61468 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2004 / Notices 

Resource Advisory Committee for 

Madera County will meet on Monday, 

October 18, 2004. The Madera Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet at the 

Forest Service Office, North Fork, CA 

93643. The purpose of the meeting is: 

new member orientation and review FY 

2004 RAC proposals.

DATES: The Madera Resource Advisory 

Committee meeting will be held 

Monday, October 18, 2004. The meeting 

will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Madera County RAC 

meeting will be held at the Forest 

Service Office, 57003 Road 225, North 

Fork, CA 93644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Martin, U.S.D.A., Sierra National 

Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 

Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643 (559) 

877–2218 ext. 3100; e-mail: 

dmartin05fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 

items to be covered include: (1) New 

member orientation and (2) review of 

FY 2004 RAC proposals.

Dated: October 11, 2004. 

David W. Martin, 

District Ranger, Bass Lake Ranger District.

[FR Doc. 04–23363 Filed 10–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Initiation 

of Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of changed 

circumstances review. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

has received information sufficient to 

warrant initiation of a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping order on brake rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The review will be conducted to 

determine whether Shanxi Fengkun 

Foundry Ltd., Co. (‘‘Fengkun Foundry’’) 

is the successor-in-interest to Shanxi 

Fengkun Metallurgical Ltd., Co. 

(‘‘Fengkun Metallurgical’’).

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Winkates, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1904.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 17, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC (62 FR 18740). On August 

27, 2004, Fengkun Foundry submitted 

information and documentation in 

support of its claim that it is the 

successor-in-interest to Fengkun 

Metallurgical and requested that the 

Department conduct a changedcircumstances review to determine 

whether Fengkun Foundry is the 

successor-in-interest to Fengkun 

Metallurgical and whether it should 

receive the same antidumping duty 

treatment as is accorded to Fengkun 

Metallurgical with respect to the subject 

merchandise. 

On September 7, 2004, we informed 

Fengkun Foundry that in order to 

further consider its August 27, 2004, 

request for a changed circumstances 

review, it was required to provide a 

response to the Department’s separate 

rates questionnaire for purposes of 

determining whether it was entitled to 

a separate rate (see September 7, 2004, 

memorandum from the team leader to 

the file, entitled ‘‘Telephone 

Conversation with Counsel for Fengkun 

Foundry and Fengkun Metallurgical). 

On September 14, 2004, Fengkun 

Foundry provided its response to the 

Department’s separate rates 

questionnaire. 

On September 14, 2004, the petitioner 

requested that the Department publish a 

separate notice of initiation and refrain 

from simultaneously issuing a 

preliminary finding because (1) it 

claimed that the data provided in the 

public version of Fengkun Foundry’s 

August 27, 2004, request did not 

provide the Department with sufficient 

information to conduct an expedited 

review; and (2) the petitioner was 

denied the ability to comment fully on 

Fengkun Foundry’s initiation request 

until it is granted access to the business 

proprietary data contained in Fengkun 

Foundry’s initiation request pursuant to 

an administrative protective order 

(‘‘APO’’). 

Scope of Review 

The products covered by this review 

are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, 

whether finished, semifinished, or 

unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 

to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) 

and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 

to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 

(weight and dimension) of the brake 

rotors limit their use to the following 

types of motor vehicles: automobiles, 

all-terrain vehicles, vans, recreational 

vehicles under ‘‘one ton and a half,’’

and light trucks designated as ‘‘one ton 

and a half.’’

Finished brake rotors are those that 

are ready for sale and installation 

without any further operations. Semifinished rotors are those rotors which 

have undergone some drilling and on 

which the surface is not entirely 

smooth. Unfinished rotors are those 

which have undergone some grinding or 

turning. 

These brake rotors are for motor 

vehicles and do not contain in the 

casting a logo of an original equipment 

manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) which produces 

vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., 

General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, 

Toyota, and Volvo). Brake rotors 

covered in this review are not certified 

by OEM producers of vehicles sold in 

the United States. The scope also 

includes composite brake rotors that are 

made of gray cast iron which contain a 

steel plate but otherwise meet the above 

criteria. Excluded from the scope of the 

review are brake rotors made of gray 

cast iron, whether finished, 

semifinished, or unfinished, with a 

diameter less than 8 inches or greater 

than 16 inches (less than 20.32 

centimeters or greater than 40.64 

centimeters) and a weight less than 8 

pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less 

than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 

20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are currently classifiable 

under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

review is dispositive. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and thus should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. 

Based on information contained in its 

September 14, 2004, submission, 

Fengkun Foundry is registered in the 

PRC as a limited liability company 

owned by private individuals. Thus, a 

separate rates analysis is necessary to 

determine whether Fengkun Foundry is 

independent from government control 

(see Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 61 

FR 19026 (April 30, 1996)). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2004 / Notices 61469

government control, and therefore 

entitled to a separate rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity under a test arising out of the 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’) and 

amplified in the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under the separate 

rates criteria, the Department assigns 

separate rates in NME cases only if the 

respondent can demonstrate the absence 

of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export 

activities. 

1. De Jure Control 

Fengkun Foundry has placed on the 

administrative record documentation to 

demonstrate absence of de jure

governmental control, including the 

1994 ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ and the 

‘‘Administrative Regulations of the 

People’s Republic of China Governing 

the Registration of Legal Corporations,’’

promulgated on June 3, 1988. 

As in prior cases, we have analyzed 

these laws and have found them to 

establish sufficiently an absence of de 

jure control of stock companies 

including limited liability companies. 

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 

from the People’s Republic of China, 60 

FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (‘‘Furfuryl 

Alcohol’’), and Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension 

Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new 

information in this proceeding which 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination with regard to Fengkun 

Foundry. 

2. De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and 

Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether the respondents 

are, in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

The Department typically considers 

four factors in evaluating whether a 

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a governmental authority; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl 

Alcohol. 

Fengkun Foundry asserted the 

following: (1) It establishes its own 

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts 

without guidance from any 

governmental entities or organizations; 

(3) it makes its own personnel 

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds 

of its export sales, uses profits according 

to its business needs, and has the 

authority to sell its assets and to obtain 

loans. Additionally, statements 

contained in Fengkun Foundry’s 

September 14, 2004, submission 

indicate that the company does not 

coordinate its prices with other 

exporters. This information supports a 

initial finding that there is de facto

absence of governmental control of the 

export functions of Fengkun Foundry. 

See Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 55215 

(October 23, 1997). Consequently, for 

purposes of initiating its request for a 

changed circumstances review, we find 

that there is a sufficient basis to 

determine that Fengkun Foundry has 

met the criteria for the application of a 

separate rate.

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Department will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

receipt of information concerning, or a 

request from an interested party for a 

review of, an antidumping duty order 

which shows changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review of the 

order. In its August 27, 2004, 

submission, Fengkun Foundry notified 

the Department that it had changed its 

name on November 28, 2003, in order to 

reflect better the company’s operations. 

In its submission, Fengkun Foundry 

also stated that neither its corporate 

structure nor its owners and 

shareholders has changed. The 

information submitted by Fengkun 

Foundry regarding its claim that it is the 

successor-in-interest to Fengkun 

Metallurgical shows changed 

circumstances sufficient to warrant a 

review. See 19 CFR 351.216(c). 

In antidumping duty changed 

circumstances reviews involving a 

successor-in-interest determination, the 

Department typically examines several 

factors including, but not limited to, 

changes in: (1) Management; (2) 

production facilities; (3) supplier 

relationships; and (4) customer base. 

See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 

20462 (May 13, 1992) (‘‘Brass Sheet’’). 

While no single factor or combination of 

factors will necessarily be dispositive, 

the Department generally will consider 

the new company to be the successor to 

the predecessor company if the resulting 

operations are essentially the same as 

those of the predecessor company. See 

e.g., Industrial Phosphorus Acid from 

Israel: Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 

6945 (February 14, 1994), and Brass 

Sheet, 57 FR at 20460. Thus, if the 

record 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 predecessor company, the 

Department may assign the new 

company the cash deposit rate of its 

predecessor. See e.g., Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 

1999). 

Based on data contained in its August 

27, 2004, submission and September 14, 

2004, supplemental submission, 

Fengkun Foundry has provided 

sufficient evidence to warrant a review 

to determine if it is the successor-ininterest to Fengkun Metallurgical based 

on the successor-in-interest criteria 

enunciated in Brass Sheet and the 

Department’s separate rates criteria 

articulated in Sparklers and amplified 

in Silicon Carbide. However, we 

consider it inappropriate to expedite 

this review by combining the 

preliminary results of review with this 

notice of initiation, as permitted under 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), because 

Fengkun Foundry’s request for this 

changed circumstances review was 

based on business proprietary 

information. The petitioner has, 

therefore, been unable to review or 

comment on the review request to date. 

Therefore, the Department is not issuing 

the preliminary results of its 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review at this time. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of preliminary 

61470 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2004 / Notices 

results of antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(I). This notice will set 

forth the factual and legal conclusions 

upon which our preliminary results are 

based and a description of any action 

proposed based on those results. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), 

interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results of review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the 

Department will issue the final results 

of its antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review not later than 270 

days after the date on which the review 

is initiated. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, we 

will not change the cash deposit 

requirements for the merchandise 

subject to review. The cash deposit will 

only be altered, if warranted, pursuant 

to the final results of this review. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

Dated: October 12, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–23379 Filed 10–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[C–427–819, C–428–829, C–421–809, C–412–

821] 

Low Enriched Uranium From France, 

Germany, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews. 

DATES: Effective October 19, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office III, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4793. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department of Commerce 

(Department) to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order/finding for which a review is 

requested and a final determination 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary determination is 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Background 

On March 26, 2004, the Department 

initiated administrative reviews of the 

countervailing duty orders on low 

enriched uranium from France, 

Germany, the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom, covering the period of 

review January 1, 2003 through 

December 31, 2003. See 69 FR 15788. 

The preliminary results are currently 

due no later than October 31, 2004. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Reviews 

We determine that these reviews are 

extraordinarily complicated because 

there are a large number of complex 

issues to be considered and analyzed by 

the Department, along with numerous 

programs and changes to certain 

programs previously found 

countervailable. In order to complete 

our analysis, we require additional and/

or clarifying information. As a result, it 

is not practicable to complete the 

preliminary results of these reviews 

within the original time limits. 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limits for completion of the 

preliminary results until no later than 

February 28, 2005. This date constitutes 

a 120-day extension for the 

administrative reviews of low enriched 

uranium from France, Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

This extension is in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: October 14, 2004. 

Jeffrey A. May, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–23376 Filed 10–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration 

National Medal of Technology 

Nomination Evaluation Committee; 

Notice of Determination for Closure of 

Meeting 

The National Medal of Technology 

Nomination Evaluation Committee has 

scheduled a meeting for November 30, 

2004. 

The Committee was established to 

assist the Department in executing its 

responsibilities under 15 U.S.C. 3711. 

Under this provision, the Secretary of 

Commerce is responsible for 

recommending to the President 

prospective recipients of the National 

Medal of Technology. The committee’s 

recommendations are made after 

reviewing all nominations received in 

response to a public solicitation. The 

Committee is chartered to have twelve 

members.

TIME AND PLACE: The meeting will begin 

at 10 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. on 

November 30, 2004. The meeting will be 

held in Room 4813 at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. For further information 

contact: Mildred S. Porter, Director 

National Medal of Technology, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert C. 

Hoover Building, Room 4843, 

Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202/

482–5572. 

If a member of the public would like 

to submit written comments concerning 

the committee’s affairs at any time 

before and after the meeting, written 

comments should be addressed to the 

Director of the National Medal of 

Technology as indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be closed to discuss the 

relative merits of persons and 

companies nominated for the Medal. 

Public disclosure of this information 

would be likely to significantly frustrate 

implementation of the National Medal 

of Technology program because 

premature publicity about candidates 

under consideration for the Medal, who 

may or may not ultimately receive the 

award, would be likely to discourage 

nominations for the Medal. 

Accordingly, I find and determine, 

pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 

2, as amended, that the November 30, 

2004, meeting may be closed to the 

public in accordance with section 552b 

(c) (9) (B) of title 5, United States Code 

because revealing information about 

Medal candidates would be likely to