69732 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

the Board’s regulations, including 15

CFR 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of

November 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29634 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Initiation and

Preliminary Results of ChangedCircumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation and

Preliminary Results of ChangedCircumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has received information sufficient to

warrant initiation of a changedcircumstances administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brake

rotors from the People’s Republic of

China. Based on this information, we

preliminarily determine that Laizhou

Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. is the

successor-in-interest to Laizhou Auto

Brake Equipments Factory for purposes

of determining antidumping liability.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–

1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (April 2000).

Background

On April 17, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on brake rotors

from the People’s Republic of China

(‘‘PRC’’) (62 FR 18740). On September

29, 2000, Laizhou Auto Brake

Equipment Co., Ltd. (‘‘LABEC’’)

submitted information and

documentation in support of its claim

that it is the successor-in-interest to

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory

(‘‘LABEF’’) and requested that the

Department conduct a changedcircumstances review to determine

whether LABEC should receive the

same antidumping duty treatment as is

accorded to LABEF with respect to the

subject merchandise.

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 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 order to determine whether to

initiate a changed-circumstances review

with respect to LABEC, the Department

as a matter of practice first must

conduct a separate rates analysis of the

company. In proceedings involving nonmarket 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 29, 2000, submission,

LABEC is registered in the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) as a limited

liability company owned by private

individuals. Thus, a separate rates

analysis is necessary to determine

whether LABEC 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 (‘‘Bicycles’’) 61 FR

19026 (April 30, 1996)).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

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) 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

LABEC 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69733

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

(‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol’’) 60 FR 22544 (May

8, 1995), 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 LABEC.

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.

LABEC 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 LABEC’s

September 29, 2000, submission

indicate that the company does not

coordinate its prices with other

exporters. This information supports a

preliminary finding that there is de

facto absence of governmental control of

the export functions of LABEC. 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, we

have preliminarily determined that

LABEC has met the criteria for the

application of a separate rate.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

the Review

In its September 29, 2000,

submission, LABEF advised the

Department that, effective January 2000,

its owners changed the name of the

company to LABEC. The company’s

name change resulted when two of the

original five owners sold their shares in

the company and the remaining three

original owners then changed the

registration of the company from a

collectively-owned company to a

limited liability company with the

Laizhou Industrial and Commercial

Administration Bureau (‘‘LICAB’’). In its

submission, LABEF states that all

personnel, operations, and facilities

remain essentially unchanged as a result

of changing the name of the company to

LABEC.

Thus, in accordance with section

751(b) of the Act, the Department is

initiating a changed-circumstances

review to determine whether LABEC is

the successor-in-interest to LABEF for

purposes of determining antidumping

duty liability with respect to the subject

merchandise. In making such a

successor-in-interest determination, the

Department examines several factors

including, but not limited to, changes

in: (1) management; (2) production

facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and

(4) customer base. See, e.g., Brass Sheet

and Strip from Canada: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992).

While no single factor or combination of

these factors will necessarily provide a

dispositive indication of a successor-ininterest 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. See,

e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from

Israel: Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944

(February 14, 1994); Canadian Brass,

and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon

from Norway: Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23,

1998). 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 former company, the Department

will accord the new company the same

antidumping treatment as its

predecessor.

We preliminarily determine that

LABEC is the successor-in-interest to

LABEF, following LABEF’s name

change to LABEC and its change in

company registration with LICAB as a

result of decisions made by LABEF’s

original owners. LABEF has submitted

documentation and statements in

support of its claim that changing its

name to LABEC has resulted in no

significant changes in either production

facilities, supplier relationships,

customer base, or management. This

documentation consisted of: (1) a letter

to LICAB requesting its name to be

changed to LABEC; (2) a letter from

LICAB granting LABEF’s proposed

name change to LABEC; and (3)

LABEC’s business license issued by

LICAB. Because LABEC has presented

evidence to establish a prima facie case

of its successorship status, we find it

appropriate to issue the preliminary

results in combination with the notice

of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(c)(3)(ii).

Thus, we preliminarily determine that

LABEC should receive the same

antidumping duty treatment with

respect to brake rotors as the former

LABEF. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of this

changed-circumstances review, we will

instruct the Customs Service to suspend

shipments of subject merchandise made

by LABEC at LABEF’s cash deposit rate

(i.e., zero percent). The shipments of

subject merchandise to be suspended

are those which are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this changedcircumstances review.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held no later than 50 days after

the date of publication of this notice, or

the first workday thereafter. Case briefs

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 57 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in those comments, may be filed

not later than 64 days after the date of

publication of this notice. All written

comments shall be submitted in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.

Persons interested in attending the

hearing, if one is requested, should

69734 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

contact the Department for the date and

time of the hearing. The Department

will publish the final results of this

changed-circumstances review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written comments,

within 270 days after the date of this

initiation or within 80 days if all parties

agree to our preliminary results.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

the Act and section 351.216 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: November 13, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–29629 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–803]

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Romania; Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of the

antidumping duty administrative review

for the period August 1, 1999 through

July 31, 2000.

SUMMARY: On October 2, 2000, in

response to a request made by

Bethlehem Steel Corporation and U.S.

Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation

(collectively, petitioners), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

initiation of antidumping duty

administrative review of cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Romania, for the

period August 1, 1999 through July 31,

2000. Because the petitioners have

withdrawn the only request for review,

the Department is rescinding this review

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1).

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Baker or Robert James, Enforcement

Group III, Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2924 and (202)

482–0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act. In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

Background

On August 31, 2000, petitioners

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review for the period

August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 of

Sidex, S.A., a producer of the subject

merchandise, Metalexportimport, S.A.,

and Windmill International PTE, Ltd.,

exporters of the subject merchandise.

There were no other requests for review.

On October 2, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

antidumping duty administrative review

of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Romania, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(c)(1)(i). See Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 58733

(October 2, 2000). On October 3, 2000,

petitioners withdrew their request for

review.

Rescission of Review

Pursuant to Departmental regulations,

the Department will rescind an

administrative review ‘‘if a party that

requested the review withdraws the

request within 90 days of the date of

publication of notice of initiation of the

requested review.’’ See 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1). The petitioners’

withdrawal of their request for review

was within the 90-day time limit;

accordingly, we are rescinding the

administrative review for the period

August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000,

and will issue appropriate assessment

instructions to the U.S. Customs

Service.

This notice 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

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 sanctionable violation. This

determination is issued and published

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(4) and sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: November 9, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 00–29631 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Notice of Extension of the Time Limit

for Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Javier Barrientos or Samantha

Denenberg, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group III, Office 7, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2243 and (202)

482–1386, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April

1999).

Background

On May 1, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Thailand, covering the period

March 1, 1999 through February 29,

2000 (65 FR 25303). The preliminary

results are currently due no later than

December 1, 2000.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

Because of the complex issues

enumerated in the Memorandum from

Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A.

Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for the