Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7405 

1See Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘2005–2006 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, Results of 

Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,’’ dated 

August 22, 2006. 

2See Memorandum to Ronald Lorentzen, 

Director, Office of Policy, from Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2005–2006 New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated August 11, 2006. 

3See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 

Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from Ronald 

Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, entitled, ‘‘New 

Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries’’ (‘‘NSR Surrogate-Country 

Memo’’). 

4See Letter to All Interested Parties from Blanche 

Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

8, requesting parties to provide surrogate factors-ofproduction values from the potential surrogate 

countries (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the 

Philippines and Egypt), dated August 24, 2006, and 

Letter to All Interested Parties from Blanche Ziv, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

regarding surrogate-country selection, dated 

September 12, 2006. 

5See Memorandum to the File from Ryan 

Douglas, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8, 

AD/CVD Operations, through Wendy Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate-Country Selection Memorandum for the 

2005–2006 Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews,’’ dated November 21, 2006 (‘‘Surrogate 

Country Selection Memo’’). 

6See Memorandum to the File from Ryan A. 

Douglas, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Alignment of 2005–

2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,’’

dated October 4, 2006. 

7See Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Qingdao Golrich 

Autoparts Co., Ltd., dated October 25, 2006. 

8See Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro 

and Jennifer Moats, International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, and Wendy J. 

Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, 

entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. in 

Continued 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

ADMINISTRATION 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the 2005–2006 Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews and Partial 

Rescission of the 2005–2006 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting the 2005–2006 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). We preliminarily 

determine that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) with respect 

to certain exporters who participated 

fully and are entitled to a separate rate 

in the administrative or new shipper 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of these 

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Fornaro or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3927 or (202) 482–

4207, respectively. 

Background 

On April 17, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (‘‘the Order’’). 

New Shipper Review 

On March 16, 2006, Qingdao Golrich 

Autoparts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golrich’’) 

requested a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC, which has an April 

anniversary month, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.214(c). In response to the 

Department’s May 4, 2006, request for 

information, Golrich provided 

supplemental information on May 16, 

2006. On May 30, 2006, the Department 

initiatd a new shipper review of Golrich 

covering the period April 1, 2005, 

through March 31, 2006. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 30655 

(May 30, 2006). On May 30, 2006, the 

Department issued a new shipper 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Golrich. 

On July 11, 2006, the Department 

received Golrich’s Sections A, C and D 

response. On July 27, 2006, the 

Department received Golrich’s ImporterSpecific Questionnaire response. On 

August 18, October 10, and October 27, 

2006, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Golrich 

and received responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires on 

September 15, October 24, and 

November 1, 2006, respectively. On 

August 22, 2006, the Department placed 

on the record of the new shipper review 

copies of CBP documents pertaining to 

the entry of brake rotors from the PRC 

exported to the United States by Golrich 

during the POR.1

On August 11, 2006, we requested 

that the Office of Policy issue a 

surrogate-country memorandum for the 

selection of the appropriate surrogate 

countries for this new shipper review.2

On August 23, 2006, the Office of Policy 

provided a list of five countries at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC for the 

POR.3 On August 24 and September 12, 

2006, the Department invited all 

interested parties to submit comments 

on surrogate-country selection and to 

submit publicly available information as 

surrogate values for purposes of 

calculating NV.4 See ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. On September 

14, 2006, Coalition for the Preservation 

of American Brake Drum and Rotor 

Aftermarket Manufacturers 

(‘‘petitioners’’) submitted publicly 

available information for use as 

surrogate values in the calculation of 

NV in the 2005–2006 administrative and 

new shipper reviews. On November 21, 

2006, the Department selected India as 

the most appropriate surrogate country 

for the purpose of this new shipper 

review.5 On October 2, 2006, Golrich 

submitted rebuttal comments on 

petitioners’ September 14, 2006, 

surrogate value submission. 

On October 2, 2006, Golrich agreed to 

waive the new shipper review time 

limits in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(j)(3), to align the new shipper 

review with the concurrent 2005–2006 

administrative review of brake rotors 

from the PRC. On October 4, 2006, the 

Department aligned the new shipper 

review with the 2005–2006 

administrative review of brake rotors 

from the PRC.6

On October 25, 2006, the Department 

issued a verification agenda to Golrich.7

On November 14 through 16, 2006, the 

Department verified the sales and 

factors-of-production (‘‘FOP’’) responses 

of Golrich at its factory in Qingdao, 

Shandong, PRC. On January 24, 2007, 

the Department issued the verification 

report for Golrich.8


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7406 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

the 2005–2006 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 

24, 2007 (‘‘Golrich Verification Report’’). 

9The Department received a request from 

petitioners to review Laizhou Auto Brake 

Equipment Company. However, we have 

determined from the respondent that the correct 

name for this company is Laizhou Auto Brake 

Equipment Co., Ltd. 

10The names of these exporters are as follows: (1) 

China National Industrial Machinery Import & 

Export Corporation (‘‘CNIM’’); (2) Laizhou Auto 

Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. (‘‘LABEC’’); (3) Qingdao 

Gren Co. (‘‘Gren’’); (4) Winhere; (5) Haimeng; (6) 

Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZLAP’’); 

(7) Hongda; (8) Hongfa; (9) Meita; (10) Longkou TLC 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Longkou TLC’’); (11) Zibo 

Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company 

(‘‘ZGOLD’’); (12) Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts 

Co. (‘‘Xumingyuan’’); (13) Xiangfen Hengtai Brake 

System Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengtai’’); (14) Laizhou City Luqi 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Luqi’’); (15) Qingdao Rotec 

Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rotec’’); (16) Shenyang 

Yinghao Machinery Co. (‘‘Yinghao’’); (17) Longkou 

Jinzheng Maxhinery (sic) Co. (‘‘Jinzheng’’); (18) 

Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wally’’); (19) 

Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Zhongding’’); (20) Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co.; 

(21) Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanri’’); 

(22) China National Automotive Industry Import & 

Export Corporation (‘‘CAIEC’’), excluding entries 

manufactured by Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 

Industry (‘‘CAPCO’’); (23) CAPCO, excluding 

entries manufactured by CAPCO; (24) Laizhou 

Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. (‘‘Laizhou 

Luyuan’’), excluding entries manufactured by 

Laizhou Luyuan or Shenyang Honbase Machinery 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Honbase’’); (25) Honbase, excluding 

entries manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan or 

Honbase; (26) Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment 

Factory; and (27) Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company. 

11These seven companies are Hongfa, Wally, 

Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, and 

Honbase. 

12See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 

37211 (July 17, 2001). 

13See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

69941 (November 18, 2005) (‘‘Brake Rotors Changed 

Circumstances Seventh’’). See also, Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper 

Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001). 

14See Brake Rotors Changed Circumstances 

Seventh at 69942. 

15See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from 

Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents,’’ dated August 18, 2006. 

16See Memorandum to the File from Ann 

Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 

Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents,’’

dated August 24, 2006. 

Administrative Review 

On April 3, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 16549 (April 3, 2006). 

On April 28, 2006, the Department 

received timely requests for an 

administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213 from Laizhou Auto 

Brake Equipment Co., Ltd.9 (‘‘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 

Shandong Huanri Group General Co., 

Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., 

Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Huanri’’). The 

Department also received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

27 companies (or producer/exporter 

combinations),10 from petitioners on 

May 1, 2006. On May 15, 2006, 

petitioners submitted an amendment to 

this request for an administrative 

review, stating that the name China 

National Machinery Import & Export 

Company should be corrected to China 

National Industrial Machinery Import & 

Export Company and that Laizhou Luqi 

Machinery Co., Ltd. is the same 

company as Laizhou Luqi Machinery 

Co. 

On May 31, 2006, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC for 27 individually named 

firms, for the POR of April 1, 2005, 

through March 31, 2006. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006) (‘‘AR 

Initiation Notice’’). Of the 27 companies 

for which the Department initiated a 

review, we received seven requests for 

rescission of review between May 31 

and July 6, 2006, based on claims of no 

shipments.11 See ‘‘Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of 2005–2006 Administrative 

Review’’ section below. Because the 

Department previously determined that 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. 

is the successor-in-interest to Laizhou 

Auto Brake Equipments Factory,12 for 

purposes of this proceeding, we 

continue to consider these two 

companies as the same entity (i.e., 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., 

Ltd.). Similarly, the Department 

determined in a changed circumstances 

review that Shandong Huanri Group 

Co., Ltd. was the successor-in-interest to 

Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company for purposes of determining 

antidumping duty liability.13 We also 

note that in a prior review, the 

Department treated Laizhou Huanri 

Automobile Co., Ltd. as part of the 

Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company.14 Thus, for purposes of 

determining the pool of respondents in 

the current review, we consider Laizhou 

Huanri Automobile Co., Ltd. and 

Shandong Huanri Group General 

Company to be a single respondent. 

Due to the large number of 

participating firms subject to this 

administrative review, and the 

Department’s experience regarding the 

administrative burden of reviewing each 

company for which a request was made, 

the Department exercised its authority 

to limit the number of mandatory 

respondents selected for individual 

review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), by selecting exporters and 

producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise that 

can reasonably be examined. On June 

16, 2006, the Department issued letters 

to all firms named in the AR Initiation 

Notice requesting information on the 

quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) of sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. The Department 

issued letters to two companies (i.e., 

Laizhou CAPCO Machinery Co., Ltd. 

and Laizhou Luyuan) to clarify reported 

Q&V information covered by this 

administrative review on September 28 

and October 12, 2006, respectively. On 

August 18, 2006, based on reported 

export volumes of subject merchandise 

during the POR, the Department 

selected the three largest companies by 

volume, i.e., Haimeng, Winhere and 

Meita, as the three mandatory 

respondents in this review. The 

remaining 12 respondents are nonselected respondents.15 See ‘‘Separate 

Rates’’ section below. On August 18, 

2006, we issued antidumping duty 

questionnaires to Haimeng, Meita and 

Winhere. 

On August 24, 2006, the Department 

placed on the record of this review 

copies of CBP documents pertaining to 

entries of brake rotors from the PRC 

exported to the United States by Hongfa 

and CAPCO during the POR.16 On 

September 19, 2006, Hongfa submitted 

additional information regarding the 

CBP documentation. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of 2005–2006 

Administrative Review’’ section below. 

On August 11, 2006, we requested 

that the Office of Policy issue a 

surrogate-country memorandum for the 

selection of the appropriate surrogate 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7407 

17See Memorandum to Ronald Lorentzen, 

Director, Office of Policy, from Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2005–2006 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ dated August 11, 2006 (‘‘AR SurrogateCountry Memo’’). 

18See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from 

Ronald Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, 

entitled, ‘‘Administrative Review of Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request 

for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated August 23, 

2006. 

19See Letter to All Interested Parties from 

Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, requesting parties to provide 

surrogate factors-of-production values from the 

potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, 

Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt), dated August 

24, 2006, and Letter to All Interested Parties from 

Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, regarding surrogate-country 

selection, dated September 12, 2006. 

20See Surrogate Country Selection Memo. 

21See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Review of Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated January 26, 

2007 (‘‘Haimeng Verification Report’’), and 

‘‘Verification of the Separate Rate Response of 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated (January 24, 

2007 (‘‘TLC Verification Report’’). 

22 22 As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification 

for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.50.10 

to 8708.39.50.30. See Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (2005), available at 

<www.usitc.gov>. 

23The non-selected respondents are as follows: 

CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou TLC, 

ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, and 

Huanri. 

countries for this review.17 On August 

23, 2006, the Office of Policy provided 

a list of five countries at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC for the POR of this 

review.18 On August 24 and September 

12, 2006, the Department invited all 

interested parties to submit comments 

on surrogate-country selection and to 

submit publicly available information as 

surrogate values for purposes of 

calculating NV.19 See ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. On November 

21, 2006, the Department selected India 

as the most appropriate surrogate 

country for the purpose of this 

administrative review.20

On September 14, 2006, petitioners 

submitted publicly available 

information for use as surrogate values 

in the calculation of NV in the 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews. Also, on September 14, 2006, 

Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, LABEC, 

Hongda, and Luqi submitted publicly 

available information for use as 

surrogate values in the calculation of 

NV in the administrative review. On 

September 25, 2006, petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments to the 

aforementioned respondents’ September 

14, 2006, filing. On October 5, 2006, 

Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, LABEC, 

Hongda, and Luqi submitted rebuttal 

comments to petitioners’’ comments. 

On October 3, 2006, we received 

questionnaire responses from Haimeng, 

Winhere, and Meita. The Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Haimeng, Meita, and Winhere on 

October 13, November 30, and 

December 12, 2006, respectively. We 

received supplemental questionnaire 

responses from Haimeng, Meita, and 

Winhere on October 30, December 14, 

2006, and January 8, 2007, respectively. 

On October 25, 2006, the Department 

issued verification outlines to Haimeng 

and TLC. The Department conducted 

verification of the responses of Haimeng 

from November 6 through 10, 2006, and 

of TLC on November 13, 2006. On 

January 24 and 26, 2007, the 

Department released the verification 

reports for TLC and Haimeng, 

respectively.21 For further information, 

see the ‘‘Verification’’ section below. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2005, through 

March 31, 2006. 

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’’).22 Although 

the HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control, and thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of subject merchandise subject 

to review in an NME country a single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent of 

government control to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 74764, 74766 (December 

16, 2005) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

For the administrative review, in 

order to demonstrate separate-rate status 

eligibility, the Department required 

entities, for whom a review was 

requested, and that were assigned a 

separate-rate in the previous segment of 

this proceeding, to submit a separaterate certification stating that they 

continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate. For entities 

that were not assigned a separate rate in 

the previous segment of this proceeding, 

to demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department required a separate-rate 

status application. The three mandatory 

(i.e., Haimeng, Meita, and Winhere) and 

12 separate-rate respondents (i.e., nonselected respondents) provided 

company-specific information and 

each 23 stated that it meets the criteria 

for the assignment of a separate-rate. 

We considered whether the 

respondents referenced above were 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate-rate status test to 

determine whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7408 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

24See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 

1997); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 

61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). 

25See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from the 

Team through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Preliminary 

Results 2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China Separate-Rate Analysis 

for Respondents (Including Exporters Not Being 

Individually Reviewed,’’ dated February 9, 2007 

(‘‘Separate-Rate Memo’’). 

26 In Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the Seventh Administrative Review; Preliminary 

Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 

24382, 24388–89 (May 9, 2005) (‘‘Brake Rotors 

Seventh’’), we found in the course of that review 

that Huanri was not entitled to a separate rate 

because it did not demonstrate an absence of de 

facto government control. In Brake Rotors Seventh, 

the Department determined that the Panjiacun 

Village Committee was a form of local government 

in the PRC and that it was involved in exportrelated decisions at Huanri. Furthermore, in Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 

2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304, 

66305 (November 14, 2006) (‘‘Brake Rotors 8th 

Final Results’’), consistent with Department 

practice, the Department determined that Huanri 

was not entitled to a separate rate because Huanri 

cancelled a scheduled verification, and therefore, 

the Department was unable to verify Huanri’s 

response with respect to its separate-rate claim. 

macroeconomic/border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level.24

To establish whether an exporter is 

sufficiently independent of government 

control to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the Department analyzes the exporter in 

light of select criteria, discussed below. 

See Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’); and Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585, 22586, 22587 (May 

2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under this 

test, exporters in NME countries are 

entitled to separate, company-specific 

margins when they can demonstrate an 

absence of government control over 

exports, both in law (‘‘de jure’’) and in 

fact (‘‘de facto’’). 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; or (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR 20589. Haimeng, 

Winhere, Meita, CNIM, LABEC, Gren, 

ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, 

Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, 

and Huanri each placed on the 

administrative record documents to 

demonstrate an absence of de jure 

control (e.g., the 1994 ‘‘Foreign Trade 

Law of the People’s Republic of China,’’

and the 1999 ‘‘Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China’’). 

As in prior cases, we analyzed the 

laws presented to us and found them to 

establish sufficiently an absence of de 

jure control over joint ventures between 

the PRC and foreign companies, and 

limited liability companies in the PRC. 

See, e.g., Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 102, 

105 (January 3, 2007); Hand Trucks and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China; Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 937, 944 (January 

9, 2007). We have no new information 

in this proceeding which would cause 

us to reconsider this determination with 

regard to Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, 

CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, 

Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, 

Jinzheng, Zhongding, and Huanri. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

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, 59 FR at 22586, 

22587. 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 government 

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 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government 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, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, CNIM, 

LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou 

TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, 

Zhongding, and Huanri each asserted 

the following: (1) It establishes its own 

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts 

without guidance from any government 

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. Additionally, 

each of these companies’ questionnaire 

responses indicates that its pricing 

during the POR does not suggest 

coordination among exporters. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that Haimeng, Winhere, 

Meita, CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, 

Hongda, Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, 

Yinghao, Jinzheng, Zhongding, and 

Huanri have each met the criteria for the 

application of a separate rate based on 

the documentation each of these 

respondents has submitted on the 

record of these reviews.25

We note that in previous segments of 

this proceeding, the Department 

determined that Huanri was not entitled 

to a separate rate because it had not 

demonstrated an absence of de facto 

control by the PRC government.26 In the 

instant review, Huanri reported certain 

changes that have resulted in the 

Department’s determination to 

preliminarily grant Huanri a separate 

rate. See Separate-Rate Memo for further 

details and a full discussion of this 

issue. The Department intends to verify 

the information provided by Huanri in 

its separate-rate application following 

the preliminary results. We will 

reexamine Huanri’s eligibility for a 

separate rate pending results of 

verification and will continue to 

examine this issue for the final results. 

Verification 

On August 29, 2006, petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

verification of the data submitted by all 

of the firms for which the Department 

initiated an administrative review and 

the new shipper, Golrich. However, due 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7409 

27For further information, see Memorandum from 

Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, entitled 

‘‘2005–2006 New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of 

Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

February 9, 2007. 

to the Department’s resource constraints 

in conducting these reviews, we only 

selected Haimeng, TLC, Golrich, and 

Huanri for verification pursuant to 

section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.307. 

On October 25, 2006, the Department 

issued verification outlines to Haimeng, 

TLC and Golrich. The Department 

conducted verification of the responses 

of Haimeng from November 6 through 

10, 2006; of TLC on November 13, 2006; 

and of Golrich from November 15 

through 17, 2006. For the companies we 

verified, we used standard verification 

procedures, including on-site inspection 

of the manufacturers’ and exporters’

facilities, and examination of relevant 

sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

verification report for each company. 

See Haimeng Verification Report, TLC 

Verification Report and Golrich 

Verification Report. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005–

2006 Administrative Review 

With respect to Hongfa, Wally, 

Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, 

and Honbase, each informed the 

Department that it did not export the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR in the 

combinations described below, where 

applicable. Specifically, (1) neither 

Hongfa nor Wally exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR; (2) CAIEC did not export brake 

rotors to the United States that were 

manufactured by producers other than 

CAPCO; (3) CAPCO did not export brake 

rotors to the United States that were 

manufactured by producers other than 

CAPCO; (4) Luyuan did not export brake 

rotors to the United States that were 

manufactured by producers other than 

Luyuan or Honbase; and (5) Honbase 

did not export brake rotors to the United 

States that were manufactured by 

producers other than Honbase or 

Luyuan. In order to corroborate these 

submissions, we reviewed PRC brake 

rotor shipment data maintained by CBP. 

In reviewing the CBP data, we did not 

find any evidence contradicting Wally, 

Xumingyuan, CAIEC, Honbase, and 

Luyuan’s claims of no shipments of 

brake rotors during the POR. 

On August 24, 2006, the Department 

placed on the record of the 

administrative review CBP entry 

documents relating to certain shipments 

of subject merchandise exported by 

Hongfa and CAPCO. The Department 

analyzed the CBP documents relating to 

the CAPCO shipments and determined 

that these documents did not indicate 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. On September 19, 2006, 

Hongfa reaffirmed that it did not make 

any shipments during the POR and 

submitted additional information 

relating to its shipments, explaining that 

all but one shipment were brake drums 

incorrectly coded by the importer as 

brake rotors and that the one shipment 

of brake rotors had been reported to the 

Department and subject to the previous 

administrative review. We found no 

evidence contradicting the statements 

made by any of the above-mentioned 

firms. 

Based on the record of this review and 

the results of our customs query, we 

cannot conclude that Hongfa, Wally, 

Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, 

or Honbase sold merchandise subject to 

the order. For the reasons mentioned 

above, we are preliminarily rescinding 

the administrative review for these 

exporters in the following specified 

exporter/producer combinations: (1) 

Hongfa; (2) Wally; (3) Xumingyuan; (4) 

CAIEC/manufactured by any company 

other than CAPCO; (5) CAPCO/ 

manufactured by any company other 

than CAPCO; (6) Luyuan/manufactured 

by any company other than Luyuan or 

Honbase; and (7) Honbase/ 

manufactured by any company other 

than Honbase or Luyuan, because we 

found no evidence that any of these 

exporter/producer combinations made 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

during the POR, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Golrich 

In evaluating whether or not a single 

sale is commercially reasonable, and 

therefore bona fide, the Department has 

considered, inter alia, such factors as: 

(1) The timing of the sale; (2) the price 

and quantity of the sale; (3) the 

expenses arising from the transaction; 

(4) whether the goods were resold at a 

profit; and (5) whether the transaction 

was made on an arm’s-length basis. See 

Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 

1246 (CIT 2005) (‘‘TTPC’’) at 9, citing 

Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 110 

F. Supp. 2d 992, 995 (CIT 2000). 

Therefore, the Department examines a 

number of factors, all of which may 

speak to the commercial realities 

surrounding the sale of subject 

merchandise. While some bona fides 

issues may share commonalities across 

various cases, each case is companyspecific and the analysis may vary with 

the facts surrounding each sale. See, 

e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms for 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of New 

Shipper Review and Administrative 

Reviews, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003). 

The weight given to each factor 

investigated will depend on the 

circumstances surrounding the sale. See 

TTPC, 366 F. Supp at 1263. 

For the reasons stated below, we 

preliminarily find that Golrich’s 

reported U.S. sale during the POR 

appears to be a bona fide sale, as 

required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), 

based on the totality of the facts on the 

record. Specifically, we do not find that 

the difference in quantity or average 

price for Golrich’s sale compared to the 

average quantity and unit value of U.S. 

imports of comparable brake rotors from 

the PRC during the POR together with 

the totality of circumstances 

surrounding the sale at issue indicate 

the sale to be aberrational. We also 

examined information placed on the 

record by Golrich, Golrich’s customer 

for the POR sale, and information 

developed independently by the 

Department regarding Golrich’s 

customer for the POR sale and 

circumstances surrounding the POR 

sale. We found no evidence that the 

POR sale under review is not a bona fide 

sale.27 Therefore, for the reasons 

mentioned above, the Department 

preliminarily finds that Golrich’s U.S. 

sale during the POR was a bona fide 

commercial transaction. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. 

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

Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 

(February 10, 2006). None of the parties 

to these proceedings has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production, valued 

in a surrogate market economy country 

or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7410 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

28See NSR Surrogate-Country Memo and AR 

Surrogate-Country Memo (collectively, ‘‘SurrogateCountry Memos’’). 

29See Surrogate Country Selection Memo. 

30For further information, see Memorandum to 

the File from the Team through Blanche Ziv, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative and New 

Shipper Reviews of Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the 

Preliminary Results,’’ dated February 9, 2007 

(‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). 

31See Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Blanche 

Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

8, entitled, ‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: Responses to 

Questionnaire,’’ dated August 11, 2006. 

32 In the Department’s September 19, 2006, letter 

to Hengtai, we stated that, due to the lack of 

cooperation and responsiveness from Hengtai in 

providing the information we requested, we may 

resort to the use of facts available with an adverse 

inference for purposes of this administrative 

review, pursuant to sections 776(1) and 776(b) of 

the Act. See Letter from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 

Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, to Hengtai, dated 

September 19, 2006. 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the factors of 

production, the Department shall use, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of factors of production in one or more 

market economy 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. The 

Department determined that India, Sri 

Lanka, Egypt, the Philippines, and 

Indonesia are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development.28 Customarily, we select 

an appropriate surrogate country from 

the surrogate-country memo based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In this case, based on publicly available 

information placed on the record (e.g., 

export data), we found that India is a 

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise.29 Accordingly, we 

selected India as the primary surrogate 

country for purposes of valuing the 

factors of production in the calculation 

of NV because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See Id. Where Indian data was not 

available, the Department calculated the 

surrogate value using World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’), available at http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm import statistics 

from the Philippines. The Philippines 

import data represents cumulative 

values for fiscal year 2005.30 We 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

antidumping administrative and new 

shipper reviews, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value factors of production within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. 

Facts Available—Rotec, Hengtai, and 

Golrich 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

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 will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, the Department may disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 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 the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis, and if the interested 

party acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information. Where all of 

these conditions are met, the statute 

requires the Department to use the 

information if it can do so without 

undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

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

(1994). ‘‘Corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

The SAA emphasizes, however, that the 

Department need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, 

the use of AFA is warranted for the 

preliminary results for the PRC-wide 

entity, including Hengtai and Rotec. 

Rotec did not respond to our June 16, 

2006, Q&V questionnaire.31 In the AR 

Initiation Notice, the Department stated 

that if one of the named companies does 

not qualify for a separate rate, all other 

exporters of brake rotors from the PRC 

who have not qualified for a separate 

rate are deemed to be part of the single 

PRC-wide entity, of which the named 

exporter is part. See AR Initiation Notice 

at n.1. Hengtai responded to our June 

16, 2006, Q&V questionnaire but did not 

respond to our August 4, 2006, separaterate application/certification letter, 

which provided Hengtai an opportunity 

to demonstrate its eligibility for a 

separate rate in this administrative 

review.32 Additionally, Hengtai did not 

respond to the Department’s September 

19, 2006, letter. Because Rotec and 

Hengtai did not submit any information 

to establish their eligibility for a 

separate rate, we find they are deemed 

to be part of the PRC-wide entity. See 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above. See 

also, AR Initiation Notice at n1. 

At verification, Golrich provided 

minor corrections for the reported 

weights of 11 of the 18 boxes used to 

pack the subject merchandise it sold 

during the POR. For each of these 11 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7411 

33For further information on the valuation of 

Golrich’s boxes, see Golrich Verification Report and 

Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, through 

Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Qingdao Golrich 

Autoparts Co., Ltd.’’ (‘‘Golrich Calculation Memo’’). 

boxes, we were able to verify the revised 

weights presented as minor corrections 

by Golrich. However, we could not 

verify the reported weights of the 

remaining seven boxes used because 

Golrich could not present these boxes to 

the Department at verification. We were, 

therefore, unable to verify the reported 

unit weights of these seven boxes. To 

value these seven boxes, we adjusted 

the reported weight amounts of those 

boxes by the company’s largest 

percentage increase presented at 

verification for the other boxes.33

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of AFA 

Because we have determined that 

Hengtai and Rotec are not entitled to 

separate rates and are now part of the 

PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity 

(including Hengtai and Rotec) is now 

under review. The PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to our requests for 

information. Because the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information, we find it necessary 

under section 776(a)(2) of the Act to use 

facts available as the basis for these 

preliminary results. Because the PRCwide entity provided no information, 

we determine that sections 782(d) and 

(e) of the Act are not relevant to our 

analysis. We further find that the PRCwide entity (including Hengtai and 

Rotec) failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and, therefore, did not cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, because the 

PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to 

the best of its ability in the proceeding, 

the Department finds it necessary to use 

an adverse inference in making its 

determination, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any other information placed on 

the record. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the highest 

calculated rate in any segment of the 

proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China; Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 

FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005). 

The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the 

Department’s presumption that the 

highest margin was the best information 

of current margins) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); 

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 

2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 

73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a less-than-fairvalue (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation); Kompass 

Food Trading International v. United 

States, 24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) 

(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 

1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Static Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

SAA at 870. See also, 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, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 

18, 2005). In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondents’ prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 

1190. 

Due to Hengtai’s and Rotec’s failure to 

cooperate in this administrative review, 

we have preliminarily assigned the PRCwide entity, of which they are deemed 

to be a part, an AFA rate of 43.32 

percent, which is the PRC-wide rate 

determined in the investigation and the 

rate currently applicable to the PRCwide entity. See Brake Rotors 8th Final 

Results at 66307. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

PRC-wide rate from the original 

investigation to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information. See 

Section 776(c) of the Act and the 

‘‘Corroboration of Facts Available’’

section below. 

Corroboration of Facts Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, where the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. Secondary 

information is described in the SAA as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See SAA at 870. The SAA states that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that 

the information used has probative 

value. The Department has determined 

that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in 

Outside Diameter, and Components 

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial 

Termination of Administrative Reviews, 

61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). 

The SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See SAA at 870. See also, 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and 

Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 

Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

34See Memorandum to the File from Ann 

Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

through Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled ‘‘2005–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’): Corroboration of the PRC-Wide 

Adverse Facts-Available Rate.’’

35See Golrich Calculation Memo; Memorandum 

to the File from Jennifer Moats, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, entitled, 

‘‘Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China: Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd.,’’

dated February 9, 2007 (‘‘Haimeng Calculation 

Memo’’); Memorandum to the file through Blanche 

Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

8, from Frances Veith, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, Subject: Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Yantai Winhere 

Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd., dated February 

9, 2007 (‘‘Winhere Calculation Memo’’); and 

Memorandum to the file from Frances Veith, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, through 

Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Qingdao Meita 

Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 9, 

2007 (‘‘Meita Calculation Memo’’). 

36See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind the 2004/ 

2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736, 26742 

(May 8, 2006). 

35629 (June 16, 2003); and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Live Swine From 

Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 

2005). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, the Department 

disregarded the highest margin as 

adverse best information available (the 

predecessor to facts available) because it 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense that 

resulted in an unusually high margin. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D&L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 

1220, 1223–4 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding 

that the Department will not use a 

margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). 

With regard to the relevance of the 

rate used, the Department notes that the 

rate used is the rate currently applicable 

to the PRC-wide entity and there is no 

information that indicates this rate is no 

longer relevant to the PRC-wide entity. 

In addition, we compared the margin 

calculations of Haimeng, Winhere, and 

Meita in this administrative review with 

the PRC-wide entity margin from the 

LTFV investigation and used in 

previous administrative reviews of this 

case. The Department found that the 

margin of 43.32 percent was within the 

range of the highest margins calculated 

for the respondents on the record of this 

administrative review, further support 

that this rate continues to be relevant for 

use in this administrative review.34

As we have determined, to the extent 

practicable, that the margin selected is 

both reliable and relevant, we determine 

that it has probative value. As a result, 

the Department determines that the 

margin is corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act for 

the purposes of this administrative 

review and may reasonably be applied 

to the PRC-wide entity as AFA. 

Accordingly, we determine that the 

highest rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding, 43.32 

percent, meets the corroboration 

criterion established in section 776(c) of 

the Act that secondary information has 

probative value. 

Because these are the preliminary 

results of review, the Department will 

consider all margins on the record at the 

time of the final results of review for the 

purpose of determining the most 

appropriate final margin for the PRCwide entity. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141 (January 7, 

2000). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Haimeng, Meita, 

Winhere, and Golrich to the United 

States were made at prices below NV, 

we compared each company’s export 

prices (‘‘EPs’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice below, pursuant 

to section 773 of the Act. 

Export Price 

For each respondent, we used EP 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, for sales in 

which the subject merchandise was first 

sold prior to importation by the exporter 

outside the United States directly to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States and for sales in which 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise indicated. We made the 

following company-specific 

adjustments: 

A. Haimeng, Meita, Winhere, and 

Golrich 

We calculated EP based on the 

delivery method reported 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,b and international freight, 

and air freight, pursuant to section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.35 Where foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling fees, or marine insurance were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate rates from India. 

For those expenses that were provided 

by a market-economy provider and paid 

for in market-economy currency, we 

used the reported expense. See ‘‘Factor 

Valuation’’ section below for further 

discussion of surrogate rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

surrogate values to use in a given case, 

the Department’s stated practice is to 

use review period-wide price averages, 

prices specific to the input in question, 

prices that are net of taxes and import 

duties, prices that are contemporaneous 

with the period of review, and publicly 

available data. See e.g., Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 

(July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1. The data we used for brokerage and 

handling expenses fulfill all of the 

foregoing criteria except that they are 

not specific to the subject merchandise. 

There is no information of that type on 

the record of these reviews. Therefore, 

consistent with the most recently 

completed administrative review,36 we 

used ranged brokerage and handling 

data from the February 28, 2005, public 

version of the Section C response of 

Essar Steel Limited in Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006), 

which covers the period December 1, 

2003, through November 30, 2004. We 

also used ranged brokerage and 

handling data from Agro Dutch 

Industries Ltd., taken from Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 

(March 2, 2006), for which the POR was 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7413 

February 1, 2004, through January 31, 

2005. Because these values were not 

concurrent with the POR of these 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews, we adjusted these rates for 

inflation using the Wholesale Price 

Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for India as published 

in the International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and 

then calculated a simple average of the 

two companies’ brokerage expense data. 

Two respondents (i.e., Haimeng and 

Winhere) reported that their U.S. 

customers provided ball bearing cups 

and lug bolts free-of-charge which were 

incorporated into certain brake rotor 

models exported to the United States 

during the POR. Both companies 

reported that their U.S. customers 

purchased ball bearing cups and lug 

bolts from PRC producers that were 

delivered to Haimeng and Winhere in 

specific quantities free-of-charge, and 

that the components were then 

incorporated into models shipped to 

U.S. customers during the POR. 

Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that 

‘‘factors of production utilized in 

producing merchandise include, but are 

not limited to the quantities of raw 

materials employed.’’ See, e.g., Brake 

Rotors 8th Final Results and the 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 9. See also 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 

2005), and the accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at Comment 13. 

Therefore, to reflect the U.S. customers’

expenditures for these items, we 

adjusted the U.S. price of applicable 

sales of these models by adding the 

Indian surrogate value for each 

component (i.e., the ball bearing cups 

and lug bolts) used to the U.S. price of 

such brake rotors sold to the United 

States during the POR. For further 

information, see Winhere Calculation 

Memo and Haimeng Calculation Memo. 

At Haimeng’s verification, we found 

there were several unreported price 

adjustments to certain U.S. sale 

transactions. We adjusted the 

appropriate U.S. sales in Haimeng’s 

margin calculations to account for the 

price deductions granted by Haimeng to 

its customer. For details of this 

adjustment, see Haimeng Verification 

Report and Haimeng Calculation Memo. 

At verification, we also found 

instances where Haimeng sent 

additional brake rotors at zero value in 

response to claims by the U.S. customer 

that it had not received the requested 

merchandise with the original 

shipment. Additionally, we found that 

Haimeng erroneously shipped certain 

brake rotors not ordered by its customer. 

Haimeng shipped the correct 

merchandise, but allowed the customer 

to keep the shipments sent in error at no 

charge. Because Haimeng provided 

documentation from its customer at 

verification demonstrating that such 

claims were made by its customer, and 

the ad valorem effect on export price is 

less than one percent, and thus 

insignificant pursuant to section 

777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.413, we did not correct for these 

adjustments in Haimeng’s margin 

calculation. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Twelfth New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 4112 (January 25, 2006), 

and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. 

Zero-Priced Transactions 

During the course of this review, 

Winhere reported a number of ‘‘sample’’

transactions to its U.S. customer that it 

claimed to be zero-priced transactions. 

See Winhere’s October 3, 2006, sections 

A, C, D, and Reconciliations submission 

at Exhibit C–2 and Winhere’s January 8, 

2007, supplemental questionnaire 

response at Exhibits 8 and 9 (‘‘Winhere 

Supplemental Response’’). On 

December 12, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire requesting 

that Winhere provide documentation, 

(e.g., commercial invoice, packing list, 

bill of lading, and PRC customs form) to 

support Winhere’s claim that the sample 

transactions were in fact samples 

provided for no remuneration to its U.S. 

customer. On January 8, 2007, Winhere 

provided a summary of the total 

quantity and value of the products 

shipped ‘‘for no remuneration’’ and the 

total amount ‘‘purchased’’ by its 

customer during an approximate threeyear period (i.e., January 2003 through 

March 2006). Winhere also provided a 

freight carrier shipment bill showing a 

summary (not itemized) of the cost to 

ship some of the claimed samples of 

subject merchandise and non-subject 

merchandise. Winhere did not, 

however, provide any of the other 

documentation requested in the 

Department’s December 12, 2006, 

supplemental questionnaire nor did it 

explain why it did not provide the 

documentation requested. On January 

16, 2007, we issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Winhere 

requesting again that it provide the 

documentation noted above and the 

U.S. Customs 7501 entry forms and pro 

forma invoices to demonstrate that the 

subject merchandise it provided to its 

U.S. customers were transactions for no 

remuneration. On January 23, 2007, 

Winhere provided payment 

documentation for the freight 

information reported in its January 8, 

2007, supplemental response and 

limited warehouse withdrawal 

documentation. Winhere did not 

provide any of the documentation 

requested by the Department noted 

above and stated that it does not 

generate these types of documents when 

shipping samples to its U.S. customers, 

but it also did not provide any other 

information in the alternative to support 

its claims. 

The Courts have consistently ruled 

that the burden rests with a respondent 

to demonstrate that it received no 

consideration in return for its provision 

of purported samples. See, e.g., NTN 

Bearing Corp. of America v. United 

States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1286 (CIT 

2003) and Zenith Electronics Corp. v. 

United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1583 

(Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the 

burden of evidentiary production 

belongs ‘‘to the party in possession of 

the necessary information’’). See also, 

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United 

States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1286 (CIT 

2003), and Tianjin Machinery Import & 

Export Corp. v. United States, 806 F. 

Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (‘‘The 

burden of creating an adequate record 

lies with respondents and not with {the 

Department}.’’) (citation omitted). 

Winhere bears the burden of 

demonstrating that there was no 

monetary or non-monetary 

consideration for the transactions in 

question. Winhere failed to provide any 

evidence that no monetary or nonmonetary consideration was given for its 

claimed sample sales. Therefore, based 

on Winhere’s failure to show that no 

consideration was given for these sales 

in question, we have not excluded these 

transactions from the margin calculation 

for Winhere. Instead, we have treated 

the transactions at issue as zero-priced 

sales and, therefore, included them in 

Winhere’s margin calculation for the 

preliminary results. 

Winhere reported its FOPs for 

materials, labor, and energy based on an 

allocation formula determined by the 

weight of the final product. Therefore, 

to value the claimed sample products 

for which no FOPs were provided by 

Winhere, we used the same allocation 

formula reported by Winhere to assign 

FOPs for materials, labor, and energy 

based on the weights of those products. 

To value packing materials for these 

products, we applied Winhere’s 

reported packing FOP information 

submitted for other control numbers of 

the same type of brake rotor (i.e., solid 

or vented) with the same weight, where 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

available, or closest in weight. See 

Winhere’s Calculation Memo at Exhibit 

4, for more information on the factsavailable methodology and values 

applied. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the information does not 

permit the calculation of NV using 

home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. The 

Department will base NV on the FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under its normal methodologies. 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC FOPs in accordance 

with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. FOPs 

include, but are not limited to, hours of 

labor required, quantities of raw 

materials employed, amounts of energy 

and other utilities consumed, and 

representative capital costs, including 

depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of 

the Act. In examining surrogate values, 

we selected, where possible, the 

publicly available value which was an 

average non-export value, representative 

of a range of prices within the POR or 

most contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates’’) (unchanged in final 

determination). We used the usage rates 

reported by the respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

For a detailed explanation of the 

methodology used to calculate surrogate 

values, see Factor Valuation Memo. 

Regarding the components supplied 

free of charge to Haimeng and Winhere 

noted above, section 773(c)(3) of the Act 

states that the ‘‘factors of production 

include but are not limited to the 

quantities of raw materials employed.’’

Therefore, consistent with the 

corresponding adjustment to U.S. price 

discussed above, we valued the ball 

bearing cups and lug bolts usage 

amounts reported by these two 

respondents for specific brake rotor 

models by using an Indian surrogate 

value for each input. See Haimeng 

Calculation Memorandum and Winhere 

Calculation Memorandum. See also 

Factor Valuation Memo. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by the respondents for 

the POR. We relied on the factorspecific data submitted by the 

respondents for the above-mentioned 

inputs in their questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

where applicable, for purposes of 

selecting surrogate values. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except where noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, we 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 

import surrogate values a surrogate 

freight cost using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory, 

where appropriate. This adjustment is 

in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

For a detailed description of all 

surrogate values used for respondents, 

see Factor Valuation Memo. 

Except where discussed below, we 

valued raw material inputs using April 

2005, through March 2006 weightedaverage unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India (MSFTI) as published by 

the Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India and used in the 

WTA, available at <http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm>. The Indian 

import statistics we obtained from the 

WTA were reported in rupees. Indian 

surrogate values denominated in foreign 

currencies were converted to U.S. 

dollars using the applicable daily 

exchange rate for India for the POR. The 

average exchange rate was based on 

exchange rate data from the 

Department’s Web site. See <http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html>. Where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POR with 

which to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values for inflation using the 

WPI for India. See Factor Valuation 

Memo. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded prices from NME 

countries and those that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized 

(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand). We have found in other 

proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, there is reason to believe or 

suspect all exports to all markets from 

these countries may be subsidized. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring 

Lock Washers From The People’s 

Republic of China, 61 FR 66255 

(December 17, 1996), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

Finally, we excluded imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value, because we could not be certain 

that they were not from either an NME 

or a country with general export 

subsidies. 

To value lubricating oil, we used 

January through December 2005 WTA 

weighted-average import values from 

the Philippines because no data was 

available for this input from WTA 

Indian import data. We adjusted the 

WTA weighted-average value for this 

input for inflation. 

We valued electricity using the 2000 

average price per kilowatt hour for 

‘‘Electricity for Industry’’ as reported in 

the International Energy Agency’s 

(‘‘IEA’s’’) publication, Energy Prices and 

Taxes, Fourth Quarter, 2003. Because 

the value was not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we adjusted the average 

cost of electricity for inflation. 

Section 351.408(c)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations requires the 

use of a regression-based wage rate. 

Therefore, to value the labor input, the 

Department used the regression-based 

wage rate for the PRC published by 

Import Administration on our Web site. 

The source of the wage rate data is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, 

published by the International Labour 

Office (‘‘ILO’’), (Geneva: 2004), Chapter 

5B: Wages in Manufacturing. See the 

Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries (revised January 2007) 

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

Because the regression-based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we applied the same wage rate to all 

skill levels and types of labor reported 

by each respondent. 

To value corrugated plastic bags, 

plastic wrap, cartons, adhesive tape, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7415 

37See Memorandum to the File from Frances 

Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Qingdao Meita 

Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.’s 2004–2005 

Verification Report: 2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ dated January 25, 2007. 

38See Petitioners’ submission dated September 

14, 2006. 

39See Memorandum to the File from Frances 

Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, entitled, ‘‘Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated December 6, 

2006. 

particle board, plywood, pallet wood, 

nails, steel strap, plastic strap and 

buckles, we used April 2005 through 

March 2006 weighted-average import 

values from WTA Indian import data. 

At verification, Golrich provided 

minor corrections for the reported 

weights of 11 of the 18 boxes used to 

pack the subject merchandise it sold 

during the POR. For each of these 11 

boxes, we were able to verify the revised 

weights presented as minor corrections 

by Golrich. However, we could not 

verify the reported weights of the 

remaining seven boxes used because 

Golrich could not present these boxes to 

the Department at verification. We were, 

therefore, unable to verify the reported 

unit weights of these seven boxes. To 

value these seven boxes, we adjusted 

the reported weight amounts of those 

boxes by the company’s largest 

percentage increase presented at 

verification for the other boxes. For 

further information on the valuation of 

Golrich’s boxes, see Golrich Verification 

Report and Golrich Calculation Memo. 

The Department valued truck freight 

using Indian freight rates published by 

Indian Freight Exchange available at 

www.infreight.com. This source 

provided daily rates from six major 

points of origins to six destinations in 

India for the period April 2005, through 

October 2005. Since these values are 

contemporaneous with the POR, we did 

not need to make an adjustment for 

inflation. We averaged the monthly rates 

for each rate observation to obtain a 

surrogate value. 

Because there are no known Indian air 

freight providers that ship merchandise 

from the PRC to the United States, we 

valued air freight, where applicable, 

using the rates published on the UPS 

Web site: http://www.ups.com and 

adjusted these rates, as appropriate, for 

inflation. 

Two respondents (i.e., Winhere and 

Meita) reported transportation expenses 

from their casting facilities to their 

finishing workshops. To value PRC 

freight for the distance between the 

respondents’ casting facility and their 

finishing workshop, we used the inland 

freight surrogate value calculated for 

inputs shipped by truck in which we 

used Indian freight rates, as discussed 

above. Meita did not report 

transportation distances from its casting 

facility to its finishing workshop. 

Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results, as facts available, 

we are using the surrogate value for 

inland freight to value this foreign 

inland transportation expense for Meita 

using distance information noted in the 

verification report issued by the 

Department in the eighth review of 

brake rotors from the PRC.37 See 

Winhere Calculation Memorandum and 

Meita Calculation Memorandum. 

Petitioners submitted financial 

information for two Indian producers of 

identical and comparable merchandise: 

Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. 

(‘‘Bosch’’) for the year ending March 31, 

2006, and Rico Auto Industries Limited 

(‘‘Rico’’) for the year ending March 31, 

2005.38 Because both Bosch’s and Rico’s 

financial statements were missing a 

significant number of pages, and Rico’s 

financial statements were not 

contemporaneous with the POR, the 

Department placed on the record of 

these reviews the public information 

from the financial statements of Bosch 

and Rico for the year ending March 31, 

2006, to be considered for valuing 

FOPs.39

We preliminarily determine that both 

Bosch’s and Rico’s financial statements 

are the best available information with 

which to calculate financial ratios 

because they appear to be complete, are 

publicly available, and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006), and the accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1. Where appropriate, we did not 

include in the surrogate overhead and 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) calculations the 

excise duty amount listed in the 

financial reports. From these financial 

statements we were able to determine 

factory overhead as a percentage of the 

total raw materials, labor, and energy 

(‘‘MLE’’) costs; SG&A as a percentage of 

MLE plus overhead (i.e., cost of 

manufacture); and the profit rate as a 

percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A. See Factors Valuation 

Memorandum for a full discussion of 

the calculation of these ratios. 

To value coking coal, coke, and 

firewood we applied surrogate values 

using Indian import prices by HTS 

classification for the POR reported in 

the MSFTI, and available from WTA. 

See Factors Valuation Memo for a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios. 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Weighted-average 

percent margin 

Individually Reviewed Exporters 2005–2006 Administrative Review 

Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43 

Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................... * 0.02 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................... 0.00 

Separate-Rate Applicant Exporters 2005–2006 Administrative Review 

China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation ........................................................................................... 3.43 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 3.43 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.43 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7416 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC—Continued 

Weighted-average 

percent margin 

Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................... 3.43 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................. 3.43 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................ 3.43 

Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company .................................................................................................................. 3.43 

Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................... 3.43 

Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. ............................................................................................................................................ 3.43 

Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43 

Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 3.43 

Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. 3.43 

2005–2006 New Shipper Review 

Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................... 0.78 

PRC-Wide Rate 

PRC-Wide Rate ** ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43.32 

* De Minimus. 

** This includes Rotec and Hengtai. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to these 

proceedings within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, will be 

due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case or 

rebuttal briefs in these proceedings 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. 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 

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). Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these reviews, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of these new shipper and 

administrative reviews. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated an exporter/importer- or 

customer-specific assessment rate or 

value for merchandise subject to these 

reviews. For these preliminary results, 

we divided the total dumping margins 

for the reviewed sales by the total 

entered quantity of those reviewed sales 

for each applicable importer. In these 

reviews, if these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting rate against the entered 

customs value or per-unit assessment, as 

appropriate, for the subject merchandise 

on each importer’s/customer’s entries 

during the POR. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

new shipper review for all shipments of 

subject merchandise from Golrich 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after publication 

date: (1) For subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Golrich, 

the cash deposit rate will be 2.15 

percent; and (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Golrich but not 

manufactured by Golrich, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate. 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

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 

CNIM, LABEC, GREN, Winhere, 

Haimeng, ZLAP, Hongda, Meita, TLC, 

ZGOLD, Luqi Yinghao, Longkou 

Jinzheng, Zhongding and Huanri will be 

the rates determined in the final results 

of review (except that if a rate is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required); (2) the 

cash deposit rate for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters who received a separate 

rate in a prior segment of the proceeding 

(which were not reviewed in this 

segment of the proceeding) will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash 

deposit rate for all PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate 

(including Rotec and Hengtai) will be 

the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent; and 

(4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate will be 

the rate applicable to the PRC exporter 

that supplied that non-PRC 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7417 

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. 

These administrative and new shipper 

reviews and notice are in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 

and 351.214. 

Dated: February 9, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 07–713 Filed 2–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–886) 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–

4551, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

(‘‘PRCBs’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period January 

26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). 

On September 13, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

54021 (September 13, 2006) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On January 10, 

2007, the Department extended the time 

period for completion of the final results 

of this review. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 1216 (January 10, 2007). 

The final results are currently due by 

February 12, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a final 

determination in an administrative 

review of an antidumping duty order 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary determination is 

published. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 120-day period to 180 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the final results 

of the administrative review of PRCBs 

from the PRC by February 12, 2007, due 

to the extra time necessary to give 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Department’s revised calculations to 

expected non–market economy wages. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

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

is extending the time period for 

completion of the final results of this 

review to 165 days after publication of 

the Preliminary Results. However, 

because February 25, 2007, falls on a 

Sunday, the final results will be due on 

February 26, 2007, the next business 

day. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 7, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–2684 Filed 2–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 010307C] 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS); Pelagic and Bottom Longline 

Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of a revised list of 

equipment models that NMFS has 

approved as meeting the minimum 

design specifications for the careful 

release of sea turtles caught in hook and 

line fisheries. The revised list is 

available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

sfa/hms/Protected%20Resources/ 

RequiredlGear.pdf. The list is not a list 

of required gears, but is a list of NMFS 

approved models of equipment that may 

be used as options to meet the 

requirements for gear that must be 

carried on board vessels participating in 

the Atlantic pelagic and bottom longline 

fisheries. Equipment may also be 

fabricated and used by individuals 

according to the minimum design 

specifications. The benefit of using 

these gears is to maximize safe and 

efficient gear removal from incidentally 

captured sea turtles thereby minimizing 

the potential for serious injury or 

mortality. 

ADDRESSES: For copies of the list of 

NMFS approved equipment models for 

the careful release of sea turtles caught 

in hook and line fisheries, the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) (issued by NMFS in 

June 2004) that provides for the 

approval of new or additional 

equipment for careful release of sea 

turtles caught in hook and line fisheries 

and the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement that the FSEIS supplements 

(issued by NMFS in April 1999), contact 

Margo Schulze-Haugen, Chief, Highly 

Migratory Species Management 

Division, 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 or at (301) 

713–1917 (fax). These documents are 

also available at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randy Blankinship, Greg Fairclough, 

Richard A. Pearson or Russell Dunn at 

727–570–5447 or 727–570–5656 (fax). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Atlantic tuna and swordfish fisheries 

are managed under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic 

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Atlantic 

sharks are managed under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan, 

finalized in 2006, is implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. The 

Atlantic pelagic and bottom longline 

fisheries are also subject to the 

requirements of the Endangered Species 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES