15254 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Notices 

1We note that the Court of International Trade 

cited an incorrect 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. 

Register notice, we are republishing the 

notice in its entirety. Specifically, there 

were errors in the title, the listed period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) and two misspellings 

in the ‘‘Amended Final Results’’ section. 

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, through March 

31, 2005.1 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) . 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 are 

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 companies 

listed above, effective as of the 

publication date of this notice. In 

addition, we will also instruct CBP to 

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 27, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7522 Filed 4–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Public Comment on the 

Wholly Formed Requirement for 

Qualifying Woven Fabric Under the 

Dominican Republic Earned Import 

Allowance Program 

AGENCY: Department of Commerce, 

International Trade Administration, 

Office of Textiles and Apparel. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

the wholly formed requirement for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Notices 15255 

qualifying woven fabric under the 

Dominican Republic Earned Import 

Allowance Program. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Textiles and 

Apparel (‘‘OTEXA’’) requests public 

comment on the wholly formed 

requirement of qualifying woven fabric 

under the Dominican Republic Earned 

Import Allowance Program. 

DATES: Commerce will consider 

comments received by 5:00pm on May 

4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to: Janet Heinzen, Director, 

Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 

3001, United States Department of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Carrigg, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-2573. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Section 2(a) of the Andean 

Trade Preference Extension Act of 

2008(‘‘ATPEA’’); Section 404(b)(2)(H) of the 

Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Agreement Implementation 

Act, as amended; Imports of Certain Apparel 

Articles: Interim Procedures for the 

Implementation of the Earned Import 

Allowance Program Established Under the 

Andean Trade Preference Act of 2008 (74 FR 

3563, published January 21, 2009) (‘‘Interim 

Procedures’’). 

BACKGROUND: 

On December 1, 2008 the Department 

of Commerce implemented provisions 

under the Andean Trade Preference 

Extension Act of 2008 (Public Law 110- 

436, 122 Stat. 4976) (‘‘ATPEA’’). Section 

2 of the ATPEA amends Title IV of the 

Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act (Public Law 109-53; 

119 Stat. 495). Specifically, Title IV of 

the Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act is 

amended by adding Section 404 creating 

a benefit for eligible apparel articles 

wholly assembled in the Dominican 

Republic that meet the requirements for 

a ‘‘2 for 1’’ earned import allowance. 

Section 2 of the ATPEA requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to establish a 

program to provide earned import 

allowance certificates to any producer 

or entity controlling production of 

eligible apparel articles in the 

Dominican Republic, such that apparel 

wholly assembled in the Dominican 

Republic from fabric or yarns, regardless 

of their source, and imported directly 

from the Dominican Republic, may 

enter the United States duty-free, 

pursuant to the satisfaction of the terms 

governing issuance of the earned import 

allowance certificate. The Secretary of 

Commerce has delegated his authority 

under the Act to implement and 

administer the Earned Import 

Allowance Program to the International 

Trade Administration’s Office of 

Textiles and Apparel (‘‘OTEXA’’). 

On January 21, 2009, OTEXA 

published interim procedures, 74 FR 

3563, implementing Section 2 of the 

ATPEA. These procedures set forth the 

provisions OTEXA will follow in 

implementing the Earned Import 

Allowance Program. In accordance with 

these procedures, OTEXA will issue 

certificates to qualifying apparel 

producers to accompany imports of 

eligible apparel articles wholly formed 

in the Dominican Republic and 

exported from the Dominican Republic. 

Such certificates will be issued as long 

as there is a sufficient balance of square 

meter equivalents available as a result of 

the purchase of qualifying woven fabric. 

‘‘Qualifying woven fabric’’ is defined in 

Section 2 of the ATPEA and in OTEXA’s 

interim procedures as ‘‘woven fabric of 

cotton wholly formed in the United 

States from yarns wholly formed in the 

United States’’ and intended for 

production of apparel in the Dominican 

Republic. See Section 2(e) of the Interim 

Procedures; Section 404(c)(4) of the 

Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act, as amended by 

Section 2 of the Andean Trade 

Preference Extension Act of 2008. 

Neither the ATPEA nor the interim 

procedures define the term ‘‘wholly 

formed– as it is used in the definition 

of ‘‘qualifying woven fabric.’’ 

OTEXA has received inquiries 

regarding the interpretation of ‘‘wholly 

formed’’ as a requirement under the 

definition of ‘‘qualifying woven fabric.’’ 

OTEXA currently interprets ‘‘wholly 

formed’’ within the definition of 

‘‘qualifying woven fabric’’ to require 

that all production processes and 

finishing operations, starting with 

weaving and ending with a fabric ready 

for cutting or assembly without further 

processing, took place in the United 

States. OTEXA believes this 

interpretation to be consistent with 

similar definitions and interpretations 

of the term ‘‘wholly formed.’’ 

Pursuant to the ATPEA, these 

procedures may be modified to address 

concerns that may arise as OTEXA gains 

experience in implementing them. See 

Section 2(b)(2)(H) of the ATPEA. 

OTEXA requests public comment on the 

‘‘wholly formed’’ requirement in the 

definition of ‘‘qualifying woven fabric’’ 

for the purposes of the Dominican 

Republic Earned Import Allowance 

Program. 

Comments must be in English, and 

must be received no later than May 4, 

2009. Comments should be addressed 

to: Janet Heinzen, Director, Office of 

Textiles and Apparel, Room 3001, 

United States Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. 20230. 

Comments may be submitted in 

writing or electronically. 

(1) An electronic mail (‘‘email’’) 

version of the comments must be 

either in PDF, Word, or WordPerfect format, and sent to the 

following email address: 

OTEXAlDR2for1@mail.doc.gov. 

(2) All comments submitted will be 

made available for public review on 

the Office of Textile and Apparel 

(‘‘OTEXA’’), Dominican Republic 2 

x 1 website at http:// 

otexa.ita.doc.gov/. 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Janet E. Heinzen, 

Director, Office of Textiles and Apparel. 

[FR Doc. E9–7525 Filed 4–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

[Docket No.: 090306279–9290–01] 

Proposed Revision to Voluntary 

Product Standard (PS) 20–05 

‘‘American Softwood Lumber 

Standard’’ 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public 

that the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) is seeking 

comments for the proposed revision of 

Voluntary Product Standard (PS) 20–05, 

‘‘American Softwood Lumber 

Standard.’’ This standard, prepared by 

the American Lumber Standard 

Committee, serves the procurement and 

regulatory needs of numerous federal, 

state, and local government agencies by 

providing for uniform, industry-wide 

grade-marking and inspection 

requirements for softwood lumber. The 

implementation of the standard also 

allows for uniform labeling and auditing 

of treated wood and, through a 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

labeling and auditing of wood packaging 

materials for international trade. As part 

of a five-year review process, NIST is 

seeking public comment and invites 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES