29296 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred in 2001 

through 2003. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 2001 through 

2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR parts 730–774 (2001–2003)). The 2007 

Regulations set forth the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 

2Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse 

and the President, through Executive Order 13222 

of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002), 

which has been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the most recent being that of August 3, 

NPA: Western Idaho Training Company, 

Inc., Caldwell, ID. 

Contracting Activity: Department of 

Treasury, Internal Revenue Service—

CA, San Francisco, CA. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/ 

Landscaping Services. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, 430 

West Health Sciences Drive, Davis, 

CA. 

NPA: PRIDE Industries, Inc., Roseville, 

CA. 

Contracting Activity: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service—Pacific West Area, Albany, 

CA. 

Service Type/Location: Postwide 

Administrative Support Services, Fort 

Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC. 

NPA: Employment Source, Inc., 

Fayetteville, NC. 

Contracting Activity: Fort Bragg 

Directorate of Contracting, Fort Bragg, 

NC. 

Service Type/Location: Supply/ 

Warehouse/HAZMAT Services, 

Meridian Naval Air Station, 224 Allen 

Rd, Meridian, MS. 

NPA: South Texas Lighthouse for the 

Blind, Corpus Christi, TX. 

Contracting Activity: Fleet and 

Industrial Supply Center, 

Jacksonville, FL. 

Deletions 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. If approved, the action may result 

in additional reporting, recordkeeping 

or other compliance requirements for 

small entities. 

2. If approved, the action may result 

in authorizing small entities to furnish 

the products and services to the 

Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the products and 

services proposed for deletion from the 

Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

The following products and services 

are proposed for deletion from the 

Procurement List: 

Products 

PCU, Level 7 Loft Jacket—Type 2 

NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1647—Size LL. 

NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1649—Size XLL. 

NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1652—Size XXLL. 

NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1654—Size 

XXXLL. 

NPA: Southeastern Kentucky 

Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, 

KY. 

Contracting Activity: U.S. Army 

RDECOM Acquisition Center, Natick, 

MA. 

Services 

Service Type/Location: Grounds 

Maintenance, Hill Air Force Base, Hill 

Air Force Base, UT. 

NPA: Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation 

Center Davis County School District, 

Clearfield, UT. 

Contracting Activity: Hill Air Force 

Base, UT. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/ 

Custodial, Navy Exchange Command 

Corporate Accounting (CAC), Norfolk, 

VA. 

NPA: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA. 

Contracting Activity: Navy Exchange 

Service Command (NEXCOM), 

Virginia Beach, VA. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/ 

Custodial, Navy Exchange Command 

Uniform Support Center, Bldg 1545, 

Chesapeake, VA. 

NPA: Portco, Inc., Portsmouth, VA 

Contracting Activity: Navy Exchange 

Service Command (NEXCOM), 

Virginia Beach, VA. 

Service Type/Location: Laundry Service 

National Naval Medical Center, 

Bethesda, MD. 

NPA: Rappahannock Goodwill 

Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA. 

Contracting Activity: North Atlantic 

Contracting Office, Washington, DC. 

Service Type/Location: Microfilming, 

Department of Treasury, Financial 

Management Services, Hyattsville, 

MD. 

NPA: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA. 

Contracting Activity: Department of the 

Treasury, DC. 

Kimberly M. Zeich, 

Director, Program Operations. 

[FR Doc. E7–10145 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: United States Commission on 

Civil Rights. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 1, 2007; 9 

a.m. 

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, 

Washington, DC 20425. 

Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda. 

II. Approval of Minutes of May 11, 

Meeting. 

III. Announcements. 

IV. Staff Director’s Report. 

V. State Advisory Committee Issues; 

• Virginia SAC. 

• Michigan SAC. 

VI. Future Agenda Items. 

VII. Adjourn. 

Briefing Agenda 

School Choice, the Blaine Amendments 

and Anti-Catholicism; 

• Introductory Remarks by Chairman. 

• Speakers’ Presentation. 

• Questions by Commissioners and 

Staff Director. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press and 

Communications (202) 376–8582. 

Dated: May 22, 2007. 

David Blackwood, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 07–2630 Filed 5–22–07; 4:02 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[06–BIS–16] 

In the Matter of: Super Net Computers, 

L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa Building, 

Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 

43557, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 

Respondent, Final Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of an 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as 

further described below. 

In a charging letter filed on August 28, 

2006, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, Super Net Computers, 

L.L.C. (hereinafter ‘‘Super Net’’), 

committed six violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774) 

(2007)) (‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically, the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 29297 

2006, (71 FR 44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–17706 (2000)). 

3The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to an Export Control 

Classification Number. See Section 772.1 of the 

Regulations. 

4 Items subject to the Regulations, which are not 

listed on the Commerce Control List are designated 

as EAR99. 

5 31 CFR Part 560. 

charging letter alleged that, on six 

occasions from on or about September 

25, 2001, through on or about March 25, 

2003, Super Net caused, aided and 

abetted the doing of an act prohibited by 

the Regulations. Specifically, The 

Charging Letter alleged that Super Net 

ordered super servers (ECCN 3 4A994), 

motherboards (ECCNs 4A003 and 

4A994), and computer chassis 

(EAR99 4), items subject to the 

Regulations and the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations,5 from a U.S. 

company on behalf of Iranian end-users. 

The U.S. company then shipped those 

super servers and motherboards from 

the United States to Super Net in the 

United Arab Emirates. Super Net 

forwarded the items to end-users in 

Iran. Pursuant to Section 560.204 of the 

Iranian Transactions Regulations, an 

export to a third country intended for 

transshipment to Iran is a transaction 

subject to the Iranian Transaction 

Regulations. Pursuant to Section 746.7 

of the Regulations, authorization was 

required from the Office of Foreign 

Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (‘‘OFAC’’) for the shipment of 

these super servers and motherboards 

from the United States to Iran. No such 

U.S. Government authorization was 

obtained. By causing, aiding and/or 

abetting these exports in this manner, 

BIS alleged that Super Net committed 

six violations of Section 764.2(b) of the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 

766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on 

August 28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice 

of issuance of the charging letter by 

registered mail to Super Net at its last 

known address. The record contains 

evidence that the notice of issuance of 

a charging letter was received by Super 

Net on September 17, 2006. To date, 

however, Super Net has not filed an 

answer or otherwise responded to the 

charging letter with the ALJ, as required 

by the Regulations. 

On March 16, 2007, BIS filed a 

Motion for Default Order in accord with 

Section 766.7 of the Regulations. The 

Motion for Default Order recommended 

that Super Net be denied export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of five years. Under Section 

766.7(a) of the Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of 

the respondent to file an answer within 

the time provided constitutes a waiver 

of the respondent’s right to appear,’’ and 

‘‘on BIS’s motion and without further 

notice to the respondent, [the ALJ] shall 

find the facts to be as alleged in the 

charging letter.’’ Based upon the record 

before him the ALJ has found Super Net 

in default. 

On May 1, 2007, based on the record 

before him, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Super Net 

committed six violations of Section 

764.2(b) of the Regulations. The ALJ 

also recommended the penalty of denial 

of Super Net’s export privileges for five 

years, as recommended by BIS. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under Section 766.22 

of the Regulations. I find that the record 

supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. I also find that the 

penalty recommended by the ALJ is 

appropriate, given the nature of the 

violations and the facts of this case, and 

the importance of preventing future 

unauthorized exports. 

Based on my review of the entire 

record, I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law recommended by the 

ALJ. 

Accordingly, it is Therefore Ordered, 

First, that for a period of five years 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register, Super Net 

Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa 

Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., 

P.O. Box 43557, Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates, its successors and assigns, and 

when acting for or on behalf of Super 

Net, its representatives, agents and 

employees (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Denied Person’’), may 

not, directly or indirectly, participate in 

any way in any transaction involving 

any commodity, software or technology 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from 

the United States that is subject to the 

Regulations, or in any other activity 

subject to the Regulations, including, 

but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the Regulations, or in any 

other activity subject to the Regulations; 

or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to now that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transactions to 

service any item subject to the 

Regulations that has been or will be 

exported from the United States and 

that is owned, possessed or controlled 

by the Denied Person, or service any 

item, of whatever origin, that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person if such service involves the use 

of any item subject to the Regulations 

that has been or will be exported from 

the United States. For purposes of this 

paragraph, servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, that after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to the Denied 

Person by affiliation, ownership, or 

position or responsibility in the conduct 

of trade or related services may also be 

made subject to the provisions of this 

Order. 

Fourth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
29298 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred in 2001 

through 2003. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 2001 through 

2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR parts 730–774 (2001–2003)). The 2006 

Regulations establish the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 

2Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse 

and the President, through Executive Order 13222 

of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), 

as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006 (71 FR 

44,551 (Aug. 7, 2006)), has continued the 

regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706 (2000)). 

3The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to an Export Control 

Classification Number. See Section 772.1 of the 

Regulations. 

4 Items subject to the Regulations, which are not 

listed on the Commerce Control List are designated 

as EAR99. 

5 31 CFR part 560. 

6BIS did not receive a delivery receipt for the 

charging letter and requested that the U.S. Postal 

Service inquire further about the delivery of the 

charging letter. The U.S. Postal Service was advised 

by the postal service of the United Arab Emirates 

that the charging letter was delivered on or about 

September 17, 2006. 

7Pursuant to Section 13(c)(1) of the Export 

Administration Act and Section 766.17(b)(2) of the 

Regulations, in export control enforcement cases, 

the ALJ makes recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law that the Under Secretary must 

affirm, modify or vacate. The Under Secretary’s 

action is the final decision for the U.S. Commerce 

Department. 

8Cf. 15 CFR part 766, Supp. No. 1, III, A 

(discussing the factors that BIS considers in the 

context of settling an enforcement action and 

stating that ‘‘BIS is more likely to seek a greater 

monetary penalty and/or denial or export privileges 

* * * in cases involving: (1) Exports or reexports 

to countries subject to anti-terrorism controls 

* * *.’’). Iran has been designated as a Terrorist 

Supporting Country and is subject to such antiterrorism controls. See 15 CFR part 740, Supp. No. 

1 Country Group E:1 (2001–2003); 15 CFR 742.8 

(2001–2003); 15 CFR 746.7 (2001–2003). 

9The U.S. Government’s List of Terrorist 

Supporting Countries is set forth in 15 CFR part 

740, Supp. No. 1, Country Group E:1. 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for the section related to the 

Recommended Order, shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency in this matter, is effective 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: May 21, 2007. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

REDACTED COPY 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE, BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND 

SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 20230 

Docket No: 06–BIS–16 

In the matter of: Super Net Computers, 

L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa Building, Khalid 

Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates. Respondent. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On august 28, 2006, the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging letter initiating 

this administrative enforcement proceeding 

against Super Net Computers, L.L.C. (‘‘Super 

Net’’). The charging letter alleged that Super 

Net committed six violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2006)) (the 

‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. App. 2401–2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter alleged 

that, on six occasions from on or about 

September 25, 2001, through on or about 

March 25, 2003, Super Net caused, aided and 

abetted the doing of an act prohibited by the 

Regulations. Specifically, BIS alleged that 

Super Net ordered super servers (EEN 3

4A994), motherboards (ECCNs 4A003 and 

4A994), and computer chassis 

(EAR99 4), items subject to the Regulations 

and the Iranian Transactions Regulations,5

from a U.S. company on behalf of Iranian 

end-users. The U.S. company shipped those 

super servers and motherboards from the 

United States to Super Net in the United 

Arab Emirates. Super net then forwarded the 

items to end-users in Iran. Pursuant to 

Section 560.204 of the Iranian Transactions 

Regulations, an export to a third country 

intended for transshipment to Iran is a 

transaction subject to the Iranian Transaction 

Regulations. Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations, a license was required for the 

shipment of these super servers and 

motherboards from the United States to Iran. 

No such license was obtained. BIS alleged 

that Super Net committed six violations of 

the Regulations. (Charges 1–6). 

Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations 

provides that notice of the issuance of a 

charging letter shall be served on a 

respondent by mailing a copy by registered 

or certified mail addressed to the respondent 

at the respondent’s last known address. In 

accordance with the Regulations, on August 

28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice of issuance 

of the charging letter by registered mail to 

Super Net at its last known address: Super 

Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa 

Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. 

Box 43557, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. BIS 

has submitted evidence that establishes that 

the charging letter was received by Super Net 

on or about September 17, 2006.6

Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

respondent must answer the charging letter 

within 30 days after being served with notice 

of issuance of the charging letter’’ initiating 

the administrative enforcement proceeding. 

Furthermore, BIS informed Super Net that a 

failure to follow this requirement would 

result in default. (Charging Letter, at 2). To 

date, Super Net has not filed an answer, or 

otherwise responded, to the charging letter. 

Pursuant to the default procedures set forth 

in Section 766.7 of the Regulations, the 

undersigned finds the facts to be as alleged 

in the charging letter, and hereby determine 

that those facts establish that Super Net 

committed six violations of Section 764.2(b) 

of the Regulations. 

Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth 

that sanctions BIS may seek for violations of 

the Regulations. The applicable sanctions 

are: (i) A monetary penalty, (ii) suspension 

from practice before the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, and (iii) a denial of export 

privileges under the Regulations. See 15 CFR 

764.3 (2001–2003). BIS requests that the 

undersigned recommend to the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Industry and 

Security 7 that Super Net’s export privileges 

be denied for five years. 

BIS has suggested this sanction because 

Super Net’s role in causing, aiding and 

abetting the export of super servers, 

motherboards and chassis from the United 

States to Iran without U.S. Government 

authorization evidences a serious disregard 

for U.S. export control laws. BIS notes that 

the items exported in this case involved 

super servers and motherboards controlled 

for anti-terrorism reasons. BIS asserts that 

Super Net’s role in ordering and forwarding 

these items to Iran—a country that the United 

States Government has designated a state 

sponsor of international terrorism—

represents a significant harm to national 

security and to the national interests 

protected by U.S. export controls.8

Furthermore, BIS believes that the 

recommended denial order is particularly 

appropriate in this case, since Super Net 

failed to respond to the charging letter filed 

by BIS, despite evidence indicating that 

Super Net received actual service of the 

charging letter. Although the imposition of a 

monetary penalty is an option, BIS contends 

that such a penalty would not be effective, 

given the above reasons and the difficulty of 

collecting payment against a party outside 

the United States. Based on the foregoing, 

BIS believes that the denial of Super Net 

export privileges for five years is an 

appropriate sanction. 

The undersigned concurs with BIS and 

recommends that the Under Secretary enter 

an Order denying Super Net’s export 

privileges for a period of five years. Such a 

denial order is consistent with penalties 

imposed in similar cases involving 

shipments to countries designated as 

‘‘Terrorist Supporting Countries’’ 9 in which 

a default judgment was issued on BIS’s 

motion. See, e.g., In the Matter of Teepad 

Electronic General Trading, 71 FR 34,596 

(June 15, 2006) (affirming the ALJ’s 

recommendation to grant BIS’s motion for a 

ten-year denial where a Canadian respondent 

knowingly caused the export of 

telecommunications devices to Iran, and 

where that respondent failed to respond to 

BIS’s charging letter); In the Matter of Swiss 

Telecom, 71 FR 32,920 (June 7, 2006) 

(affirming the ALJ’s recommendation to grant 

BIS’s motion for a ten-year denial where a 

respondent in the United Arab Emirates 

knowingly forwarded telecommunications 

devices to Iran, and failed to respond to BIS’s 

charging letter); In the Matter of MUTCO 

International, 71 FR 38,133 (July 5, 2006) 

(affirming the ALJ’s recommendation to grant 

BIS’s default motion for a six-year denial to 

resolve conspiracy and solicitations charges 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 29299 

related to an attempted export to North 

Korea). 

The terms of the denial of export privileges 

against Super Net should be consistent with 

the standard language used by BIS in such 

orders. The language is: 

[REDACTED SECTION] 

This Order, which constitutes the final 

agency action in this matter, is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Accordingly, the undersigned refers this 

Recommended Decision and Order to the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security for review and final action for 

the agency, without further notice to the 

respondent, as provided in Section 766.7 of 

the Regulations. 

Within 30 days after receipt of this 

Recommended Decision and Order, the 

Under Secretary shall issue a written order 

affirming, modifying, or vacating the 

Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 

CFR 766.22(c). 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–2604 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–846 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a timely 

request to conduct a new shipper review 

of the antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). In accordance with 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 

351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new 

shipper review for Shanghai Tylon 

Company Ltd. (‘‘Tylon’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Fornaro or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3927 and (202) 

482–4207, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 18, 2007, during the 

anniversary month of the antidumping 

duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, 

the Department received a request from 

Tylon for a new shipper review of the 

order, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c). See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997). 

As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii)(A) and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Tylon certified that 

it did not export the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), and 

that since the initiation of the 

investigation, the company has never 

been affiliated with any exporter or 

producer who exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Tylon further 

certified that its export activities are not 

controlled by the central government of 

the PRC. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Yantai Hongda Auto 

Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yantai 

Hongda’’), the producer of subject 

merchandise, certified that it did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(iii)(B), Yantai Hongda further 

certified that since the investigation was 

initiated, it has never been affiliated 

with any exporter or producer who 

exported the subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI and that its 

export activities are not controlled by 

the central government of the PRC. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Tylon submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) the date on which it first 

shipped brake rotors for export to the 

United States; (2) the volume of its first 

shipment and any subsequent 

shipments; and (3) the date of its first 

sale to an unaffiliated customer in the 

United States. 

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(d)(1), and based on information 

on the record, we find that Tylon’s 

request meets the threshold 

requirements for initiation of a new 

shipper review. See Memorandum to 

the File through Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

and Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, from the 

Team, entitled ‘‘Initiation of AD New 

Shipper Review: Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated, May 

21, 2007. Therefore, we are initiating a 

new shipper review for shipments of 

brake rotors produced by Yantai Hongda 

and exported by Tylon. The Department 

will conduct this new shipper review 

according to the deadlines set forth in 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

On April 26, 2007, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Tylon, informing the company that the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) stated in its 

request did not meet the requirements 

articulated in 19 CFR 

351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), and requested that 

Tylon correct and resubmit its new 

shipper review request with the 

appropriate POR within the time frame 

set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(d). On April 

27, 2007, in response to the 

Department’s request, Tylon 

resubmitted its new shipper review 

request with the appropriate POR. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), 

the POR for a new shipper review 

initiated in the month immediately 

following the anniversary month 

normally will cover the 12-month 

period immediately preceding the 

anniversary month. Therefore, the POR 

for this new shipper review will be 

April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 

In cases involving non–market 

economies, the Department requires that 

a company seeking to establish 

eligibility for an antidumping duty rate 

separate from the PRC–wide entity rate 

provide evidence of de jure and de facto 

absence of government control over the 

company’s export activities. 

Accordingly, we will issue a 

questionnaire to Tylon, including a 

separate–rate section. The review will 

proceed if the responses provide 

sufficient indication that Tylon is not 

subject to either de jure or de facto 

government control with respect to its 

exports of brake rotors. However, if 

Tylon does not demonstrate its 

eligibility for a separate rate, the 

company will be deemed not separate 

from other companies that exported 

during the POI, and the new shipper 

review for Tylon will be rescinded. 

On August 17, 2006, the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was 

signed into law by Congress. Section 

1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the 

authority of the Department to instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

collect a bond or other security in lieu 

of a cash deposit in new shipper 

reviews. Therefore, the posting of a 

bond or other security under section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a 

cash deposit is not available in this case. 

Importers of brake rotors exported by 

Tylon and produced by Yantai Hongda 

must continue to post a cash deposit of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES