Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 69937 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22927 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1417] 

Expansion/Reorganization of FTZ 147, 

Reading, Pennsylvania, Area 

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 adopts the following 

Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign–Trade Zone 

Corporation of Southeastern 

Pennsylvania, grantee of Foreign–Trade 

Zone 147, submitted an application to 

the Board for authority to reorganize 

and expand FTZ 147 to modify existing 

Sites 4 and 5 and to include nine 

additional sites in south eastern and 

south central Pennsylvania, adjacent to 

the Harrisburg Customs port of entry 

(FTZ Docket 12–2005; filed 3/1/05); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 11611, 3/9/05), 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/reorganize 

FTZ 147 is approved, subject to the Act 

and the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, and subject to the 

2,000–acre activation limit. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

November 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. 05–22925 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

(Docket 55–2005) 

Foreign–Trade Zone 127 West 

Columbia, South Carolina, Application 

for Subzone, JBE, Inc. (Automotive 

Parts), Hartsville, South Carolina 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the Columbia Metropolitan 

Airport, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting 

special–purpose subzone status for the 

warehousing and distribution facility of 

JBE, Inc. (JBE), located in Hartsville, 

South Carolina. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the provisions of 

the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 

400). It was formally filed on November 

2, 2005. 

The JBE facility (80 employees, 13.5 

acres) is located at 512 Hartland Drive, 

Hartsville, Darlington County, South 

Carolina. The facilities are used for the 

storage, distribution and inspection of 

automotive parts and components, and 

may also be used for manufacturing 

activity in the future. 

Zone procedures would exempt JBE 

from Customs duty payments on 

products that are re–exported. Some 10 

percent of the products are re–exported. 

On its domestic sales, the company 

would be able to defer duty payments 

until merchandise is shipped from the 

plant and entered for consumption. FTZ 

designation may further allow JBE to 

utilize certain Customs procedures 

resulting in increased efficiencies for its 

logistics and distribution operations. In 

addition, JBE is requesting authority for 

a secondary scope to provide for future 

contract manufacturing. Finished 

products and components included in 

the secondary scope include automotive 

parts and accessories (HTS 8414, 8708 

and 8709, duty rate ranges from duty–

free to 2.5%). The request indicates that 

the savings from FTZ procedures would 

help improve the plant’s international 

competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, a member of the FTZ staff 

has been appointed examiner to 

investigate the application and report to 

the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at one of 

the following addresses: 

1. Submissions Via Express/Package 

Delivery Services: Foreign–Trade-Zones 

Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Franklin Court Building - Suite 4100W, 

1099 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 

20005; or 

2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal 

Service: Foreign–Trade-Zones Board, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB - 

Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave. 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20230. 

The closing period for their receipt is 

January 17, 2006. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

February 1, 2006. 

A copy of the application and 

accompanying exhibits will be available 

for public inspection at the Office of the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the first address listed 

above, and at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce Export Assistance Center, 

1201 Main Street, Suite 1720, Columbia, 

SC 29201. 

Dated: November 2, 2005. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22926 Filed 11–17–05; 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: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review; Final Results 

of the Eleventh New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 9, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the preliminary 

results of this administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). 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 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). At that time, 

we invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary results. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

to our calculations. The final dumping 

margins for this review are listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Killiam or Christopher Riker, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

69938 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 

1The Department did not receive briefs from the 

following respondents: Zibo Golden Harvest 

Machinery Limited Co. (‘‘ZGOLD’’), Xianfeng 

Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengtai’’), 

Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinzheng’’), 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co. Ltd. (‘‘Longkou TLC’’), 

Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rotec’’), and 

China National Machinery and Equipment Import & 

Export (Xianjiang) Corporation (‘‘Xianjiang’’). 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–5222 and (202) 

482–3441, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 

1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We 

published the preliminary results in the 

2003/2004 administrative review in the 

Federal Register on May 9, 2005. See 

Preliminary Results. On June 6, 2005, 

we invited the interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination that a Chinese Village 

Committee was an arm of the PRC 

Government, and affected export–

related decisions at respondent, 

Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company, together with Laizhou Huanri 

Automobile Parts Co.,Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Huanri’’). On June 14, 

2005, we received comments from 

petitioners and Huanri in response to 

our June 6, 2005, letter. Additionally, on 

June 21, 2005, we received comments 

from petitioners in rebuttal to Huanri’s 

June 14, 2005, letter. 

On June 30, 2005, we received case 

briefs from the petitioners, the Coalition 

for the Preservation of American Brake 

Drum and Rotor Aftermarket 

Manufacturers, and from the following 

respondents: China National Industrial 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation 

(‘‘CNIM’’), Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. 

(‘‘GREN’’), Shanxi Fengkun Foundry 

Ltd., Co. and Shanxi Fengkun 

Metallurgical Limited Company 

(collectively, ‘‘Fengkun’’), Zibo Luzhou 

Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZLAP’’), 

Laizhou Automobile Brake Equipment 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘LABEC’’), Yantai Winhere 

Auto–Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

(‘‘Winhere’’), Longkou Haimeng 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haimeng’’), 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement 

Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hongda’’), Hongfa 

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

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry 

Co., Ltd (‘‘Meita’’), and Huanri.1 On July 

11, 2005, we received rebuttal briefs 

from the petitioners and from LABEC, 

Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Hongfa, 

Meita, and Huanri. 

On August 24, 2005, we invited the 

interested parties to comment on 

revisions to the Department’s 

calculations for the surrogate value of 

labor. On August 29, 2005, we received 

comments from petitioners and from 

respondents LABEC, Winhere, Haimeng, 

Hongda, Hongfa, Meita, and Huanri on 

this issue. 

Based on the comments summarized 

below, we have made revisions to the 

data used for the final results. For 

further details, please see the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China, to Stephen 

J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from Edward 

Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator / 

NME Unit, Import Administration 

(November 7, 2005) (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) and the company–

specific analysis memoranda, which are 

on file in Import Administration’s 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

Department of Commerce building. The 

Decision Memorandum is also available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. 

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. Semi–

finished 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. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

We are rescinding the review of the 

following four exporter companies 

because they certified for this review 

that they did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States other 

than from the manufacturer/exporter 

combination specifically excluded from 

the order following the investigation, 

and the shipment data that we 

examined did not show U.S. entries of 

subject merchandise, during the POR, 

from the exempted producer/exporter 

combinations: China National 

Automotive Industry Import & Export 

Corporation, Laizhou CAPCO 

Machinery Co., Ltd., Laizhou Luyuan 

Automobile Fittings Co., and Shenyang 

Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. See 

Preliminary Results 70 FR at 24382, 

24383; see also Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 

18740, 18741 (April 17, 1997) 

(‘‘Investigation’’). 

We are also rescinding the review of 

the following three exporter/producers 

because they also certified that they 

made no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, and the shipment data that we 

examined did not show U.S. entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

from these companies: Laizhou City 

Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang 

Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd., Xianghe 

Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd. 

Finally, in the Preliminary Results, 

and in accordance with section 

351.213(d)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations, we stated that we were 

rescinding the review of exports made 

by Xianjiang, which were manufactured 

by any company other than Zibo Botai 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Zibo Botai). 

However, upon due consideration of the 

arguments of interested parties, and the 

facts of the case as summarized in the 

Decision Memorandum (comment 8), for 

the final results we have assigned to 

exports of Xianjiang, manufactured by 

any company other than Zibo Botai, the 

China–wide rate, because it failed to 

respond to our questionnaire. See id. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 69939 

Separate Rates 

In our Preliminary Results, we found 

that all respondents except Huanri and 

Rotec qualified for separate rates. We 

found in the course of the review that 

export–related decisions at Huanri were 

controlled by the Panjacun Village 

Committee, and we determined that this 

entity was subject to central government 

control. We continue to find that Huanri 

is not entitled to a separate rate in these 

final results. See Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 7; see also Preliminary 

Results at 24387–24389. Because the 

Department has determined that Huanri 

does not qualify for a separate rate, we 

determine that Huanri is part of the 

PRC–wide entity and will be subject to 

the PRC–wide rate. We received no 

comments with respect to Rotec. For 

these final results we continue to find 

that Rotec is not eligible to receive a 

separate rate and will be subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

A list of the issues which parties 

raised and to which we responded in 

the Decision Memorandum which 

accompanies this notice is attached as 

Appendix 1. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the comments received from 

the interested parties, the Department 

has made company–specific changes to 

the margin calculations for CNIM, 

Winhere, GREN, and ZLAP. 

Additionally, based on information 

submitted since the Preliminary Results, 

some surrogate values have changed. 

Specifically, we have revised the 

surrogate values for labor, cartons, and 

lug nuts. See Decision Memorandum at 

comments 1, 2, 5 and 13. 

For the final results, we have also 

revised the calculation of surrogate 

financial ratios for factory overhead and 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and profit, 

excluding the scrap revenue offset 

which we had deducted from the cost of 

manufacture at two surrogate companies 

for the Preliminary Results. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

The PRC–Wide Rate and Application of 

Facts Otherwise Available 

The PRC–wide rate will apply to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from PRC producers/ 

exporters that have their own calculated 

rate. See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section 

above. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, (‘‘the Act’’) provides 

that, when (1) necessary information is 

not available on the record, the 

Department may use the facts otherwise 

available to reach a determination. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party or any other 

person: (A) withholds information that 

has been requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for the 

submission of the information or in the 

form 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 Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable results under this title. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

promptly inform the party submitting 

the response of the nature of the 

deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party with an 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. Section 782(d) further states 

that, if the party submits further 

information that is unsatisfactory or 

untimely, the administering authority 

may, subject to subsection (e), disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses. Section 782(e) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall not 

decline to consider information that is 

submitted by an interested party and is 

necessary to make a determination but 

does not meet all the applicable 

requirements established by the 

administering authority if (1) the 

information is submitted by the 

deadline established for its submission, 

(2) the information can be verified, (3) 

the information is not so incomplete 

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for 

reaching the applicable results, (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

administering authority with respect to 

the information, and (5) the information 

can be used without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department may use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of the respondent if it determines that 

a party has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 

(1994). 

In determining whether a party failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability, the 

Department considers whether a party 

could comply with the request for 

information, and whether a party paid 

insufficient attention to its statutory 

duties. See Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. 

United States, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 

1342 (August 6, 2002). The focus of 

776(b) of the Act is respondent’s failure 

to cooperate to the best of its ability, 

rather than its failure to provide 

requested information. See Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final results in the investigation, any 

previous review, or any other 

information placed on the record. See 

Section 776(b) of the Act. 

Rotec and Xianjiang 

As noted above, section 776(a) of the 

Act provides that the Department may 

make a facts available (‘‘FA’’) 

determination if a party withholds 

information requested by the 

Department, significantly impedes a 

proceeding, and/or provides 

unverifiable information in a 

proceeding. By not responding to 

Department inquiries, Rotec and 

Xianjiang withheld requested 

information from the Department, 

impeded this proceeding, and precluded 

the Department from verifying 

information placed on the record in this 

case. 

Consistent with Section 776(a) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

apply total facts available to Rotec and 

Xianjiang for the final results. The 

application of total facts available is 

warranted in this case because the 

unresponsiveness of Rotec and 

Xianjiang made it impossible for the 

Department to review or verify 

information on their U.S. sales, if any. 

The Department further finds that by 

not responding to our inquiries, Rotec 

and Xianjiang failed to cooperate to the 

best of their abilities in this proceeding. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, we find it appropriate to use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of Rotec and Xianjiang in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available 

with respect to its request for a separate 

rate. By doing so, we ensure that the 

companies that fail to cooperate will not 

69940 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 

obtain a more favorable result than 

those companies that complied fully 

with the Department’s requests in this 

review. See below for a discussion of 

the probative value of the 42.32 percent 

rate. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we have applied total adverse facts 

available with respect to the PRC–wide 

entity, including Rotec and Xianjiang. 

Corroboration 

In accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we have assigned the rate for 

the PRC–wide entity to Rotec and 

Xianjiang as adverse facts available. See, 

e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper 

Review and Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). 

In selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available, the Department selects a rate 

that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Final Results of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 

1998). Consistent with section 776(c) of 

the Act, this rate is the highest dumping 

margin from any segment of this 

proceeding and was established in the 

less–than-fair–value investigation based 

on information contained in the 

petition, and corroborated in the final 

results of the first administrative review. 

See Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of Second 

New Shipper Review and Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 61581 (November 12, 

1999). 

For the reasons stated in the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

continues to find this rate to be both 

reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to 

have probative value in accordance with 

the SAA. See SAA at 870; see also 

Preliminary Results at 70 FR 10965. We 

received no comments on our 

preliminary analysis of this rate for 

purposes of these final results. 

Therefore, we determine that the rate of 

43.32 percent is still reliable, relevant, 

and, has probative value within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margins exist on exports of 

brake rotors from the PRC for the period 

April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Producer/Manufacturer/ 

Exporter 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

CNIM ............................. 0.28% (de minimis) 

Fengkun ........................ 1.43% 

GREN ........................... 0.32% (de minimis) 

Haimeng ....................... 0.20% (de minimis) 

Hengtai ......................... 0.00% 

Hongda ......................... 0.04% (de minimis) 

Hongfa .......................... 0.00% (de minimis) 

Jinzheng ....................... 0.00% 

LABEC .......................... 0.09% (de minimis) 

Longkou TLC ................ 0.10% (de minimis) 

Meita ............................. 0.00% 

Winhere ........................ 0.31% (de minimis) 

ZGOLD ......................... 0.00% 

ZLAP ............................. 0.17% (de minimis) 

PRC–Wide Entity .......... 43.32% 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty weighted–average 

margin for each company, see the 

respective company’s Analysis 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Seventh Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated November 7, 2005. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

US Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

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

calculated importer- or customer–

specific ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping margins 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

Where the respondent did not report 

actual entered value, we calculated 

individual importer- or customer–

specific assessment rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

of the U.S. sales examined and dividing 

that amount by the total quantity of the 

sales examined. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate, without regard to 

antidumping duties, all entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR for 

which the importer–specific assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 

0.50 percent). To determine whether the 

per–unit duty assessment rates are de 

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

accordance with the requirement set 

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

calculated importer- or customer - 

specific ad valorem ratios based on 

export prices. 

The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of these final results of 

review. We will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries of the subject 

merchandise during the POR from 

companies not subject to this review at 

the cash deposit rate in effect at the time 

of entry. Bonding will no longer be 

permitted to fulfill security 

requirements for shipments of brake 

rotors from the PRC that are 

manufactured and exported by Jinzheng, 

and entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results 

of the new shipper review. 

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 (a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for CNIM,, GREN, Haimeng, 

Hengtai, Hongda, Hongfa, Jinzheng (i.e., 

for subject merchandise manufactured 

and exported by Jinzheng), LABEC, 

Meita, Winhere, ZGOLD, ZLAP, and 

Longkou TLC will be zero; (2) the cash 

deposit rate for Fengkun will be the rate 

indicated above; (3) 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; (4) the cash deposit rate for 

the PRC NME entity and for subject 

merchandise exported by Jinzheng but 

not manufactured by it will continue to 

be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 43.32 

percent); and (5) the cash deposit rate 

for non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC will be the 

rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied the exporter. 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the 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 in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return/destruction or conversion to 

judicial protective order of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 69941 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 

Failure to comply is a violation of the 

APO. 

These results are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Issues in Decisions 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Labor Rate 

Comment 2: Surrogate Value 

Calculations for Cartons 

Comment 4: Scrap Offset in Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 5: Financial Ratios Applied to 

Inputs Supplied by Customers 

Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Lug 

Nuts 

Company–Specific Issues 

Comment 7: Huanri–Separate Rate 

Comment 8: Xianjiang–Non-Responsive 

Comment 9: CNIM–Margin Calculation 

Comment 10: Winhere–Plywood 

Valuation 

Comment 11: GREN–Returned Sales 

Comment 12: Fengkun–Customs 

Instructions 

Comment 13: ZLAP–Surrogate Value for 

Lug Nuts 

[FR Doc. 05–22893 Filed 11–17–05; 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: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 20, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the notice of 

preliminary results of its changed 

circumstances review examining 

whether 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. See Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

70 FR 55107 (September 20, 2005) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In those 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

found that Huanri Group was the 

successor–in-interest to Huanri Group 

General. 

However, after consideration of 

factual information evaluated in the 

Department’s seventh administrative 

review of brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), the 

Department finds that although Huanri 

Group remains the successor–in-interest 

to Huanri Group General, information in 

the above–referenced administrative 

review has led the Department to deny 

Huanri Group General a separate rate. 

See Comment 7 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China, to Stephen 

J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from Edward 

Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator / 

NME Unit, Import Administration 

(November 7, 2005) (‘‘2003/2004 Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

on file in the Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099 of the main Department 

building. We have now completed this 

changed circumstances review in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216 and 

351.221(c)(3). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Christopher Riker, 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) 482–1442 or (202) 482–

3441, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 13, 2004, the 

Department initiated a changed 

circumstances review of Huanri Group’s 

claim that it is the successor–in-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 September 20, 2005, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of its changed circumstances 

review. See Preliminary Results. In 

making such a successor–in-interest 

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. 

In this case, 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. 

Although the Department found 

Huanri Group was the successor–ininterest to Huanri Group General, the 

Department indicated in the Preliminary 

Results that it was currently conducting 

an administrative review regarding 

Huanri Group General. 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 

Department informed the public that it 

would issue the final results of this 

changed circumstances review at the 

same time as the concurrent 

administrative review as both segments 

involve the company at issue, and that 

the separate rate issue will be decided 

in the context of the administrative 

review. 

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)