Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Notices 55107 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 247 is 

approved, subject to the Act and the 

Board’s regulations, including Section 

400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th 

day of September 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18718 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1413] 

Expansion of Foreign–Trade Zone 207, 

Richmond, Virginia 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign–

Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Capital Region Airport 

Commission, grantee of Foreign–Trade 

Zone 207, submitted an application to 

the Board for authority to expand FTZ 

207 to include a site (Site 2 - 221 acres) 

within the 345–acre SouthPoint 

Business Park in Prince George (Prince 

George County), Virginia, within the 

Richmond Customs port of entry (FTZ 

Docket 14–2005; filed 3/14/05); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 13451, 3/21/05) and the 

application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 207 is 

approved, subject to the Act and the 

Board’s regulations, including Section 

400.28, and subject to the Board’s 

standard 2,000–acre activation limit for 

the overall zone project. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

September 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18719 Filed 9–19–05; 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 Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). We have 

preliminarily determined that Shandong 

Huanri Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanri 

Group’’) is the successor–in-interest to 

Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company (‘‘Huanri Group General’’) for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

liability. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this antidumping duty 

changed circumstances review not later 

than November 7, 2005, as the 

Department plans to issue the final 

results of this changed circumstance 

review at the same time as the final 

results of the concurrent administrative 

review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand or Carrie Blozy, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

5403, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 28, 2004, Huanri Group 

requested that the Department 

determine that it is the successor–ininterest to Huanri Group General for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

liability. On December 13, 2004, the 

Department initiated a changed 

circumstances review of Huanri Group’s 

claim that it is the successor–of-interest 

to Huanri Group General. See Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Initiation of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 69 FR 75508 

(December 17, 2004). 

On February 2, 2005, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Huanri Group. On February 23, 2005, 

Huanri Group submitted a supplemental 

questionnaire response. On March 26, 

2005, the Department verified the 

information submitted by the Huanri 

Group to support its successorship 

claim at Huanri’s Group’s office in 

Laizhou, China. See Verification Report, 

dated June 17, 2005 (‘‘Verification 

Report’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 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, 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. Semi–

finished rotors are those rotors which 

have undergone some drilling and on 

which the surface is not entirely 

smooth. 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, and Volvo). Brake rotors 

covered in this review 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 the 

review 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 

55108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Notices 

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, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Preliminary Results 

The Department is currently 

conducting an administrative review 

regarding Huanri Group General. In the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review, the Department preliminarily 

determined that Huanri Group General 

did not demonstrate that it was entitled 

to a separate rate under the 

Department’s test. See Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Results of the Eleventh New Shipper 

Review, 70 FR 24382 (May 9, 2005). The 

final results of the administrative review 

are due on November 7, 2005. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this changed circumstance review at 

the same time as the concurrent 

administrative review as both segments 

involve the company at issue. The 

separate rate issue will be decided in 

the context of the administrative review. 

However, the final results of the 

administrative review with respect to 

separate rates will be incorporated into 

the changed circumstance review final. 

The Department’s decision in this 

changed circumstance preliminary 

results will focus solely on the 

successor–in-interest issue discussed 

below. 

In its February 23, 2005, 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

Huanri Group provided documentation 

to support further its claim that effective 

June 9, 2004, it received approval from 

the local bureau to change its name to 

‘‘Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company.’’ The company stated that the 

reason for the name change was based 

on the shareholders’ decision to change 

the legal structure of the company from 

a collectively owned company to a 

limited liability company. Specifically, 

this documentation consisted of: (1) 

shareholders’ meeting minutes detailing 

the company’s reasoning for the name 

change; (2) Notice of Advanced 

Approval to Enterprise Name; (3) 

approval for the name change 

application; and (4) Huanri Group’s 

business license issued on June 9, 2004 

(see Exhibit 1 of the February 23, 2005, 

supplemental questionnaire response). 

In its responses to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaires, Huanri 

Group also provided information in 

support of its statements that all 

personnel, operations, and facilities 

remain essentially unchanged as a result 

of changing the name of the company. 

The Department verified this 

information, and found that the 

managers, production facilities, 

equipment, suppliers, operations, and 

customer base remained unchanged 

after the name change. 

In making such a successor–ininterest determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Brass Sheet 

and Strip from Canada: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). 

While no single factor or combination of 

these factors will necessarily provide a 

dispositive indication of a successor–ininterest relationship, the Department 

will generally consider the new 

company to be the successor to the 

previous company if the new company’s 

resulting operation is not materially 

dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, 

e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from 

Israel: Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 

(February 14, 1994); Canadian Brass, 

and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon 

from Norway: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23, 

1998). Thus, if the evidence 

demonstrates that, with respect to the 

production and sale of the subject 

merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

Data placed on the record and verified 

by the Department indicates that Huanri 

Group has the same management, 

production facilities, customer base, and 

supplier relationships as Huanri Group 

General. At verification, the Department 

examined the issue of whether the two 

companies had the same management. 

The Department examined payroll 

records and appointment records before 

and after the name change. The 

Department found that there were no 

changes in the paid employees and that 

three of the five board members 

remained the same after the name 

change. See Verification Report at 9. 

The Department examined the 

production and sales activities at 

verification as well. The Department 

found that there were no changes in 

equipment or facilities after the name 

change. See Verification Report at 10. At 

verification, the Department also 

analyzed whether the suppliers were the 

same before and after the name change. 

The Department examined purchase 

entries and the material sub–ledger and 

found that there was no significant 

change in the names of the suppliers 

before and after the name change. See 

Verification Report at 11. The 

Department also analyzed whether the 

customer base was the same before and 

after the name change by examining the 

sales sub–ledger and invoices from 

selected months. The Department found 

that Huanri General continued to sell 

subject merchandise to two of its five 

U.S. customers. Id. 

We find that there were no significant 

changes to the management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships and 

customer base after the name change. 

Further, we find that the operations of 

Huanri Group are essentially the same 

as Huanri Group General. Therefore, for 

the reasons stated above, we 

preliminarily determine that Huanri 

Group should receive the same 

antidumping duty treatment with 

respect to brake rotors as the former 

entity Huanri Group General. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

changed circumstances review, we will 

instruct the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assign Huanri 

Group the antidumping duty cash 

deposit rate applicable to Huanri Group 

General. The cash deposit determination 

from this changed circumstances review 

will apply to all entries of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. This deposit rate shall remain in 

effect until publication of the final 

results of the next administrative review 

in which Huanri Group participates. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held no later than 40 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, or 

the first workday thereafter. 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. 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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 2005 / Notices 55109 

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 publication of 

this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

the issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than five days after the 

submission of case briefs. 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 encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

comments, not later than November 7, 

2005. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–18715 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of 2003/2004 New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anya Naschak at (202) 482–6375; AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 10, 2001, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order 

covering honey from the PRC. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from 

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 

63670 (December 10, 2001). On 

December 22, 2004, the Department 

received a timely request from Kunshan 

Xin’an Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinan’’) in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214 (c), for 

a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

the PRC, which has a December annual 

anniversary month. On January 31, 

2005, the Department initiated a review 

for Xinan. See Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 70 

FR 6412 (February 7, 2005) (‘‘NSR 

Xinan Initiation’’) 

On July 14, 2005, the Department 

extended the time limit for issuance of 

the preliminary results of this review by 

45 days. See Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 2003/ 

2004 New Shipper Review, 70 FR 42033 

(July 21, 2005). On August 10, 2005, the 

Department issued a memorandum that 

stated the Department’s intent to rescind 

this new shipper review because of the 

non–bona fide nature of Xinan’s sales 

transaction. See Memorandum From 

James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration: Bona Fide Analysis for 

Kunshan Xin’an Trade Co., Ltd.’s Sale 

in the New Shipper Review of Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated August 10, 2005. We received 

comments on our intent to rescind this 

new shipper review from Xinan on 

August 25, 2005. We received rebuttal 

comments from the American Honey 

Producers and the Sioux Honey 

Association (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’) 

on August 31, 2005. The deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results is 

currently September 13, 2005. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 

19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

results of a new shipper review within 

180 days after the date on which the 

new shipper review was initiated and 

final results of a review within 90 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 

results were issued. The Department 

may, however, extend the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

a new shipper review to 300 days if it 

determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated (19 CFR 

351.214 (i)(2)). 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 (i)(2), we 

determine that this review is 

extraordinarily complicated and that it 

is not practicable to complete this new 

shipper review within the current time 

limit. Specifically, the Department 

requires additional time to analyze the 

comments received by parties on the 

Department’s bona fides analysis. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

extending the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results by 

20 days, to October 3, 2005, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–18714 Filed 9–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–806] 

Silicon Metal from Brazil: Notice of 

Court Decision and Suspension of 

Liquidation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 26, 2005, in Elkem 

Metals Company and Globe 

Metallurgical Inc. v. United States, Slip 

Op. 05–109 (Elkem Metals III), the Court 

of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the 

Final Results of Redetermination 

Pursuant to Remand (Remand Results II) 

released by the Department of 

Commerce (the Department), on March 

16, 2005. Consistent with the decision 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. 

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

1990) (Timken), the Department will 

continue to order the suspension of 

liquidation of the subject merchandise, 

where appropriate, until there is a 

‘‘conclusive’’ decision in this case. If the 

case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed 

on appeal, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to liquidate all relevant entries 

from Rima Industrial, S.A. (Rima), as 

appropriate. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, telephone 202–482–5831, fax 

202–482–5105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: