Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27063

1The petitioner is the Coalition for the

Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor

Aftermarket Manufacturers.

2The respondent in the new shipper review is

Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongfa’’).

The respondents in the administrative review are

the following exporters/producer combinations

(which are excluded from the order on brake rotors

only with respect to brake rotors sold through those

combinations): (1) China National Automobile

Industry Import & Export Corporation (‘‘CAIEC’’) or

Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (‘‘Laizhou

CAPCO’’)/(Laizhou CAPCO; (2) Sheyang Honbase

Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sheyang Honbase’’) or

Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Laizhou Luyuan’’)/Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou

Luyuan; and (3) China National Machinery and

Equipment Import & Export (Xinjiang) Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Xinjiang’’)/Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Zibo’’).

On Friday, June 22, the meeting will

begin at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at

approximately 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Sheraton Reston Hotel, 11810

Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20191.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri

Green, Committee Liaison Officer,

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Building 3,

Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301–

457–2075, TDD 301–457–2540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Decennial Census Advisory Committee

is composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and

up to 40 member organizations, all

appointed by the Secretary of

Commerce. The Committee considers

the goals of the decennial census and

users’ needs for information provided

by that census. The Committee provides

an outside user perspective about how

research and design plans for the 2010

decennial census, and the development

of the American Community Survey and

other related programs, will realize

those goals and satisfy those needs. The

members of the Advisory Committee

draw on their experience with Census

2000 planning and operational

processes, results of research studies,

test censuses, and results of the Census

2000 Evaluation Program, to provide

input on the design and related

operations of the 2010 decennial census,

the American Community Survey, and

other related decennial programs.

A brief period will be set aside at the

meeting for public comment. However,

individuals with extensive statements

for the record must submit them in

writing to the Census Bureau Committee

Liaison Officer named above at least

three working days prior to the meeting.

Seating is available to the public on a

first-come, first-serve basis.

The meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to the

Census Bureau Committee Liaison

Officer.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Lee Price,

Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs,

Economics and Statistics Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–12381 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Fourth New

Shipper Review and Rescission of

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results and

partial rescission of fourth new shipper

review and rescission of third

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On January 8, 2001, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results and partial

rescission of the fourth new shipper

review and the preliminary rescission of

the third antidumping duty

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on brake rotors

from the People’s Republic of China.

See Brake Rotors from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of the Fourth

New Shipper Review and Rescission of

the Third Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303

(January 8, 2001) (Preliminary Results).

The new shipper review initially

covered two respondents and the

administrative review was requested for

three exporter/producer combinations

(see ‘‘Background’’ section below for

further discussion). The period of

review is April 1, 1999, through March

31, 2000. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results.

Based on the additional publicly

available information used in these final

results and the comments received from

the interested parties, we have made

changes in the margin calculation for

the one respondent in the new shipper

review. The final weighted-average

dumping margin for the reviewed firm

in the new shipper review is listed

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final

Results of New Shipper Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith or Brian Ledgerwood,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

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

3836.

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 (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On January 9, 2001, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results and partial

rescission of the fourth new shipper

review and rescission of the third

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on brake

rotors from the People’s Republic of

China (‘‘PRC’’) (66 FR 1303). The

petitioner1 submitted its case brief on

March 15, 2001. The respondents2

submitted their rebuttal brief on March

22, 2001.

On April 9, 2001, we placed on the

record additional publicly available

information for pallet wood for

consideration in the final results and

provided the parties with an

opportunity for comment. On April 16,

2001, both parties submitted comments

on this additional information.

The Department has conducted these

reviews in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews 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

27064 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

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

these reviews 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

these reviews 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, our

written description of the scope of these

reviews is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of New Shipper

Review

We have rescinded the new shipper

review with respect to Luoyang

Haoxiang Brake Disc Factory

(‘‘Luoyang’’) because Luoyang did not

respond to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire. Section

776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that

‘‘if an interested party or any other

person (A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority or the Commission under this

title, (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for

submission of the information or in the

from and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title, or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority and the

Commission shall, subject to subsection

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.’’

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may use an

inference that is adverse to the interests

of a party that has failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with the Department’s requests

for necessary information. See also

Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.

103–316 (1994) (SAA) at 870. Failure by

Luoyang to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire constitutes a

failure to act to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information

within the meaning of section 776(b) of

the Act. As a consequence of Luoyang’s

decision to discontinue participation in

this review, the Department canceled

verification of Luoyang’s questionnaire

response, including its separate rate

information. Luoyang’s failure to

respond to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire constitutes

a failure to act to the best of its ability

to comply with a request for information

within the meaning of Section 776(b) of

the Act. Therefore, we considered

Luoyang to be an uncooperative

respondent and made the adverse

assumption that Luoyang does not

qualify for a separate rate. Thus, we

have treated it as part of the NME entity.

As part of the NME entity, Luoyang is

not entitled to a rate as a new shipper,

because the NME entity as a whole was

subject to the less-than-fair-value

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation. Consequently,

we have rescinded the new shipper

review of Luoyang. See Preliminary

Results, 66 FR at 1303.

Rescission of Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we

have determined that, during the period

of review (‘‘POR’’), the exporters which

received zero rates in the LTFV

investigation did not make shipments of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POR through a nonexcluded exporter/producer

combination. Specifically, we have

determined that during the POR, (1)

neither CAIEC nor Laizhou CAPCO

exported brake rotors to the United

States that were manufactured by

producers other than Laizhou CAPCO;

(2) neither Shenyang Honbase nor

Laizhou Luyuan exported brake rotors

to the United States that were

manufactured by producers other than

Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan;

and (3) Xinjiang did not export brake

rotors to the United States that were

manufactured by producers other than

Zibo (see Memorandum dated October

25, 2000, from Brian C. Smith, Team

Leader, to the File, titled, ‘‘Results of

Request for Assistance from the U.S.

Customs Service to Further Examine

U.S. Entries Made By Exporter/Producer

Combinations’’) (‘‘October 25, 2000,

memorandum’’). In order to make this

determination, we first examined PORsubject merchandise shipment data

furnished by the Customs Service by

performing a Customs data query. Since

the data from our initial Customs query

was voluminous, we randomly selected

23 entries from the data query results for

further examination by the Customs

Service. Specifically, we requested the

Customs Service to examine further the

documentation filed at the U.S. port for

each of those selected entries made by

the exporters at issue to determine the

manufacturer of the merchandise. Based

on the results of our query (see October

25, 2000, memorandum), the petitioner

in this review filed comments in its case

brief alleging that 12 of the 23 entries

represented situations where the entry

may not have been based on an

excluded exporter/producer

combination. As a result of the

petitioner’s comments, we re-examined

the record data for the 12 entries at issue

and requested additional clarification

from the Customs Service on three of

them. Based on our re-examination and

clarification of the data on the record for

these entries, we found no evidence that

any of the exporter/producer

combinations which are the subject of

this administrative review made

shipments of subject merchandise

during the POR through a non-excluded

exporter/producer combination. (See

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Richard W.

Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Import Administration, to Bernard T.

Carreau, fulfilling the duties of Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated May 8, 2001 (Comment 2), and

Memorandum dated May 8, 2001, from

Brian C. Smith, Team Leader, to the

File, titled, ‘‘Clarification of 12 U.S.

Entries Made By Exporter/Producer

Combinations Included in the

Department’s September 28, 2000,

Request for Further Information from

the U.S. Customs Service on Selected

Brake Rotor Entries During the Period of

Review’’ for further discussion.)

Therefore, we are rescinding this review

with respect to CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO,

Shenyang Honbase, Laizhou Luyuan,

and Xinjiang.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case briefs are

addressed in the Decision Memo, which

is hereby adopted by this notice. A list

of the issues raised, all of which are in

the Decision Memo, is attached to this

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27065

notice as an Appendix. Parties can find

a complete discussion of all issues

raised in the briefs and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The

paper copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on the use of additional

publicly available information and the

comments received from the interested

parties, we have made changes in the

margin calculation for the one

respondent that cooperated fully in the

new shipper review. For a discussion of

this change, see the ‘‘Margin

Calculations’’ section of the Decision

Memo.

Final Results of New Shipper Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margin percentage

exists for the period April 1, 1999,

through March 31, 2000:

Exporter Margin

(percent)

Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co.,

Ltd ......................................... 0.00

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate without

regard to antidumping duties all entries

of subject merchandise during the POR

from Hongfa for which the importspecific assessment rate is zero or de

minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates. We will

direct the Customs Service to assess the

resulting percentage margin against the

entered Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant order during

the review period. For entries from the

PRC non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)

entity companies (i.e., PRC exporters

which are not entitled separate rates

(including Luoyang), the Customs

Service shall assess ad valorem duties at

the PRC-wide rate. Because the PRCwide entity was not reviewed during

this POR, the PRC-wide rate remains the

rate which was established in the lessthan-fair-value investigation. For entries

made by PRC companies for which the

Department has rescinded the

administrative review (i.e., the exporter/

producer combinations listed in the

‘‘Background’’ section of this notice),

the Customs Service shall continue not

to assess ad valorem duties on those

entries made by those exporter/producer

combinations.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit rates shall be

required for merchandise subject to the

order entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of these final

results, as provided by section 751(a)(1)

and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Hongfa will be the rate

indicated above; (2) the cash deposit

rate for PRC exporters who received a

separate rate in a prior segment of the

proceeding, but for whom the

Department has rescinded the review or

of whom the review was not requested

for this POR will continue to be the rate

assigned in that segment of the

proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for

the PRC NME entity (i.e., all other

exporters, including Luoyang, which

have not been reviewed) will continue

to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC will

be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

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 doubled antidumping duties.

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 19 CFR 351.305.

Timely written notification of the

return/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

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(a)(1),

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

19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

May 8, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

1. Rescission of Third Administrative Review

Based on the Results of the Department’s

Customs Data Query

2. Alleged Violation of Exporter/Producer

Combinations Excluded from the Order

Based on Examination of Selected U.S.

Brake Rotor Entries During the Period of

Review

3. Surrogate Value Selection for Pallet Wood

[FR Doc. 01–12379 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Circular Welder Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From Mexico: Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In January 31, 2001, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (66 FR 8378) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from

Mexico. This administrative review

covered two Mexican manufacturers of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe,

Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V.

(‘‘TUNA’’) and Tuberias Procarsa, S.A.

de C.V. (‘‘Procarsa’’), for the period of

November 1, 1999 through October 31,

2000. The Department has now

rescinded this review as a result of

requests by both parties to withdraw

from the review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Drury or Steve Bezirganian,

Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0195 or

(202) 482–1131, respectively.