29080 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioner is the Coalition for the

Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor

Aftermarket Manufacturers.

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended, that the series of meetings or

portions of meetings of the Committee

and of any Subcommittees thereof,

dealing with the classified materials

listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) shall be

exempt from the provisions relating to

public meetings found in sections

10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act. The remaining

series of meetings or portions thereof

will be open to the public.

A copy of the Notice of Determination

to close meetings or portions of

meetings of the Committee is available

for public inspection and copying in the

Central Reference and Records

Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

DC. For more information, call Lee Ann

Carpenter at (202) 482–2583.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Lee Ann Carpenter,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–13389 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of Fifth New

Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of fifth new

shipper review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is currently conducting the fifth new

shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on brake rotors from the People’s

Republic of China covering the period

April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2000. This review covers three

exporters. We have preliminarily

determined that two exporters have

made sales at not less than normal

value. For the other exporter, we have

preliminarily determined that it failed

to demonstrate its entitlement to a

separate rate and thus are preliminarily

rescinding the review with respect to it.

If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results of this review, we

will instruct the Customs Service to

assess no antidumping duties on entries

of subject merchandise during the

period of review from the two exporters,

for which the importer-specific

assessment rates are zero or de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), and to

assess duties on all entries of subject

merchandise made during the period of

review by the other exporter at the

country-wide rate. Furthermore, we will

instruct the Customs Service to require

a cash deposit on all future entries of

the subject merchandise from that

exporter at the country-wide rate.

We will issue the final results no later

than 90 days from the date of issuance

of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith or Brian Ledgerwood,

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) 482–3836, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 31, 2000, the Department

received timely requests from Beijing

Concord Auto Technology Inc.

(‘‘Concord’’), Qingdao Meita

Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Meita’’), and Shandong Laizhou

Huanri Group General Co. (‘‘Huanri

General’’) for a new shipper review of

this antidumping duty order in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). In

their requests for a new shipper review

and in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), Concord,

Huanri General, and Meita each

certified that it did not export the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period covered by the

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation and that it is not affiliated

with any company which exported the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of investigation

(‘‘POI’’). Concord, Huanri General, and

Meita also certified that their export

activities are not controlled by the

central government of the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Pursuant to

19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Concord,

Huanri General, and Meita submitted

documentation establishing the date on

which the merchandise was first entered

for consumption in the United States,

the volume of that first shipment, and

the date of the first sale to an

unaffiliated customer in the United

States.

The Department initiated a new

shipper review covering Concord,

Huanri General, and Meita on November

20, 2000. See Brake Rotors from the

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of

New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,

65 FR 70695 (November 27, 2000).

On November 28, 2000, we issued a

questionnaire to each PRC company

listed in the brake rotor initiation

notice. On December 5, 2000, the

Department provided the parties an

opportunity to submit publicly available

information for consideration in these

preliminary results. On December 28,

2000, Concord, Huanri General, and

Meita requested an extension of time

until January 19, 2001, to file their

responses to the antidumping duty

questionnaire, which the Department

subsequently granted on December 29,

2000. On January 9, 2001, the

petitioner 1 requested an extension of

time until February 20, 2001, to submit

publicly available information for

consideration in the preliminary results,

which the Department subsequently

granted to all parties on January 16,

2001.

On January 25, 2001, the Department

notified the respondents that it intended

to conduct a verification of their

responses to the antidumping duty

questionnaire in this review and

provided each respondent with a

sample verification outline for purposes

of familiarizing each company with the

verification process. On January 19,

2001, each respondent submitted its

questionnaire response.

Also on January 25, 2001, the

Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to each respondent. On

February 5, 2001, each respondent

requested an extension of time until

February 23, 2001, to file its response to

the supplemental questionnaire, which

the Department subsequently granted on

February 7, 2001. On February 23, 2001,

each respondent submitted its

supplemental questionnaire response.

On February 20, 2001, the

respondents and the petitioner

submitted publicly available

information. On February 27, 2001, the

respondents and the petitioner provided

rebuttal comments on the publicly

available information submitted by the

other.

On March 2, 2001, the Department

provided a verification outline to each

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29081

respondent. Also on March 2, 2001, the

petitioner provided comments on the

respondent’s questionnaire responses

for consideration by the Department.

From March 9 through March 28, 2001,

the Department conducted its

verification of the information

submitted by each respondent, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.307.

On April 24 and 27, 2001, the

Department issued its verification

reports. We provided parties with an

opportunity to submit comments on our

verification findings for consideration in

these preliminary results (see April 25,

2001, Memorandum from Brian C.

Smith, Team Leader, to the File and

April 27, 2001, Memorandum from

Brian E. Ledgerwood, Financial Analyst,

to the File). On May 2 and 4, 2001, the

parties submitted their comments on the

Department’s verification findings. On

May 7, 2001, the petitioner submitted

rebuttal comments.

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’’). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers

April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2000.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by each respondent. We used standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and examination of relevant

sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in the

verification report for each company

(see April 24, 2001, Verification Report

for Huanri General and Laizhou Huanri

Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanri

Auto’’) in the Fifth Antidumping Duty

New Shipper Review (‘‘Huanri General

verification report’’), April 24, 2001,

Verification Report for Concord and

Yantai Mouping Hongli Machinery

Factory (‘‘Hongli’’) in the Fifth

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review (‘‘Concord verification report’’),

and the April 27, 2001, Verification

Report for Qingdao Meita Automotive

Industry Co., Ltd. in the Fifth

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review (‘‘Meita verification report’’) for

further discussion).

Partial Rescission of New Shipper

Review

We are preliminarily rescinding, in

part, the fifth new shipper review with

respect to Concord because it failed to

demonstrate at verification that it was

entitled to a separate rate (see ‘‘Separate

Rates’’ section below for further

discussion).

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the

Department begins with a rebuttable

presumption that all companies within

the country are subject to government

control and thus should be assessed a

single antidumping duty deposit rate

(i.e., a PRC-wide rate).

One respondent, Meita, is wholly

foreign-owned. Thus, for Meita, a

separate-rates analysis is not necessary

to determine whether it is independent

from government control (see Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate

from the People’s Republic of China, 64

FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999).

With respect to the petitioner’s May 4,

2001, contention that Meita should be

denied a separate rate because it failed

to provide its fiscal year (‘‘FY’’) 2000

financial statements, no separate-rates

analysis is necessary for Meita since it

is wholly foreign-owned. As for Meita’s

inability to provide its FY 2000

financial statements, the Department’s

verification findings note that Meita was

unable to provide these documents at

verification because it had not prepared

it as of the date of the verification.

Reliance on its accounting records and

source documentation (including bank

statements) provided the Department

with the necessary documentation to

determine the accuracy of the data

Meita submitted in its questionnaire

response. Moreover, the Department

does not consider a company not having

a financial statement at verification

(especially if the company’s auditing

period follows the Department’s

verification) to constitute grounds for

automatic failure or evidence that its

accounting records are unreliable. The

Department cannot require the

respondent to furnish financial

documents that have not been created in

the normal course of business as of the

date of verification. Therefore, we find

the petitioner’s argument is without

merit.

Huanri General claims that it is

collectively owned by local villagers

and Concord claims that it is owned by

private PRC individuals. Thus, for these

two companies, a separate-rates analysis

is necessary to determine whether this

exporter is independent from

government control (see Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bicycles From the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘Bicycles’’) 61 FR

56570 (April 30, 1996)).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent in its export

activities from government control to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department utilizes a test arising from

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), and

amplified in the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under the separaterates criteria, the Department assigns

separate rates in NME cases only if the

respondent can demonstrate the absence

of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export

activities.

29082 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

1. De Jure Control

Huanri General has placed on the

administrative record documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned by the Whole

People,’’ adopted on April 13, 1988

(‘‘the Industrial Enterprises Law’’); ‘‘The

Enterprise Legal Person Registration

Administrative Regulations,’’

promulgated on June 13, 1988; the 1990

‘‘Regulation Governing Rural

Collectively-Owned Enterprises of

PRC;’’ the 1992 ‘‘Regulations for

Transformation of Operational

Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial

Enterprises;’’ (‘‘Business Operation

Provisions’’); and the 1994 ‘‘Foreign

Trade Law of the People’s Republic of

China.’’

As in prior cases, we have analyzed

these laws and have found them to

establish sufficiently an absence of de

jure control of companies ‘‘owned by

the whole people,’’ privately owned

enterprises, joint ventures, stock

companies including limited liability

companies, and collectively owned

enterprises. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘Furfuryl

Alcohol’’) 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995),

and Preliminary Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides with

Rollers from the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995).

In its May 2, 2001, submission, the

petitioner included an August 28, 2000,

article from the International Herald

Tribune and an April 2, 2000, article

from AP Worldstream, claiming that

excerpts from these articles constituted

evidence that the village committee

members, who set up Huanri General,

are chosen by the local PRC Communist

Party branch or officials at the PRC town

government level. After examining the

information provided by the petitioner

in the context of the laws we have

examined in previous NME

proceedings, we do not have a sufficient

basis in this proceeding to conclude that

the information provided by the

petitioner constitutes grounds for

conclusively determining that

collectively owned companies (such as

Huanri General) are controlled de jure

by the PRC government because the

information noted above does not

directly relate to the company under

review.

2. De Facto Control

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the

Department has determined that an

analysis of de facto control is critical in

determining whether the respondents

are, in fact, subject to a degree of

governmental control which would

preclude the Department from assigning

separate rates.

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to the approval of,

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding the

disposition of profits or financing of

losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl

Alcohol).

Concord and Huanri General each

asserted the following: (1) It establishes

its own export prices; (2) it negotiates

contracts without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) it makes its own personnel

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds

of its export sales, uses profits according

to its business needs, and has the

authority to sell its assets and to obtain

loans.

With respect to Concord, as detailed

in the Department’s April 24, 2001,

verification report at page three,

Concord was unable to provide for the

Department’s review its bank statements

for the POR. As a result, the Department

was unable to determine the extent of

Concord’s deposit and withdrawal

activity from its bank accounts or link

the bank deposit and withdrawal

receipts it did examine to entries

reflected in the company’s statements

furnished by its banks.

As stated above, one of the

Department’s de facto criteria for

determining whether an exporter is

entitled to a separate rate is that the

exporter must demonstrate that it

retains the proceeds of its export sales

and makes independent decisions

regarding the disposition of profits or

financing of losses. In its May 4, 2001,

submission, the respondent maintains

that the Department was able to

establish through an examination of

source documentation (i.e., bank

receipts, voucher booklets, invoices,

etc.) at verification that Concord

controlled the disposition of its sales

proceeds and that, therefore, it had

demonstrated a de facto absence of

government control with respect to its

export activities. However, contrary to

the respondent’s assertion, absent

review of the company’s bank

statements for the POR, the Department

was unable to ascertain whether

Concord retained all of its proceeds

from the sale of subject merchandise

and made independent decisions

regarding the disposition of profits or

financing of losses. Specifically, without

the bank statements, the Department

could not confirm that all of Concord’s

secondary documentation (i.e., bank

receipts) was provided at verification

and therefore could not confirm that the

company met the above-mentioned de

facto criterion. The Department could

rely only on the bank receipts furnished

by the company at verification to check

whether the company retained its

proceeds, rather than trace the amounts

of those receipts to its bank accounts.

Relying only on bank receipts without a

reliable reference document with which

to reconcile them is insufficient for

purposes of testing the disposition of

the company’s proceeds. In this

instance, because we were unable to

reconcile Concord’s bank receipts with

an independent reference document

such as a bank statement, we

determined that the bank receipts were

insufficient for the purposes of

examining whether Concord controlled

the disposition of its profits. Therefore,

absent examination of a primary

reference document (e.g., the bank

statement), the Department was unable

to adequately verify Concord’s claim.

As a result of not being able to

provide critical documentation at

verification for demonstrating an

absence of de facto government control

based on the separate-rates criteria

outlined above, the Department

preliminarily finds that Concord has not

adequately demonstrated that it is not

part of the NME entity. Therefore, we

find that Concord is not entitled to a

separate rate. As part of the NME entity,

Concord is not entitled to a rate as a

new shipper because the NME entity as

a whole was subject to the LTFV

investigation. For these reasons, we are

preliminarily rescinding the new

shipper review with respect to Concord.

As for Huanri General, the

Department preliminarily finds that

Huanri General has demonstrated a de

facto absence of government control and

is entitled to a separate rate for the

several reasons. As detailed in the

verification report and supported by

documentation examined at verification,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29083

Huanri General was set up by the

Panjacun village committee through

capital voluntarily provided by all of the

inhabitants of Panjacun village. At

verification, the Department further

clarified that the members of the village

committee were elected to the

committee by the villagers who also

provided the capital to set up Huanri

General (see pages 5 and 7 of the Huanri

General verification report). Data on the

record establishes that the villagers are

the long-term investors/shareholders in

Huanri General and that the villagers

determine via election the individuals

who serve on the village committee.

Further, the villagers have entrusted the

village committee to decide how and

when Huanri General’s profits are to be

distributed. In this case, the villagers

have in fact elected a group within the

same village (i.e., the village committee)

to handle the business decisions and

operation strategy of the company

which is wholly owned by all the

villagers, some of whom are also elected

members of the village committee.

Based on these facts, we conclude that

the central government does not control

Huanri General’s export activities.

The petitioner contends in its May 2,

2001, submission that the village

committee is a PRC government entity

which has a financial relationship with

the town government and that this link

constitutes government control of

Huanri General’s operations. We have

ruled in previous NME cases that

companies which are either owned by

local or provincial government entities

or the managers of which are appointed

by the provincial, not the central,

government can also receive a separate

rate if they sufficiently demonstrate that

they are entitled to one based on the

criteria set forth in Sparklers and

amplified in Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol. For example, in one

NME case, the Department found that

although, the local government owned

an exporting company, that company

elected its own management and was

responsible for all decisions such as

determining export prices, allocation

and retention of profits on export sales,

and negotiating export sales contracts

(see Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 42504,

42505 (August 16, 1995) (‘‘Lug Nuts’’)).

The Department also found in another

NME case that, although the provincial

government appointed the management

of a company, that company was

entitled to a separate rate because it was

able to demonstrate that it solely

performed the de facto activities noted

above and there was no evidence of

significant government involvement in

that company’s business operations (see

Pure Magnesium from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Administrative Review, 63 FR 3085,

3086 (January 21, 1998) (‘‘Pure

Magnesium’’).

With respect to Huanri General, the

data on the record demonstrates that,

unlike the situations which existed in

Lug Nuts and Pure Magnesium, we have

no evidence that this company is owned

by the town government or that its

management is appointed by the town

government. Rather, this company is

ultimately owned by the villagers of

Panjacun village. Moreover, the

president of the company (who is also

the company’s legal representative on

the company’s business license and was

elected by the villagers as the chairman

of the village committee) appoints the

managers. Consistent with the facts in

Pure Magnesium and Lug Nuts, Huanri

General in this case has also

demonstrated that it is responsible for

all decisions such as determining export

prices, allocation and retention of

profits on export sales, and negotiating

export sales contracts. Although the

village committee actually decides how

the company’s profits are to be

distributed, we do not find that the

village committee constitutes a form of

central or provincial government control

over the company, especially since all of

the village committee members are

investors in the company.

We also are not convinced by the

petitioner’s argument that the village

committee’s dealings with the town

government constitute evidence that the

town government controls both the

village committee’s and Huanri

General’s operations. Based on our

examination of the village committee’s

financial records at verification, we

found that the village committee is an

entity which simply pays infrastructure

taxes to the town government and to

which the town government owes

money (see page 6 of the Huanri General

verification report). Thus, in this case,

the town government is a debtor to the

village committee. These activities are

no different than those of any company

paying its taxes and operating a

business without government

interference in the PRC. Moreover, the

information provided by Huanri General

in its response and amplified and/or

clarified at verification supports a

preliminary finding that there is de facto

absence of governmental control of the

export functions of Huanri General. See

Pure Magnesium from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Administrative Review, 62 FR 55215

(October 23, 1997). Consequently, we

have preliminarily determined that

Huanri General has met the criteria for

the application of separate rates.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Huanri General

and Meita to the United States were

made at LTFV, we compared the export

price to the normal value, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

We used export price methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act because the subject merchandise

was sold by the exporter directly to an

unaffiliated customer in the United

States prior to importation and

constructed export price was not

otherwise indicated.

For both respondents, we calculated

export price based on packed, FOB

foreign port prices 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, in accordance with section

772(c) of the Act. 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

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below for

further discussion of our surrogatecountry selection). To value foreign

inland trucking charges, we used a

November 1999 average truck freight

value based on price quotes from Indian

trucking companies. We used this rate

most recently in the fourth new shipper

review of brake rotors from the PRC (see

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, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001)

(which cites to 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, 1308 (January 8, 2001)) (‘‘Brake

Rotors Fourth New Shipper Review’’)).

To value foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, we relied on public

information reported in the 1997–1998

antidumping duty new shipper review

of stainless steel wire rod from India

(see also Brake Rotors Fourth New

29084 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

2 In order to derive the per-unit consumption

amount for each factor of production as reported in

the Section D response, the respondent first derived

a factor-specific allocation factor by dividing the

total POR factor consumption over the total POR

production weight. The respondent then multiplied

the factor-specific allocation factor by the per-unit

weight of each brake rotor model to arrive at the

per-unit consumption amount for each factor on a

brake rotor model-specific basis.

Shipper Review). Based on our

verification findings, we revised the

reported distance from Huanri General’s

supplier factory, Huanri Auto, to the

port of exportation (see page 16 of the

Huanri General verification report).

Normal Value

A. Non-Market-Economy Status

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as a NME country.

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

Act, any determination that a foreign

country is a NME country shall remain

in effect until revoked by the

administering authority (see Notice of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and New

Shipper Reviews, Partial Rescission of

the Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Rescission of a New

Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 60399, 60404 (October 11,

2000).) None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated

normal value in accordance with section

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME

countries.

B. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value a NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME country, and (2) are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise. India and Indonesia are

among the countries comparable to the

PRC in terms of overall economic

development (see December 4, 2000,

Memorandum from the Office of Policy

to Brian C. Smith, Team Leader). In

addition, based on publicly available

information placed on the record, India

is a significant producer of the subject

merchandise. Accordingly, we

considered India the primary surrogate

country for purposes of valuing the

factors of production because it meets

the Department’s criteria for surrogatecountry selection. Where we could not

find surrogate values in India, we used

values from Indonesia.

C. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated normal value

based on the factors of production

which included, but were not limited to:

(A) Hours of labor required; (B)

quantities of raw materials employed;

(C) amounts of energy and other utilities

consumed; and (D) representative

capital costs, including depreciation.

We used the factors reported by Huanri

Auto and Meita which produced the

brake rotors exported to the United

States by Huanri General and Meita,

respectively, during the POR. To

calculate normal value, we multiplied

the reported unit factor quantities by

publicly available Indian or Indonesian

values.

Based on our verification findings at

Huanri General and Huanri Auto, we

found that Huanri Auto used an

additional packing material (i.e., tin

clamps) to pack the subject merchandise

for exportation and used lugs and

bearing cups for one of its brake rotor

models. We accounted for these items in

our factors analysis. In addition, we

revised the following data in Huanri

General’s and Huanri Auto’s response:

(1) The reported per-unit weight for one

brake rotor model; (2) the reported perunit factor amounts for all material,

energy, and labor inputs based on

revisions to the total POR production

quantity figure 2 for brake rotors and

per-unit weights of certain brake rotor

models; (3) the per-unit factor amounts

for steel strap for each brake rotor model

reported in the Section D response; and

(4) the distances from Huanri Auto to

certain of its suppliers (see pages 18, 19,

22 through 25 of the Huanri General

verification report and May 21, 2001,

Memorandum from Case Analyst to the

File).

Based on our verification findings at

Meita, we found that the factory used an

additional packing material (i.e.,

clamps) to pack the subject merchandise

for exportation which we accounted for

in our factors analysis. We also revised

the following data reported in Meita’s

response: (1) The per-unit factor

amounts for steel strap for each brake

rotor model; (2) the reported per-unit

factor amounts for all four labor inputs;

and (3) the distances from Meita to

certain of its suppliers (see verification

exhibit 0 and pages 18 and 20 of the

Meita verification report and May 21,

2001, Memorandum from Case Analyst

to the File).

In its May 2, 2001, comments, the

petitioner claims that the extent and

magnitude of the Department’s

corrections to Huanri General’s data

based on verification (1) constitute

major corrections; (2) represent an

attempt by Huanri General to

reconstruct its response; (3) undermine

the integrity of the company’s overall

response; and (4) constitute grounds for

resorting to adverse facts available in

this situation. After considering the

totality of the corrections identified

above for Huanri General and the

circumstances under which those errors

were made, we find that the (1) abovementioned errors were inadvertent and

common in nature; and (2) the

corrections had no meaningful impact

on our calculation of normal value for

Huanri General.

We selected surrogate values for this

review based on the quality, specificity,

and contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices to

make them delivered prices. For those

values not contemporaneous with the

POR and quoted in a foreign currency,

we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

To value pig iron, steel and iron

scrap, ferrosilicon, and ferromanganese,

limestone, and lubrication oil, we used

April 1998–March 1999 average import

values from the Indian government

publication Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India (‘‘Monthly

Statistics’’).

One of the brake rotor models which

Huanri Auto made during the POR used

lug bolts and ball bearing cups (see

discussion above). Because we could

not obtain a product-specific price from

India to value lug bolts, we used a

January–March 1999 product-specific

import value from the Indonesian

government publication Foreign Trade

Statistical Bulletin (see Bicycles, 61 FR

at 19040 (Comment 17)). To value ball

bearing cups, we used an April 1998–

December 1998 average import value

from Monthly Statistics.

To value coking coal, we used an

April 1998–August 1998 average import

price from Monthly Statistics. We also

added an amount for loading and

additional transportation charges

associated with delivering coal to the

factory based on June 1999 Indian price

data contained in the periodical

Business Line. For firewood, we used an

April 1997–March 1998 average import

value from Monthly Statistics rather

than a 1991 domestic value from the

Food and Agricultural Organization of

the United Nations’ working paper

Wood Materials from Non-Forest Areas

(which we used in Brake Rotors Fourth

New Shipper Review) because Monthly

Statistics provided a more

contemporaneous value for firewood. To

value electricity, we used data from the

Indian publications 1995 Conference of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29085

Indian Industries: Handbook of

Statistics and The Center for Monitoring

Indian Economy and the methodology

used in two recent NME cases. (See

Persulfates from the People’s Republic

of China: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Partial

Rescission of Administrative Review, 65

FR 46691, 46692 (July 31, 2000);

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 30067, 30068 (May 10,

2000); and Preliminary Results

Valuation Memorandum for further

discussion.)

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value selling, general, and

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,

factory overhead, and profit, we used

the 1998 financial data of Jayaswals

Neco Limited and the 1998–1999

financial data of Kalyani Brakes Limited

and Rico Auto Industries Limited.

Where appropriate, we removed from

the surrogate overhead and SG&A

calculations the excise duty amount

listed in the financial reports (see Brake

Rotors Investigation, 62 FR 9164). We

made certain adjustments to the ratios

calculated as a result of reclassifying

certain expenses contained in the

financial reports. In utilizing the

financial data of the Indian companies,

we treated the line item labeled ‘‘stores

and spares consumed’’ as part of factory

overhead because stores and spares are

not direct materials consumed in the

production process. Based on publicly

available information, we considered

molding materials (i.e., sand, bentonite,

coal powder, steel pellets, lead powder,

and waste oil) to be indirect materials

included in the ‘‘stores and spares

consumed’’ category of the financial

statements. We based our factory

overhead calculation on the cost of

manufacturing. We also included

interest and/or financial expenses in the

SG&A calculation. In addition, we only

reduced interest and financial expenses

by amounts for interest income if the

Indian financial report noted that the

income was short-term in nature. Where

a company did not distinguish interest

income as a line item within total ‘‘other

income,’’ we used the ratio of interest

income to total other income as reported

for the Indian metals industry in the

Reserve Bank of India Bulletin to

calculate the interest income amount.

For example, if an Indian company’s

financial statement indicated that the

company had miscellaneous receipts or

other income under the general category

‘‘other income,’’ we applied a ratio

(based on data contained in Reserve

Bank of India Bulletin) to the figure for

miscellaneous receipts or other income

in the financial statement to determine

the amount associated with short-term

interest income. To avoid doublecounting, we treated the line item

‘‘packing, freight, and delivery charges’’

as expenses to be valued separately.

Specifically, to determine the packing

expense, we used Huanri General’s and

Meita’s reported packing material

factors. For a further discussion of other

adjustments made, see the Preliminary

Results Valuation Memorandum.

All inputs were shipped by truck.

Therefore, to value PRC inland freight,

we used a November 1999 average truck

freight value based on price quotes from

Indian trucking companies.

In accordance with the decision of the

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117

F.3d 1401 (1997), we revised our

methodology for calculating source-tofactory surrogate freight for those

material inputs that are valued based on

CIF import values in the surrogate

country. Therefore, on an input-specific

basis, we have added to CIF surrogate

values from India a surrogate freight

cost using the shorter of the reported

distances from (1) the closest PRC port

of importation to the factory or (2) the

domestic supplier to the factory.

To value corrugated cartons, plastic

bags and sheet, nails, tape, and steel

strap, we used April 1998–March 1999

average import values from Monthly

Statistics. Because we could not obtain

a non-aberrational and/or current price

from India to value pallet wood, we

used a 1998 import value from the

Indonesian government publication

Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin. (See

Brake Rotors Fourth New Shipper

Review, which cites to Issues and

Decision Memorandum 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 3).) We

did not use the pallet wood values

obtained after March 1996 from Monthly

Statistics because they appeared

aberrational relative to the overall value

of the subject merchandise.

At verification, the respondents

informed us that they also use tin

clamps to fasten the steel straps around

the brake rotors (see discussion above,

page 22 of the Huanri General

verification report, and page 18 of the

Meita verification report). Therefore, to

value tin clamps, we used an April

1998–February 1999 average import

value from Monthly Statistics.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for Huanri

General and Meita during the period

April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2000:

Manufactuer/producer/exporter Margin percent

Shandong Laizhou Huanri

Group General Co ............ 0.00

Qingado Meita Automotive

Industry Co., Ltd ............... 0.00

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.

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, Room B–099,

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). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held

approximately 44 days after the

publication of this notice. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in case briefs and

rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, will be due not later than 37

days after the date of publication of this

notice. Parties who submit case briefs 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 also encouraged to provide a

summary of the arguments not to exceed

five pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of this new shipper review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or at the hearing, if held, not later than

90 days after the date of issuance of this

notice.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we

will calculate importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates based on

29086 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

the ratio of the total amount of the

dumping margins calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered

value of those same sales. In order to

estimate the entered value, we will

subtract applicable movement expenses

from the gross sales value. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct Customs to liquidate

without regard to antidumping duties

all entries of subject merchandise

during the POR from Huanri General

and Meita for which the importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de

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

For entries subject to the PRC-wide rate,

Customs shall assess ad valorem duties

at the rate established in the LTFV

investigation. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to Customs upon completion of

this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

Upon completion of this new shipper

review, for entries from Huanri General

and Meita, we will require cash deposits

at the rates established in the final

results pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(e)

and as further described below.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this new shipper

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of brake rotors from

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for Huanri General and

Meita will be the rates established in the

final results; (2) the cash deposit rate for

PRC exporters who received a separate

rate in a prior segment of the proceeding

will continue to be the rate assigned in

that segment of the proceeding; (3) the

cash deposit rate for the PRC NME

entity (including Concord) 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

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

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 new shipper administrative

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and (2)(B)) and

19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13406 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–845]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

the Preliminary Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and

Strip in Coils From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

from Japan.

SUMMARY: On September 6, 2000, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of

initiation of an antidumping duty

review of stainless steel sheet and strip

in coils from Japan. The Department of

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is extending

the time limit for the preliminary results

of the review, which covers the period

January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita H. Chen at 202–482–0409;

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

On September 6, 2000, the

Department published its notice of

initiation of an antidumping duty

review of the antidumping duty order

on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

from Japan. See Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 53980,

53981 (September 6, 2000). On January

31, 2001, the Department published its

notice partially extending the time limit

for the preliminary results of the review

by 90 days. See Extension of Time Limit

for the Preliminary Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip

in Coils from Japan, 66 FR 8385 (January

31, 2001). Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of the

preliminary results of a review if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the preliminary results within

the statutory time limit of 245 days after

the date on which the review is

initiated. The Department has

determined that it is not practicable to

complete the preliminary results of the

review within that statutory time limit.

See Memorandum from Edward C. Yang

to Joseph A. Spetrini (May 21, 2001).

Therefore, in accordance with section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results by 30 days until July

31, 2001.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–13405 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–854]

Certain Tin Mill Products From Japan:

Notice of Initiation of Changed

Circumstances Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of changed

circumstances review.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 19 CFR

351.216(b), Weirton Steel and the

Independent Steelworkers Union,

interested parties in this proceeding,

requested a changed circumstances