Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11911 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–0192 or (202) 482–3674. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 25, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of preliminary results 

of the full sunset review of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from 

Ukraine, pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR 

71603. In our Preliminary Results, we 

found that the termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine 

would be likely to lead to a continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the margins 

determined in the final determination of 

the original investigation. Id. We 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. Id. We did not 

receive comments from either domestic 

or respondent interested parties. 

Scope of Review 

The products covered by the 

Agreement include hot–rolled iron and 

non–alloy steel universal mill plates 

(i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four 

faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 

exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 

1250 mm and of a thickness of not less 

than 4 mm, not in coils and without 

patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, 

neither clad, plated nor coated with 

metal, whether or not painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances; and 

certain iron and non–alloy steel flat– 

rolled products not in coils, of 

rectangular shape, hot–rolled, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or 

more in thickness and of a width which 

exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 

twice the thickness. Included as subject 

merchandise in the Agreement are flat– 

rolled products of nonrectangular 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. This merchandise 

is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 

7212.50.0000. Although the HTS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

Agreement is dispositive. Specifically 

excluded from subject merchandise 

within the scope of this Agreement is 

grade X–70 steel plate. 

Final Results of Review 

We have made no changes to our 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR 71603. We 

continue to find that termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on CTL plate from Ukraine 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

percentage weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturer/producer/ 

exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Azovstal ........................ 81.43 

Ilyich .............................. 155.00 

Ukraine–wide ................ 237.91 

In accordance with section 752(c)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the 

International Trade Commission of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

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 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–6160 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the 2007 Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting the 2007 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). We 

preliminarily determine that sales have 

not been made below normal value (NV) 

with respect to those exporters who 

participated fully and are entitled to a 

separate rate in the administrative 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 

without regard to antidumping duties, 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review (POR) from these 

exporters. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, 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. 

Case History 

On April 17, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (the Order). 

On April 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 17317 (April 1, 2008). 

On April 23 and 30, 2008, the 

Department received timely requests for 

an administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213 from the following 

companies: Longkou Orient Autoparts 

Co., Ltd. (Longkou Orient), Qingdao 

Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. 

(Meita), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Winhere), 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory 

(LABEC), Laizhou City Luqi Machinery 

Co., Ltd. (Luqi), Longkou Haimeng 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Haimeng), Laizhou 

Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., 

Ltd. (Hongda), Dixion Brake System 

11912 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioner is the Coalition for the 

Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor 

Aftermarket Manufacturers. 

2The names of these companies or producer/ 

exporter combinations are as follows: (1) Meita; (2) 

Winhere; (3) Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery 

Limited Company (ZGOLD); (4) Longkou TLC 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Longkou TLC); (5) Longkou 

Jinzheng Machinery Co. (Jinzheng); (6) Qingdao 

Gren Co. (Gren); (7) Xianghe Zichen Casting 

Company, Ltd. (Xianghe Zichen); (8) Laizhou Luda 

Sedan Fittings Company, Ltd. (Luda); (9) Zibo Botai 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Zibo Botai); (10) Laizhou 

Sanli (Sanli); (11) China National Automotive 

Industry Import & Export Corporation (CAIEC) or 

National Automotive Industry Import & Export 

Corporation, excluding entries manufactured by 

Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (Laizhou 

CAPCO); and (12) Laizhou CAPCO, excluding 

entries manufactured by Laizhou CAPCO. 

3See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Request for Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated 

August 7, 2008. 

4See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries,’’ dated August 7, 2008 (Policy 

Memorandum). 

5See the Department’s letter entitled, ‘‘2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ requesting parties to 

provide comments on surrogate-country selection 

and provide surrogate factors of production values 

from the potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and 

Thailand). 

6These three companies are CAIEC, Laizhou 

CAPCO, and Longkou Orient. 

7These seven companies are CAIEC, Dixion, 

Haimeng, Laizhou CAPCO, Longkou Orient, Luqi, 

and Wally. 

8These eight companies are Gren, Longkou 

Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, 

Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai. 

9See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Request for U.S. Entry Documents—Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–846),’’ 

dated October 10, 2008. 

10See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China, Results of Request for Assistance 

from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on U.S. 

Entry Documents,’’ dated December 5, 2008. 

(Longkou) Ltd. (Dixion), and Laizhou 

Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (Wally). On 

April 30, 2008, the Department also 

received timely requests from the 

petitioner 1 for an administrative review 

of 12 companies (or producer/exporter 

combinations).2

On June 4, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brake rotors from the PRC for 19 

individually named firms covering the 

period April 1, 2007, through March 31, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 31813 (June 4, 2008). On 

June 25, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC (see Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order 

Pursuant to Second Five-Year (Sunset) 

Review, 73 FR 36039 (June 25, 2008)). 

As a result of the revocation of the 

order, effective August 14, 2007, the 

period of this review was changed from 

April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, 

to April 1, 2007, through August 13, 

2007 (see June 27, 2008, Memorandum 

to The File entitled ‘‘Change in the 

Period of Review’’). 

On July 1, 2008, the Department 

placed on the record a memorandum 

containing CBP data for U.S. imports of 

subject merchandise from the PRC made 

during the POR. The Department also 

stated in that memorandum that it 

intended to select respondents for 

individual review based on the CBP 

import data. The Department provided 

parties with an opportunity to comment 

on the CBP import data and respondent 

selection (see July 1, 2008, 

Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Release of POR Entry Data from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection’’). On 

July 11, 2008, eight respondent 

companies submitted comments to the 

Department on the respondent selection 

process. Also, Dixion and Wally 

withdrew their requests for an 

administrative review. 

On July 29, 2008, because it was not 

feasible to examine all 19 companies for 

which an administrative review was 

initiated, the Department selected the 

two largest companies based on CBP 

import data, Haimeng and Winhere, as 

mandatory respondents in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

remaining 17 respondents were not 

selected for individual review. See 

Memorandum from Irene Darzenta 

Tzafolias to James P. Maeder, Jr., ‘‘2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated July 29, 2008 (Respondent 

Selection Memo); and ‘‘Separate rates’’ 

section below. 

On August 1, 2008, we issued 

Haimeng and Winhere the antidumping 

duty questionnaire. 

On August 7, 2008, we requested that 

the Import Administration’s Office of 

Policy (the Office of Policy) issue a 

surrogate-country memorandum for the 

selection of the appropriate surrogate 

countries for this review.3 On the same 

date, the Office of Policy provided us 

with a list of five countries at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC.4

Between August 11 and August 26, 

2008, the Department issued letters to 

the respondents not selected for 

individual review requesting (1) a 

separate-rate certification or application 

or (2) a no-shipment statement if 

applicable. Also during this time period, 

the Department invited interested 

parties participating in this 

administrative review to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and to submit publicly 

available information as surrogate 

values (SVs) for purposes of calculating 

NV.5 No parties submitted surrogate 

country comments or publicly available 

SV information in this administrative 

review. 

During July, August and September 

2008, the Department received timely 

submissions from several companies for 

which the review was initiated: Three 

companies 6 certified that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR; seven companies 

withdrew their review requests, 

including Haimeng (i.e., one of the 

selected mandatory respondents); 7 eight 

companies 8 submitted their separaterate certifications in response to the 

Department’s request; and Winhere 

submitted its responses to the 

antidumping duty questionnaire. 

On September 9, 2008, the 

Department rescinded this review with 

respect to Dixion, Haimeng, Longkou 

Orient, Luqi, and Wally. See Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 53193 (September 15, 

2008). 

On October 10, 2008, we requested 

entry documentation from CBP for 

certain entries of brake rotors exported 

by CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO 

during the POR.9

The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Winhere 

on November 14, 2008, and received 

Winhere’s supplemental questionnaire 

response on November 28, 2008. 

On December 5, 2008, the Department 

placed on the record copies of CBP 

documents pertaining to certain entries 

of brake rotors from the PRC exported 

by CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO to the 

United States during the POR.10

On December 11, 2008, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

results of this review until March 2, 

2009. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 77004 

(December 18, 2008). 

On December 16, 2008, the 

Department placed on the record a 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11913 

11As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification 

for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 

to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS 

classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 

8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. See Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007) (Rev. 2), 

available at http://www.usitc.gov. 

12The non-mandatory respondents which 

submitted separate-rate certifications are as follows: 

Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou 

TLC, Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai. 

13See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 

1997); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 

61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). 

memorandum regarding the three 

companies (i.e., Luda, Sanli and 

ZGOLD) that did not submit a separaterates application or certification in this 

administrative review. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Efforts to Provide Companies’’ with the 

Department’s August 26, 2008, Separate 

Rates Questionnaire, Separate Rates 

Certification Questionnaire, and No 

Shipments Instructions’’ (December 16, 

2008 Memorandum to the File). 

On March 2, 2009, the Department 

further postponed the preliminary 

results of this review until March 16, 

2009. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 9787 (March 6, 2009). 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2007, through 

August 13, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

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 and 

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 on which the 

surface is not entirely smooth, and have 

undergone some drilling. 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, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in 

this order 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 this 

order 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).11 Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order 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 assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of subject merchandise subject 

to review in an NME country a single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent of 

government control to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 74764, 74766 (December 

16, 2005) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

For the administrative review, in 

order to demonstrate separate-rate status 

eligibility, the Department normally 

requires entities, for which a review was 

requested, and which were assigned a 

separate-rate in a previous segment of 

this proceeding, to submit a separaterate certification stating that they 

continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. For entities 

that were not assigned a separate rate in 

the previous segment of a proceeding, to 

demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department requires a separate-rate 

application. In this administrative 

review, eight entities not selected for 

individual review (i.e., separate-rate 

respondents) submitted separate-rate 

certifications. The mandatory 

respondent, Winhere, and the eight 

separate-rate respondents 12 provided 

company-specific information and each 

stated that it meets the criteria for the 

assignment of a separate rate. 

We considered whether the 

mandatory and eight separate-rate 

respondents were eligible for a separate 

rate. The Department’s separate-rate 

status test to determine whether the 

exporter is independent from 

government control does not consider, 

in general, macroeconomic/border-type 

controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 

and minimum export prices), 

particularly if these controls are 

imposed to prevent dumping. The test 

focuses, rather, on controls over the 

investment, pricing, and output 

decision-making process at the 

individual firm level.13

To establish whether an exporter is 

sufficiently independent of government 

control to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the Department analyzes the exporter in 

light of select criteria, discussed below. 

See Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), 

and Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22586, 22587 (May 2, 1994) 

(Silicon Carbide). Under this test, 

exporters in NME countries are entitled 

to separate, company-specific margins 

when they can demonstrate an absence 

of government control over exports, 

both in law (de jure) and in fact (de 

facto). 

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; or (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR 20589. Winhere and 

the eight separate-rate respondents each 

placed on the administrative record 

documents to demonstrate an absence of 

de jure control (e.g., the 1994 ‘‘Foreign 

Trade Law of the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ and the 1999 ‘‘Company Law of 

the People’s Republic of China’’). As in 

prior cases, we analyzed the laws 

presented to us and found them to 

establish sufficiently an absence of de 

jure control. See, e.g., Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

11914 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

14See December 5, 2008, Memorandum to the 

File entitled ‘‘Results of Request for Assistance from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry 

Documents.’’ 

Review, 72 FR 102, 105 (January 3, 

2007), and Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China; Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 937, 944 (January 

9, 2007). We have no new information 

in this review which would cause us to 

reconsider this determination with 

regard to Winhere. Therefore, we 

believe that evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of an 

absence of de jure government control 

with regard to Winhere. 

The eight separate-rate respondents 

(Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou 

Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe 

Zichen, and Zibo Botai) and Winhere 

each certified that as in the previous 

period where it was granted a separate 

rate, there is an absence of de jure 

government control. Each separate-rate 

respondent’s certification stated, where 

applicable, that it had no relationship 

with any level of the PRC government 

with respect to ownership, internal 

management, and business operations. 

In this segment, we have no new 

information that would cause us to 

reconsider the previous period’s de jure 

control determination with regard to 

these companies. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

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, 59 FR at 22586, 

22587. 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 government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The Department typically considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government 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, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

In this review, Gren, Jinzheng, 

LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, 

Meita, Xianghe Zichen, Zibo Botai, and 

Winhere each asserted the following: (1) 

It establishes its own export prices; (2) 

it negotiates contracts without guidance 

from any government 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, each 

of these companies’ separate-rates 

certifications or questionnaire responses 

indicate that its pricing during the POR 

does not involve coordination among 

exporters. 

Thus, we preliminarily determine that 

Gren, Jinzheng, LABEC, Laizhou 

Hongda, Longkou TLC, Meita, Xianghe 

Zichen, Zibo Botai, and Winhere have 

each met the criteria for the application 

of a separate rate based on the 

documentation each of these 

respondents has submitted on the 

record of this review. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

As discussed above, in this 

administrative review we limited the 

selection of respondents using CBP 

import data. See Respondent Selection 

Memo. In this case, we sent the 

separate-rates application and 

certification to the companies which 

were not selected as mandatory 

respondents. See August 26, 2008, 

letters to Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD. Luda, 

Sanli and ZGOLD did not apply for a 

separate rate or provide a separate-rate 

certification, as appropriate, nor did 

they indicate that they did not make 

shipments of the subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. See 

December 16, 2008, Memorandum to the 

File. Therefore, Luda, Sanli, and ZGOLD 

are considered to be a part of the PRCwide entity. Because the Department 

determines preliminarily that there were 

exports of merchandise under review 

from PRC producers/exporters that did 

not demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate-rate status, the PRC-wide entity 

is now under review. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2007 

Administrative Review 

With respect to CAIEC and Laizhou 

CAPCO, each company informed the 

Department that it did not export the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. Specifically, 

CAIEC stated that it did not export brake 

rotors to the United States that were 

manufactured by producers other than 

Laizhou CAPCO and Laizhou CAPCO 

stated that it did not export brake rotors 

to the United States that were 

manufactured by producers other than 

Laizhou CAPCO. In order to corroborate 

their submissions, we reviewed PRC 

brake rotor shipment data maintained 

by CBP.14 In reviewing the CBP import 

data and entry documentation for 

certain brake rotor entries made by 

CAIEC and/or Laizhou CAPCO, we 

found no evidence contradicting 

CAIEC’s and Laizhou CAPCO’s claims 

of no shipments of subject merchandise 

to the United States during the POR. 

Based on the record of this review, we 

conclude that CAIEC and Laizhou 

CAPCO did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 

preliminarily rescinding this 

administrative review for CAIEC and 

Laizhou CAPCO. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 

Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 

(February 10, 2006). None of the parties 

in this administrative review has 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production (FOP), 

valued in a surrogate market economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall use, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs 

in one or more market-economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below. See also the Department’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11915 

15See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 

Results Margin Calculation for Yantai Winhere 

Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 

16, 2009 (Winhere Calculation Memo). 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the 2007 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum,’’ dated March 16, 2009 

(Surrogate Value Memorandum). 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia and Thailand are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See Policy 

Memorandum. Customarily, we select 

an appropriate surrogate country from 

the policy memorandum based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In this case, we found that India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC; is a significant 

producer of the subject merchandise 

(i.e., brake rotors); and has publicly 

available and reliable data. See March 

16, 2009, Memorandum to the File 

entitled, ‘‘2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country’’ 

(Surrogate Country Memorandum). 

Accordingly, we selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for purposes 

of valuing the FOPs in the calculation 

of NV because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

See Surrogate Country Memorandum. 

We obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

antidumping administrative reviews, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Winhere to the 

United States were made at prices below 

NV, we compared Winhere’s export 

prices (EPs) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice below, pursuant 

to section 773 of the Act. 

Export Price 

Because Winhere sold subject 

merchandise to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation into the United States and 

use of a constructed-export-price 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated, we used EP in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act. 

We calculated EP based on the 

reported method of delivery to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling charges 

in the PRC pursuant to section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.15 Because 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate rates from India. 

See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section below 

for further discussion of surrogate rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

SVs to use in a given case, the 

Department’s stated practice is to use 

review period-wide price averages, 

prices specific to the input in question, 

prices that are net of taxes and import 

duties, prices that are contemporaneous 

with the POR, and publicly available 

data. See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils 

from the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. The data 

we used for brokerage and handling 

expenses fulfill all of the foregoing 

criteria except that they are not specific 

to the subject merchandise. There is no 

information of that type on the record of 

this review. The Department used three 

sources to calculate an SV for domestic 

brokerage expenses: (1) Data from 

Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (Kejriwal) for the 

period of investigation July 1, 2004, to 

June 30, 2005 (see Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final 

determination)); (2) data from Essar 

Steel Limited (Essar) for the period of 

investigation July 1, 2004, through June 

30, 2005 (see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006) 

(unchanged in final results)); and (3) 

data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. for 

the POR February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) 

(unchanged in final results)). Because 

these values were not concurrent with 

the POR of this administrative review, 

we adjusted these rates for inflation 

using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) 

for India as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and 

then calculated a simple average of the 

three companies’ brokerage expense 

data. 

The Department valued inland truck 

freight expenses using a deflated perunit average rate calculated from data 

on the following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Because this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using WPI data. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Winhere reported that its U.S. 

customers purchased ball bearing cup 

and lug nuts from PRC producers that 

were delivered to Winhere in specific 

quantities free-of-charge, and that the 

components were then incorporated 

into certain brake rotor models shipped 

to U.S. customers during the POR. 

Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that 

‘‘factors of production utilized in 

producing merchandise include, but are 

not limited to the quantities of raw 

materials employed.’’See, e.g., 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, 66305 (November 

14, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at Comment 9; 

see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Final Rescission, in 

Part, of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 54361 

(September 14, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 13. 

Therefore, to reflect the U.S. customers’ 

expenditures for these items, we added 

the Indian SV for each component (i.e., 

the ball bearing cups and lug nuts) used 

to the U.S. price of the applicable brake 

rotor models. For further information, 

see Winhere Calculation Memo. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home market 

prices, third country prices, or 

11916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

16Because the POR ends on the 13th day of 

August 2007, we obtained the monthly totals for 

April 2007 through July 2007 for all WTA data 

(including the packing materials and energy inputs 

as discussed below). 

17See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 1. 

18The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 

19See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 1999– 

2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; and China National Machinery Imp. & 

Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department will base NV 

on FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Therefore, we calculated 

NV based on FOP in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.408(c). 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC FOPs in accordance 

with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The 

FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used the 

FOPs reported by Winhere for materials, 

energy, labor, and packing. See section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. 

In examining SVs, we selected, where 

possible, the publicly available value, 

which was an average non-export value, 

representative of a range of prices 

within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004) (Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates) (unchanged in final 

determination). For a detailed 

explanation of the methodology used to 

calculate SVs, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Regarding the components supplied 

free of charge to Winhere noted above, 

section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that 

the ‘‘factors of production include but 

are not limited to the quantities of raw 

materials employed.’’ Therefore, 

consistent with the corresponding 

adjustment to U.S. price discussed 

above, we valued the ball bearing cups 

and lug nuts usage amounts reported by 

Winhere for specific brake rotor models 

by using an Indian SV for each input. 

See Winhere Calculation Memo and 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Winhere for the POR. 

We relied on the factor-specific data 

submitted by Winhere for the abovementioned inputs in its questionnaire 

and supplemental questionnaire 

responses, where applicable, for 

purposes of selecting SVs. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor consumption 

rates by publicly available Indian SVs. 

In selecting the SVs, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, we 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 

import SVs a surrogate freight cost using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). See 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 

1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where 

necessary, we adjusted the SVs for 

inflation/deflation using the WPI as 

published in the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial 

Statistics, available at http:// 

ifs.apdi.net/imf. 

We valued the raw materials 

(including ball bearing cups and lug 

nuts), packing materials, coke input and 

firewood input using April 2007 

through July 2007,16 weighted-average 

unit import values derived from the 

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 

of India (MSFTI), as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India and compiled by 

the World Trade Atlas (WTA), available 

at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The 

Indian WTA import data is reported in 

rupees and is contemporaneous with the 

POR.17 Indian SVs denominated in 

Indian rupees were converted to U.S. 

dollars using the applicable daily 

exchange rate for India for the POR. See 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. Where appropriate, we 

converted the units of measure to 

kilograms. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA 

Indian import-based SVs, we have 

disregarded prices from NME 

countries 18 and those we have reason to 

believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

because we have found in other 

proceedings that these exporting 

countries maintain broadly available, 

non-industry-specific export subsidies 

and, therefore, there is reason to believe 

or suspect that all exports to all markets 

from such countries may be 

subsidized.19 We are also guided by the 

statute’s legislative history that explains 

that it is not necessary to conduct a 

formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 

No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590–91 

(1988). Rather, the Department was 

instructed by Congress to base its 

decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it is making its 

determination. Therefore, we excluded 

export prices from Indonesia, South 

Korea, Thailand, and India when 

calculating the Indian import-based 

SVs. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Finally, we excluded imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value, because we could not be certain 

that they were not from either an NME 

or a country with general export 

subsidies. 

As discussed above, the Department 

valued surrogate freight cost by using a 

deflated per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the following Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 

9, 2008) (unchanged in Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009); 

and Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 8. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used July 2006 electricity price rates 

from Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. Because this data was not 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 11917 

20See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and 

Partial Rescission of the 2005–2006 Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 42386, 42389 (August 22, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2 (2005–2006 Brake Rotors). 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 5. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rates reflective of 

the observed relationship between 

wages and national income in marketeconomy countries as reported on 

Import Administration’s Web site. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries’’ (revised January 2007) 

(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). 

For further details on the labor 

calculation, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 7. Because 

the regression-based wage rates do not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, we applied 

the same wage rate to all skill levels and 

types of labor reported by Winhere. 

Winhere reported that during the 

manufacturing process, its subject 

merchandise was transported from its 

casting facility to its finishing 

workshop. Using Winhere’s reported 

distance and the reported cast weight of 

its rotors, we valued the other PRC 

distance (i.e., domestic inland freight 

cost of transporting unfinished castings 

from the casting facility to Winhere’s 

finishing workshop facility) with the 

surrogate truck rate discussed above. 

This additional freight value was added 

to the cost of manufacture (COM). See 

Winhere Calculation Memorandum. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (SG&A), 

and profit values, consistent with 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the public 

information from the 2007 annual report 

of Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. 

(Bosch) and 2007–2008 annual report of 

Rico Auto Industries Limited (Rico).20

From this information, we were able to 

determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor, and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A 

as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., COM); and the profit rate as a 

percentage of the COM plus SG&A. 

Where appropriate, we did not include 

in the surrogate overhead and SG&A 

calculations the excise duty amount 

listed in the financial reports. For a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum and its accompanying 

calculation worksheets at Attachment 6. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

April 1, 2007, through August 13, 2007: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Individually reviewed exporter 2007 administrative review Weighted-average percent margin (percent) 

Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd ...................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Separate-rate applicant exporters 2007 administrative review Weighted-average percent margin (percent) 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd ..................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd .................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd ........................................................................................ 0.04 (de minimis). 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd ............................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co ........................................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd .............................................................................. 0.04 (de minimis). 

Xianghe Zichen Casting Company, Ltd ....................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd ............................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis). 

PRC-Wide Rate Margin (percent) 

PRC-wide rate (including Laizhou Luda Sedan Fittings Company, Ltd., Laizhou Sanli and 

Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company).

43.32 

Rate for Non-Selected Respondents 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

instructs that we are not to calculate an 

all-others rate using any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

entirely on facts available. Accordingly, 

the Department’s practice in this regard, 

in reviews involving limited selection 

based on exporters accounting for the 

largest volumes of trade, has been to 

average the rates for the selected 

companies excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) 

of the Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available, we may use 

‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning 

the rate to non-selected respondents, 

including ‘‘averaging the estimated 

weighted average dumping margins 

determined for the exporters and 

producers individually investigated.’’ 

The Department has available in 

administrative reviews information that 

would not be available in an 

investigation, namely rates from prior 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews. Accordingly, since the final 

results of the last review, the 

Department has determined that in 

cases where we have found dumping 

margins in previous segments of a 

proceeding, a reasonable method for 

determining the rate for non-selected 

companies is to use the most recent rate 

calculated for the non-selected company 

in question, unless we calculated in a 

more recent review a rate for any 

11918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 53 / Friday, March 20, 2009 / Notices 

21Because the brake rotors order was revoked 

effective August 14, 2007, this is the last 

administrative review that the Department will 

conduct. 

company that was not zero, de minimis 

or based entirely on facts available. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 (September 

9, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Rescission of Review in 

Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 

2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 16; 

see also Certain Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review and Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of the Fourth Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52015 (Sept. 8, 2008) 

(changed in final results as final 

calculated rate for mandatory 

respondent was above de minimis). 

While we intend to continue to apply 

the policy articulated in the above-cited 

cases in future reviews, where 

appropriate, we do not believe that any 

change in this late stage of the brake 

rotors proceeding is warranted.21 For 

purposes of consistency and equity to 

the parties, the Department does not 

believe that it is appropriate to 

reexamine the issue in this final 

segment of the brake rotors proceeding, 

in light of more recent decisions in 

other administrative reviews. Thus, we 

are assigning the non-selected separate 

rate companies the de minimis rate 

calculated for the sole mandatory 

respondent. With respect to the PRCwide entity (including Luda, Sanli and 

ZGOLD), we have assigned the entity’s 

current rate and only rate ever 

determined for the entity in this 

proceeding. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, will be 

due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

are requested to provide a summary of 

the arguments not to exceed five pages 

and a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. Additionally, parties are 

requested to provide their case brief and 

rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). Interested 

parties who wish to request a hearing or 

to participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Winhere, 

we calculated an importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rate for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Because we do not have entered values 

on the record for Winhere’s sales, we 

calculated a per-unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the antidumping duties due 

for all U.S. sales to each importer (or 

customer) and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity sold to that importer 

(or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate-rate that were not selected for 

individual review (i.e., Gren, Jinzheng, 

LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, 

Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai), 

we will calculate an assessment rate 

based on the weighted-average margins 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. As 

Winhere is the only mandatory 

respondent in this review and its margin 

is de minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties with 

respect to the eight separate-rate 

respondents. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity 

(including Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate 

of 43.32 percent. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the PRC was revoked 

effective August 14, 2007 (see Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Revocation of Antidumping Duty 

Order Pursuant to Second Five-Year 

(Sunset) Review, 73 FR 36039 (June 25, 

2008)). As a result, we instructed CBP 

to terminate the suspension of 

liquidation of entries of the subject 

merchandise. Therefore, the collection 

of cash deposits of antidumping duties 

on entries of the subject merchandise is 

no longer required. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 16, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–6174 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P