Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 11081 

1We note that the Court of International Trade 

cited an incorrect period of review (‘‘POR’’) of April 

1, 2005, through May 31, 2006 in its decision. See 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company, et. al. v. 

United States, Court No. 06-00430, Slip Op. 08-120 

(CIT November 5, 2008) (‘‘Laizhou II’’). The CIT 

corrected this error on February 20, 2009. See 

Laizhou II Errata, dated February 20, 2009. 

2The Respondents referenced here are Longkou 

Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd., Hongfa Machinery 

(Dalian) Co., Ltd., Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment 

Co., Ltd., Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd., 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd., 

and Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. 

3WTA is published by Global Trade Information 

Services, Inc., which is a secondary electronic 

source based upon the publication, Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: 

Imports. See http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. 

4For the sample rate calculation which includes 

other mandatory respondents, please see Memo to 

the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Toni Dach, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Regarding 

‘‘Calculation of the ‘Sample Rate’ for the Draft 

Redetermination of the 2004/2005 Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ dated September 8, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–846 

Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Amended 

Final Results of Administrative 

ReviewSales at Less Than Fair Value 

and Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant 

to Court Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: 202- 482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This matter arose from a challenge to 

the Final Results issued by the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) April 1, 2004,4 through Marchy 

31, 20055.1 See Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006) (‘‘Final Results’’). 

Following publication of the Final 

Results, the Respondents2 filed a 

lawsuit with the Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging the 

Department’s Final Results. The 

Respondents contested several aspects 

of the Final Results, including the 

Department’s surrogate valuation for 

steel scrap. 

On June 26, 2008, the CIT directed the 

Department to: 1) explain whether the 

rejected rotors, casting strands/handles, 

etc., reintroduced into the production 

process should be properly accounted 

for in the factor of production 

‘‘STLSCRAP’’; 2) address the issue of 

the composition of the predominant 

scrap used in the production process; 3) 

address respondents’ argument that the 

Department should be solely focusing 

on the type of scrap the Respondents 

reported in the factor field 

‘‘STLSCRAP’’; and 4) explain whether 

the Department has in fact reassessed its 

position in subsequent reviews as to the 

proper harmonized tariff schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) classification of the 

Respondents’ scrap. See Laizhou Auto 

Brake Equipment Company, et. al. v. 

United States, Court No. 06–00430, Slip 

Op. 08–71 (CIT June 26, 2008) 

(‘‘Laizhou I’’), at 17–18. Pursuant to the 

CIT’s remand instructions, we 

reexamined the record and determined 

that the best available information on 

the record with which to value steel 

scrap is HTS 7204.49.00 (other ferrous 

waste and scrap (‘‘ferrous scrap’’)), 

rather than HTS 7204.10.00 (waste and 

scrap of cast iron (‘‘cast iron scrap’’)) 

which was used in the Final Results. 

The Department released the Draft 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand to interested parties on 

September 8, 2008. No party submitted 

comments. On September 24, 2008, the 

Department filed its final results of 

redetermination pursuant to Laizhou I 

with the CIT. See Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand, Court No. 06–00430 

(September 24, 2008) (‘‘Final 

Redetermination’’). In responding to the 

CIT’s questions and reassessing the 

record evidence, we have determined it 

appropriate to value steel scrap using 

HTS 7204.49.00 (ferrous scrap), instead 

of the previously selected value, HTS 

7204.10.00 (cast iron scrap). We note 

that respondents reported purchasing 

steel scrap that is captured under HTS 

7204.49.00, and there is no record 

evidence which contradicts this 

assertion. The Department valued HTS 

7204.49.00 using publicly available 

Indian import statistics for the POR 

from the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’).3

Thus, the Department revised, as 

appropriate, the remanded steel scrap 

surrogate value selection components of 

the margin calculations of Longkou 

Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. and 

Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. The 

Department also revised the ‘‘sample 

rate’’ applicable to the non–mandatory 

respondents separate from the PRC– 

wide entity who are parties to this 

litigation: Laizhou Auto Brake 

Equipment Co., Ltd.; Laizhou City Luqi 

Machinery Co., Ltd.; Laizhou Hongda 

Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd.; and 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co.4 On 

November 5, 2008, the CIT sustained all 

aspects of the remand redetermination 

made by the Department pursuant to the 

CIT’s remand of the Final Results. See 

Laizhou II. 

On November 21, 2008, consistent 

with the decision in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990), the Department notified the 

public that the Court’s decision was not 

in harmony with the Department’s final 

results. See Brake Rotors Timken 

Notice. See Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision Not In Harmony With 

Final Results of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 70618 (November 21, 2008) Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Court Decision Not In 

Harmony With Final Results of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 70618 

(November 21, 2008). No party appealed 

the CIT’s decision. As there is now a 

final and conclusive court decision in 

this case, we are amending our Final 

Results. 

Amended Final Results 

As the litigation in this case has 

concluded, the Department is amending 

the Final Results to reflect the results of 

our remand determination. The revised 

dumping margins for the order on brake 

rotors in the amended final results areis 

as follows: 

Exporter Margin 

Hongfa Machinery 

(Dalian) Co. ............... 0.01% (de minimis) 

Laizhou Auto Brake 

Equipment Company 6.20% 

Laizhou Luqi Machinery 

Co., Ltd. .................... 6.20% 

Laizhou Hongda Auto 

Replacement Parts 

Co., Ltd. .................... 6.20% 

Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. ........ 0.01% (de minimis) 

Qingdao Gren (Group) 

Co. ............................. 6.20% 

The Department intends to issue 

instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) fifteen days after 

publication of this notice, to revise the 

cash deposit rates for the companiesy 

listed above, effective as of the 

publication date of this notice. In 

addition, we will also instruct CBP to 

11082 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 

1As noted in the Preliminary Results, on 

December 6, 2007, the Department selected Dongbu, 

HYSCO, the POSCO Group and Union as 

mandatory respondents in this review. See 

Memorandum from Christopher Hargett, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, through 

James Terpstra, Program Manager, to Melissa 

Skinner, Director, Office 3, entitled ‘‘2006-2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

the Republic of Korea: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated December 6, 2007. 

2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 35366 (June 23, 2008). 

liquidate all entries at the appropriate 

rates. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–5665 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–580–816) 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the 

Fourteenth Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review for certain 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea). See Certain Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52267 (September 9, 2008) (Preliminary 

Results). This review covers seven 

manufacturers and exporters 

(collectively, the respondents) of the 

subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. 

(LG), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. (Haewon), 

Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk), 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu), 

Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), Pohang Iron 

& Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang 

Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO Group), and 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Union) (collectively, respondents).1

The period of review (POR) is August 1, 

2006, through July 31, 2007. 

As a result of our analysis of the 

comments received, these final results 

differ from the Preliminary Results. For 

our final results, we find that Dongbu, 

HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union, 

made sales of subject merchandise at 

less than normal value (NV). In 

addition, based on the final results for 

the respondents selected for individual 

review, we have determined a 

weighted–average margin for those 

companies that were not selected for 

individual review. Further, we find that 

the single sale made by Haewon during 

the POR was covered by the new 

shipper review published in the Federal 

Register on June 23, 2008,2 and thus, 

Haewon should be rescinded from the 

instant review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska (Union), Cindy Robinson 

(Dongbu), Christopher Hargett (HYSCO) 

and Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group, 

and non–selected companies), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8362, (202) 482– 

3797, (202) 482–4161, and (202) 482– 

5075, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 9, 2008, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results. In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department determined that during the 

POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO 

Group, and Union, made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review, the 

Department calculated a weighted– 

average margin for those companies that 

were not selected for individual review. 

On November 12, 2008, the Department 

extended the time limits for the final 

results of this review until no later than 

March 9, 2009. See Corrosion–Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 

Limits for the Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 66841 (November 12, 

2008). 

Comments from Interested Parties 

We invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. On October 9, 

2008, ArcelorMittal Steel Inc. (Mittal), 

United States Steel Corporation (US 

Steel), and Nucor Corporation (Nucor) 

filed case briefs concerning all four 

mandatory respondents. On the same 

day, the four mandatory respondents 

and Haewon filed case briefs. On 

October 17, 2008, Mittal, US Steel, and 

Nucor filed rebuttal briefs concerning 

all of the mandatory respondents. The 

four mandatory respondents filed 

rebuttal briefs on the same day. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers cold–rolled (cold– 

reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measures at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 

this order are corrosion–resistant flat– 

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross–section where such cross–section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) – for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat–rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (terne plate), or both chromium 

and chromium oxides (tin–free steel), 

whether or not painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating. Also excluded from 

this order are clad products in straight