments). 

3Collectively, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial 

and Service Workers International Union, and AFL– 

CIO, CLC. 

4See Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Certain Passenger 

Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s 

Republic of China—Scope of the Investigations, 

Petitioner’s Opposition to CTP’s Exclusion 

Request,’’ December 5, 2014 (Petitioner Rebuttal to 

CTP Comments). 

5See Letter from CTP, ‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle 

and Light Truck Tires from China: Unconstitutional 

Burdens on Speech Created by Implementation of 

the Department’s Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination,’’ December 9, 

2014; Letter from CTP, ‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle 

and Light Truck Tires from China: Response to 

Petitioner’s Opposition to CTP’s Exclusion 

Request,’’ December 9, 2014; Letter from Petitioner, 

‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China—Scope of the 

Investigations, Petitioner’s Reply to CTP’s Response 

on Scope and Comments on Unconstitutional 

Burden,’’ December 11, 2014; Letter from CTP, 

‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 

from China: Unconstitutional Burdens on Speech 

Created by Implementation of the Department’s 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination,’’ December 11, 2014; Letter from 

Petitioner, ‘‘Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China— 

Scope of the Investigations, Petitioner’s Second 

Reply to CTP’s Comments on Unconstitutional 

Burden,’’ December 15, 2014. 

6See 19 CFR 351.224(g). 

7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, ‘‘Allegation of Significant Ministerial 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or the 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

The final results of this administrative 

review are issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 22, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Facts Available 

V. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Dubai Wire Affiliation 

Comment 2: Non-Dubai Wire Company 

Certifications 

Comment 3: Dubai Wire Third-Country 

Market Viability 

Comment 4: IBP’s Data Reporting 

Methodology 

Comment 5: Commissions in the United 

States 

Comment 6: Freight Revenue Cap 

Comment 7: Quantity Adjustments 

VI. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2014–30541 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–017] 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is amending the 

Preliminary Determination of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

of passenger vehicle and light truck tires 

(passenger tires) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) to correct 

significant ministerial errors with 

respect to our Preliminary 

Determination.1 We are also amending 

the scope of the investigation in 

response to comments submitted 

following the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. The period 

of investigation is January 1, 2013, 

through December 31, 2013. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 30, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Halle or Jason Rhoads, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone 202.482.0176, 202.482.0123, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department announced its 

Preliminary Determination on 

November 24, 2014, and disclosed to 

interested parties the calculations for 

the Preliminary Determination on 

November 25, 2014. The Preliminary 

Determination was published on 

December 1, 2014. GITI Tire (Fujian) 

Co., Ltd. (GITI Fujian) submitted 

ministerial error allegations on 

December 1, 2014, alleging that the 

Department made certain significant 

errors in the Preliminary Determination. 

On December 2, 2014, CTP 

Transportation Products, LLC and 

Carlisle (Meizhou) Rubber Products Co. 

Ltd. (CTP) submitted comments 

regarding the preliminary scope.2

Petitioner 3 submitted rebuttal 

comments to CTP’s submission 

regarding the preliminary scope on 

December 5, 2014.4 Parties submitted 

additional comments on the preliminary 

scope through December 15, 2014.5

After reviewing the allegations, we 

determine that the Preliminary 

Determination included significant 

ministerial errors with respect to the 

calculation of certain sales 

denominators, and the benefit 

calculation for one company under the 

‘‘Government Policy Lending’’ program. 

We are also modifying the scope of the 

investigation by temporarily suspending 

certain marking requirements for 

exclusion of specialty tires in response 

to comments raised by interested 

parties. 

Analysis of Significant Ministerial 

Error Allegations 

A ministerial error is defined in 19 

CFR 351.224(f) as ‘‘an error in addition, 

subtraction, or other arithmetic 

function, clerical error resulting from 

inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 

like, and any other similar type of 

unintentional error which the Secretary 

considers ministerial.’’ With respect to 

preliminary determinations in 

investigations, 19 CFR 351.224(e) 

provides that the Department ‘‘will 

analyze any comments received and, if 

appropriate, correct any significant 

ministerial error by amending the 

preliminary determination. . .’’ A 

significant ministerial error is defined as 

an error, the correction of which, singly 

or in combination with other errors, 

would result in: (1) A change of at least 

five absolute percentage points in, but 

not less than 25 percent of, the 

countervailable subsidy rate calculated 

in the original (erroneous) preliminary 

determination; or (2) a difference 

between countervailable subsidy rate of 

zero (or de minimis) and a 

countervailable subsidy rate of greater 

than de minimis, or vice versa.6

As explained further in the 

Ministerial Error Memorandum issued 

concurrently with this Notice,7 we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES