6700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

1See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ entitled, 

‘‘Results of Request for Assistance from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry 

Documents,’’ dated June 4, 2007. 

2See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2006–2007 New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

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

dated May 31, 2007. 

3See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List 

of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated June 1, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Policy Memorandum’’). 

4See the Department’s letter regarding, ‘‘New 

Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ requesting parties to provide 

comments on surrogate-country selection and 

provide surrogate factors-of-production (‘‘FOP’’) 

values from the potential surrogate countries (i.e., 

India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines and 

Egypt), dated June 6, 2007. 

5See The Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country,’’ dated August 17, 2007 (‘‘NSR Surrogate 

Country Memorandum’’). 

6See the Department’s memorandum, entitled 

‘‘2006–2007 Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: 

Alignment of 2006–2007 Administrative and New 

Shipper Reviews,’’ dated August 24, 2007. 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, at (202) 720–7853, Fax: (202) 

720–4120. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

James M. Andrew, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–2000 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the 2006–2007 Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews and Partial 

Rescission of the 2006–2007 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is currently 

conducting the 2006–2007 

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 not 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 

reviews. 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 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith 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) 482–4295 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 April 18, 2007, Shanghai Tylon 

Company Ltd. (‘‘Tylon’’) 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 April 

24, 2007, request for information, Tylon 

provided supplemental information on 

April 27, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the 

Department initiated a new shipper 

review of Tylon covering the period 

April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 

See Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

72 FR 29299 (May 25, 2007). On May 

23, 2007, the Department issued a new 

shipper antidumping duty questionnaire 

to Tylon. 

On July 5, 2007, the Department 

received Tylon’s Sections A, C, and D 

response. On July 19, 2007, the 

Department received Tylon’s ImporterSpecific Questionnaire response. On 

August 24, 2007, the Department issued 

a supplemental questionnaire to Tylon, 

to which we received a response on 

September 17, 2007. On June 4, 2007, 

the Department placed on the record of 

the new shipper review copies of CBP 

documents pertaining to the shipment 

of brake rotors from the PRC exported 

by Tylon to the United States during the 

POR.1

On May 31, 2007, we requested that 

the Office of Policy issue a surrogatecountry memorandum for the selection 

of the appropriate surrogate countries 

for this new shipper review.2 On June 1, 

2007, 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 June 6, 2007, the 

Department invited all interested parties 

to submit comments on surrogatecountry selection and to submit publicly 

available information as surrogate 

values (‘‘SVs’’) for purposes of 

calculating NV.4 See ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. On August 1, 

2007, the Coalition for the Preservation 

of American Brake Drum and Rotor 

Aftermarket Manufacturers 

(‘‘petitioner’’) submitted publicly 

available information for use as SVs in 

the calculation of NV in the 2006–2007 

new shipper review. On August 17, 

2007, the Department selected India as 

the most appropriate surrogate country 

for the purpose of this new shipper 

review.5

On August 23, 2007, Tylon 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 2006–2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC. On August 24, 2007, the 

Department aligned the new shipper 

review with the 2006–2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC.6

Administrative Review 

On April 2, 2007, 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, 72 

FR 15650 (April 2, 2006). 

On April 30, 2007, the Department 

received timely requests for an 

administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213 from the following 

individual companies: LABEC, 

Winhere, Haimeng, Hongda, Meita, 

Wally, and Longkou Dixion Brake 

System Ltd. (‘‘Dixion’’). On April 30, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6701 

7The names of these companies or producer/ 

exporter combination are as follows: (1) Longkou 

Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haimeng’’); (2) 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Meita’’); (3) Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment 

Factory (‘‘LABEC’’); (4) Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Winhere’’); (5) Laizhou 

Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hongda’’); (6) Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Luqi’’); (7) Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Wally’’); (8) Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZLAP’’); (9) Zibo Golden Harvest 

Machinery Limited Company (‘‘ZGOLD’’); (10) 

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

Longkou Jinzheng Maxhinery Co. (‘‘Jinzheng’’); (12) 

Qingdao Gren Co. (‘‘Gren’’); (13) Shenyang Yinghao 

Machinery Co. (‘‘Yinghao’’); (14) Shanxi Zhongding 

Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘SZAP’’); (15) Shandong 

Huanri Group Company (‘‘Huanri’’); (16) Longkou 

Qizheng Auto Parts Co. (‘‘Qizheng’’); (17) China 

National Automotive Industry Import & Export 

Corporation (‘‘CAIEC’’), excluding entries 

manufactured by Shandong Laizhou CAPCO 

Industry (‘‘CAPCO’’); (18) CAPCO, excluding 

entries manufactured by CAPCO; (19) Laizhou 

Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. (‘‘Luyuan’’), 

excluding entries manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan 

or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Honbase’’); (20) Honbase, excluding entries 

manufactured by Laizhou Luyuan or Honbase; (21) 

China National Industrial Machinery Import & 

Export Corporation (‘‘CNIM’’); (22) Xianghe 

Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co. (‘‘Xumingyuan’’); and 

(23) Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Golrich’’). 

8See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 29968 (May 

30, 2007) (‘‘AR Initiation Notice’’). 

9These ten companies are SZAP, Huanri, 

Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, CAIEC, 

CAPCO, Luyuan, and Honbase. 

10These five companies are Xumingyuan, CAIEC, 

CAPCO, Luyuan, and Honbase. 

11See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China: Selection of Respondents,’’ dated July 13, 

2007 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

12See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Surrogate-Country Selection: 2006–2007 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ dated May 31, 2007. 

13See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’

dated June 1, 2007 (‘‘AR Policy Memorandum’’). 

14See the Department’s letter regarding, ‘‘New 

Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ requesting parties to provide 

comments on surrogate-country selection and 

provide surrogate FOP values from the potential 

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

the Philippines and Egypt), dated June 6, 2007. 

15See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of Surrogate 

Country,’’ dated August 17, 2007 (‘‘AR Surrogate 

Country Memorandum’’). 

16See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 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 28, 2007. 

2007, the Department also received 

timely requests for an administrative 

review of 23 companies (or producer/ 

exporter combinations) 7 from 

petitioner. As a result of the abovementioned companies’ and petitioner’s 

requests for a review, this 

administrative review covers 24 

companies. 

On May 30, 2007, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the PRC for 24 individually named 

firms, for the POR of April 1, 2006, 

through March 31, 2007.8 Between May 

30 and June 5, 2007, the Department 

issued letters to all firms named in the 

AR Initiation Notice requesting: (1) A 

separate-rate certification or application, 

and (2) information on the quantity and 

value (‘‘Q&V’’) of sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Of the 24 companies for which 

the Department initiated a review, ten 

companies certified that they had no 

shipments during the POR, and between 

June 14 and June 22, 2007,9 we received 

requests for a rescission of the review 

from five of those companies.10

See ‘‘Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

2006–2007 Administrative Review’’

section below. 

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 accounting 

for the largest volume of the subject 

merchandise that can reasonably be 

examined. On July 13, 2007, based on 

reported export volumes of subject 

merchandise during the POR, the 

Department selected the two companies 

accounting for the largest volume of 

subject merchandise, i.e., Haimeng and 

Meita, as the two mandatory 

respondents in this review. The 

remaining 12 respondents are nonselected respondents.11 See ‘‘Separate 

Rates’’ section below. On July 16, 2007, 

we issued antidumping duty 

questionnaires to Haimeng and Meita. 

On May 31, 2007, we requested that 

the Office of Policy issue a surrogatecountry memorandum for the selection 

of the appropriate surrogate countries 

for this review.12 On June 1, 2007, 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.13 On 

June 6, 2007, the Department invited all 

interested parties to submit comments 

on surrogate-country selection and to 

submit publicly available information as 

SVs for purposes of calculating NV.14

On August 17, 2007, the Department 

selected India as the most appropriate 

surrogate country for this administrative 

review.15 See ‘‘Surrogate Country’’

section below. On August 1, 2007, 

petitioner submitted publicly available 

information for use as SVs in the 

calculation of NV in the administrative 

review. 

On August 28 and October 18, 2007, 

the Department placed on the record of 

this review copies of CBP documents 

pertaining to certain entries of brake 

rotors from the PRC exported to the 

United States during the POR.16 On 

September 7, 2007, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Golrich 

to which we received a response on 

September 19, 2007. 

On September 4, 2007, we received 

questionnaire responses from Haimeng 

and Meita. The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Haimeng and Meita on October 4 and 

October 23, 2007, respectively. We 

received supplemental questionnaire 

responses from Haimeng and Meita on 

November 9 and November 13, 2007, 

respectively. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2006, through 

March 31, 2007. 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
6702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

17As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification 

for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 

to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS 

classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 

8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. See Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007) (Rev. 2), 

available at http://www.usitc.gov. 

18The non-selected respondents are as follows: 

LABEC, Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, 

ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and Dixion. 

19See 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). 

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’’).17 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 normally 

requires entities, for whom a review was 

requested, and who were assigned a 

separate rate in a 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 a proceeding, to 

demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department requires a separate-rate 

application. In this administrative 

review the 12 entities not selected for 

individual review (i.e., separate-rate 

respondents) all submitted separate-rate 

certifications. The two mandatory 

respondents (i.e., Haimeng and Meita) 

and the 12 separate-rate respondents 

provided company-specific information 

and each 18 stated that it meets the 

criteria for the assignment of a separate 

rate. For the new shipper (i.e., Tylon), 

a separate-rate analysis is necessary to 

determine whether the export activities 

of Tylon are independent from 

government control. 

We considered whether the 

administrative review respondents and 

the new shipper referenced above were 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate-rate status test to 

determine whether the exporter is 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

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.19

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, 

Meita, and Tylon 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. 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, Meita, and Tylon. 

Therefore, we believe that evidence on 

the record supports a preliminary 

finding of an absence of de jure 

government control with regard to 

Haimeng, Metia, and Tylon. 

The 12 separate-rate respondents 

Winhere, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, 

Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, 

Yinghao, and Jinzheng each certified 

that, as with the previous granting 

period, there is an absence of de jure 

control. Each separate-rate respondent’s 

separate-rate certification, stated, where 

applicable, that it had no relationship 

with any level of the PRC government 

with respect to ownership, internal 

management, and business operations. 

In this segment, we have no new 

information that would cause us to 

reconsider the previous period’s de jure 

control determination with regard to 

Winhere, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, 

Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, 

Yinghao, and Jinzheng. 

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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6703 

20See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Results 2006–2007 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 January 30, 2008 

(‘‘Separate Rate Memo’’). 

21For further information, see the Department’s 

memorandum entitled ‘‘2006–2007 New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Bona 

Fide Analysis of Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd.,’’

dated January 30, 2008. 

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). 

In these reviews, Haimeng, Winhere, 

Meita, LABEC, Hongda, Wally, Dixion, 

Gren, ZLAP, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, 

Yinghao, Jinzheng, and Tylon 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 indicate that its 

pricing during the POR does not involve 

coordination among exporters. 

Thus, we preliminarily determine that 

Haimeng, Winhere, Meita, LABEC, 

Hongda, Wally, Dixion, Gren, ZLAP, 

TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Yinghao, Jinzheng, 

and Tylon 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.20

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2006– 

2007 Administrative Review 

With respect to SZAP, Huanri, 

Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, 

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) 

SZAP, Huanri, Qizheng, CNIM, 

Xumingyuan, and Golrich did not 

export 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 SZAP’s, 

Huanri’s, Qizheng’s, CNIM’s, 

Xumingyuan’s, Golrich’s, CAIEC’s, 

CAPCO’s, Luyuan’s and Honbase’s 

claims of no shipments of brake rotors 

to the United States during the POR. 

Based on the record of these reviews, 

we conclude that SZAP, Huanri, 

Qizheng, CNIM, Xumingyuan, Golrich, 

CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan and Honbase 

did not export subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. For 

the reasons mentioned above, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 

we are preliminarily rescinding the 

administrative review for these 

exporters in the following specified 

exporter or exporter/producer 

combinations: (1) SZAP, (2) Huanri, (3) 

Qizheng, (4) CNIM, (5) Xumingyuan, (6) 

Golrich, (7) CAIEC/manufactured by any 

company other than CAPCO, (8) 

CAPCO/manufactured by any company 

other than CAPCO, (9) Luyuan/ 

manufactured by any company other 

than Luyuan or Honbase, and (10) 

Honbase/manufactured by any company 

other than Honbase or Luyuan. 

Bona Fide Sales Analysis—Tylon 

In evaluating whether or not sales are 

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 Tylon’s reported 

U.S. sales during the POR appear to be 

bona fide sales, as required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality 

of the facts on the record. Specifically, 

we find that the quantity or unit prices 

for Tylon’s sales compared to the 

quantities and unit values of U.S. 

imports of comparable brake rotors from 

the PRC during the POR together with 

the totality of circumstances 

surrounding the sales at issue indicate 

the sales were not aberrational. We also 

examined information placed on the 

record by Tylon and Tylon’s customer 

for the POR sales, and information 

developed independently by the 

Department regarding Tylon’s customer 

for the POR sale and circumstances 

surrounding the POR sales. We found 

no evidence that the POR sales under 

review are not bona fide sales.21

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned 

above, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Tylon’s U.S. sales during the 

POR were bona fide commercial 

transactions. 

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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
6704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

22See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: 

Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin 

Calculation for Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd.,’’

dated January 30, 2008 (‘‘Tylon Calculation 

Memo’’); the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: 

Analysis of the Preliminary Results Margin 

Calculation for Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated January 30, 2008 (‘‘Haimeng 

Calculation Memo’’); and the Department’s 

memorandum entitled, 2006–2007 Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary 

Results Margin Calculation for Qingdao Meita 

Automotive Industry Co., Ltd,’’ dated January 30, 

2008 (‘‘Meita Calculation Memo’’). 

23 Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined 

paper products from India investigation for which 

the period of investigation was July 1, 2004, to June 

30, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: 

Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 

19706 (April 17, 2006) (unchanged in final 

determination). 

Surrogate Country 

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

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s FOP, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below. See also, the Department’s 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the 2006–2007 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum,’’ dated January 30, 2008 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

The Department determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See NSR Policy 

Memorandum and AR Policy 

Memorandum. Customarily, we select 

an appropriate surrogate country from 

the policy memorandum based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

the countries that are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In this case, we found that India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC; is a significant 

producer of the subject merchandise 

(i.e., brake rotors); and has publicly 

available and reliable data. See NSR 

Surrogate Country Memorandum and 

AR Surrogate Country Memorandum. 

Accordingly, we selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for purposes 

of valuing the FOPs in the calculation 

of NV because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

See NSR Surrogate Country 

Memorandum and AR Surrogate 

Country Memorandum. 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 FOPs within 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Haimeng, Meita, 

and Tylon 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 

Because each respondent sold subject 

merchandise to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation into the United States and 

use of a constructed-export-price 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated, we used EP in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act. We made 

the following company-specific 

adjustments: 

A. Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon 

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, international freight, U.S. 

duties, and other U.S. customs charges 

pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 

Act.22 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. See ‘‘Factor 

Valuation’’ section below for further 

discussion of surrogate rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

SVs 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 POR, 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. The Department used two 

sources to calculate an SV for domestic 

brokerage expenses: (1) Data from the 

January 9, 2006, public version of the 

Section C questionnaire response from 

Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kejriwal’’);23 and 

(2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. 

for the POR February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005 (see Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) 

(unchanged in final results)). 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. 

Haimeng reported that its U.S. 

customers purchased ball bearing cup 

and lug bolts from PRC producers that 

were delivered to Haimeng 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 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) 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6705 

24See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Attachment 1. 

25The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, PRC, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 

26See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 1999–2000 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; and China National Machinery Imp. & 

Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

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 SV 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 Haimeng 

Calculation Memo. 

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME 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 FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under our 

normal methodologies. Therefore, we 

calculated NV based on FOP in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC FOPs in accordance 

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

FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used the 

FOPs reported by respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, and packing. 

See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. 

In examining SVs, 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). For a detailed 

explanation of the methodology used to 

calculate SVs, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Regarding the components supplied 

free of charge to Haimeng 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 

Haimeng for specific brake rotor models 

by using an Indian SV for each input. 

See Haimeng Calculation Memo and 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

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 SVs. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available Indian SVs 

(except where noted below). In selecting 

the SVs, 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 SVs 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 decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’). See Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, we 

adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation 

using the WPI as published on the 

Reserve Bank of India (‘‘RBI’’) Web site, 

available at http://www.rbi.org.in. For a 

detailed description of all SVs used for 

respondents, see the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Except where discussed below, we 

valued raw material inputs using April 

2006 through March 2007, 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 

compiled by the World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’), available at 

<http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm>. The 

Indian WTA import data is reported in 

rupees and is contemporaneous with the 

POR.24 Indian SVs denominated in 

Indian rupees were converted to U.S. 

dollars using the applicable daily 

exchange rate for India for the POR. 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 

SVs for inflation using the WPI for 

India. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Furthermore, with regard to the WTA 

Indian import-based SVs, we have 

disregarded prices from NME 

countries25 and those we have reason to 

believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

because we have found in other 

proceedings that the exporting countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, there is reason to believe or 

suspect all exports to all markets from 

such countries may be subsidized.26 We 

are also guided by the statute’s 

legislative history that explains that it is 

not necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 

576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590–91 (1988). 

Rather, the Department was instructed 

by Congress to base its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it is making its determination. 

Therefore, we exclude export prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, 

and India when calculating the Indian 

import-based SVs. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
6706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

27See Petitioners’ submission dated August 1, 

2007. 

28 In Bosch’s nine-month 2006 annual report, it 

stated that Bosch was changing its financial 

reporting from a fiscal year to a calendar year, 

starting January 1, 2007. 

29See the Department’s memorandum, entitled, 

‘‘2006–2007 Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Financial Statements,’’ dated January 3, 

2007. 

30See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and 

Partial Rescission of the 2005–2006 Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 42386, 42389 (August 22, 2007), and 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2 (‘‘2005–2006 Brake 

Rotors’’). 

NME or a country with general export 

subsidies. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used the 2000 electricity price rates 

from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, 

published by the International Energy 

Agency available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/ 

elecprii.html. Because this data was not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 5. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rates reflective of 

the observed relationship between 

wages and national income in market 

economy countries as reported on 

Import Administration’s home page. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries’’ (revised January 2007) 

(available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/). 

For further details on the labor 

calculation, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 7. Because 

the regression-based wage rates do 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. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per-kilogram values obtained from the 

Indian WTA import data and made 

adjustments to account for freight costs 

incurred between the PRC supplier and 

the respondent. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 1. 

The Department valued truck freight 

using Indian freight rates published by 

Indian Freight Exchange available at 

http://www.infreight.com. This source 

provided daily rates from six major 

points of origin to six destinations in 

India for the period April 2005 through 

October 2005. Because this data was not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the average value for inflation 

using WPI. We averaged the monthly 

rates for each rate observation to obtain 

an SV. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 8. 

Both Meita and Tylon reported that 

during the manufacturing process, their 

subject merchandise was transported 

from each respondent’s respective 

casting facility to their finishing 

workshops. To value PRC freight for the 

distance between each respondents’

casting facility and the finishing 

workshop, we used the inland freight 

SV calculated for inputs shipped by 

truck, as discussed above. See Meita 

Calculation Memorandum and Tylon 

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, 

2005.27 Because neither Bosch’s nor 

Rico’s financial statements were 

contemporaneous with the POR, the 

Department placed on the record of 

these reviews the public information 

from Rico’s 2006–2007 annual report 

and Bosch’s nine-month (i.e., April 

through December 2006) annual 

report 28 to be considered for valuing 

FOPs.29

We preliminarily determine that both 

Bosch’s and Rico’s 2006–2007 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.30

Therefore, for factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit values, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the 

public information from the 2006–2007 

annual reports of Bosch and Rico. From 

this information, we were able to 

determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor, and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; 

SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus 

overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and 

the profit rate as a percentage of the cost 

of manufacture plus SG&A. Where 

appropriate, we did not include in the 

surrogate overhead and SG&A 

calculations the excise duty amount 

listed in the financial reports. For a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum and its accompanying 

calculation worksheets at Attachment 6. 

To value coking coal, coke, and 

firewood, we applied SVs using Indian 

import prices by HTS classification for 

the POR reported in the MSFTI, and 

available from WTA. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum for a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios. 

Currency Conversion 

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. See http:// 

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

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the period 

April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Individually Reviewed 

Exporters 2006–2007 

Administrative Review 

WeightedAverage 

Percent 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Longkou Haimeng Machinery 

Co., Ltd.

0.03 (de minimis). 

Qingdao Meita Automotive 

Industry Co., Ltd.

0 

Separate Rate Applicant Exporters 2006–

2007 Administrative Review 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd.0 

Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

0 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd.0 

Laizhou City Luqi Machinery 

Co., Ltd.

0 

Laizhou Wally Automobile 

Co., Ltd.

0 

Zibo Luzhou Automobile 

Parts Co., Ltd.

0 

Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company.0 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co., 

Ltd.

0 

Longkou Jinzheng Machinery 

Co., Ltd.

0 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co .... 0 

Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co.0 

Longkou Dixion Brake System Ltd.0 

2006–2007 New Shipper Review 

Shanghai Tylon Company Ltd 0 

PRC-Wide Rate ..................... Margin (Percent). 

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

While the Department has, for these 

preliminary results, applied the average 

of the rates calculated for the two 

mandatory respondents, Haimeng and 

Meita, to the companies not 

individually examined, LABEC, 

Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6707 

ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, 

and Dixion, we invite comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

methodology to be used to determine 

the rate for non-examined companies. 

Specifically, we invite interested parties 

to comment on the rate to be applied to 

the non-examined companies, 

considering, but not limited to, the 

following factors: (a) The Department 

has limited its examination of 

respondents pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, (b) section 

735(c)(5) provides that, with some 

exceptions, the all-others rate in an 

investigation is to be calculated 

excluding any margins that are zero, de 

minimis or based entirely on facts 

available, and (c) the Statement of 

Administrative Action states that with 

respect to the calculation of the allothers rate in such cases, ‘‘the expected 

method will be to weight-average the 

zero and de minimis margins and 

margins determined pursuant to the 

facts available, provided that volume 

data is available. However, if this 

method is not feasible, or if it results in 

an average that would not be reasonably 

reflective of potential dumping margins 

for non-investigated exporters or 

producers, Commerce may use other 

reasonable methods.’’

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 requested to provide a summary of 

the arguments not to exceed five pages 

and a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. Additionally, parties are 

requested to provide its case brief and 

rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, pdf, etc.). 

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 covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of these reviews. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

for Haimeng, Meita, and Tylon, we 

calculated an exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rate for 

the merchandise subject to these 

reviews. Where the respondent has 

reported reliable entered values, we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) 

and dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importer’s/customer’s entries 

during the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that were not selected for 

individual review (i.e., LABEC, 

Winhere, Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, 

ZGOLD, TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, 

and Dixion), we will calculate an 

assessment rate based on the weighted 

average of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Where 

the weighted average ad valorem rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

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 Tylon entered 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after publication 

date: (1) For subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Tylon, 

the cash deposit rate will be zero 

percent; and (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Tylon but not manufactured 

by Tylon, 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 

Haimeng, Meita, LABEC, Winhere, 

Hongda, Luqi, Wally, ZLAP, ZGOLD, 

TLC, Jinzheng, Gren, Yinghao, and 

Dixion 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, a zero cash deposit will be 

required); (2) the cash deposit rate for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC 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 

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 further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
6708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

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: January 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–2081 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

International Code Council: The 

Update Process for the International 

Codes 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Code Development 

Hearings on U.S. Model Building Safety 

and Fire Prevention Codes, 2009 

editions. 

SUMMARY: The International Code 

Council (ICC), under whose auspices the 

International Codes (‘‘I-Codes’’) are 

developed, maintains a process for 

updating these model codes based on 

receipt of proposals from interested 

individuals and organizations. Each of 

the I-Codes are comprehensively 

updated and re-published every three 

years with a supplement released 

between each edition. The most current 

versions of the I-Codes are the 2006 

editions and the 2007 supplements to 

the 2006 editions. The 2009 editions of 

the I-Codes, the subject of this notice, 

will be released in the first quarter of 

2009. 

The purpose of this notice is to invite 

public participation in the Code 

Development Hearings. At this session, 

all proposed changes submitted for the 

family of the 2009 I-Codes will be 

considered by the respective Code 

Development Committees, with the 

assembled body of the International 

Code Council members also afforded the 

opportunity to vote via an assembly 

action. Proposals for consideration at 

these hearings were received by the 

August 20, 2007, deadline and were 

made publically available as an 

electronic document on November 7, 

2007, and as a printed Monograph on 

December 18, 2007. 

The publication of this notice by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) on behalf of ICC is 

being undertaken as a public service. 

NIST does not necessarily endorse, 

approve, or recommend any of the codes 

or standards referenced in the notice. 

Session Dates: The Code Development 

Hearings of the 2007/2008 Code 

Development Cycle will occur between 

February 18 and March 1, 2008, at the 

Palm Springs Convention Center in 

Palm Springs, California. 

The agenda for the hearing as well as 

updates to the schedule are also posted 

on the ICC Web site at: http:// 

www.iccsafe.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Pfeiffer, PE, Deputy Senior Vice 

President, Codes and Standards 

Development at ICC’s Chicago District 

Office, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, 

Country Club Hills, Illinois 60478; 

Telephone 888–422–7233, Extension 

4338; e-mail mpfeiffer@iccsafe.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The ICC produces a family of codes 

and standards that are comprehensive, 

coordinated, and are widely used across 

the country in the regulation of the built 

environment. Local, state, and federal 

agencies use these codes and standards 

as the basis for developing regulations 

concerning new and existing 

construction. ICC’s model codes and 

standards are each developed and 

maintained through voluntary 

consensus development processes 

known as the Governmental Consensus 

Process. Consistent with the voluntary 

consensus requirements of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113), the 

Governmental Consensus process 

incorporates a balance of involved 

interests, ensures due process, provides 

for conclusion by consensus, the 

resolution of objections by interested 

parties, the fair consideration of all 

public comments, and has a prescribed 

process for appeal of any action. 

The ICC code development process is 

initiated when proposals from 

interested persons—supported by 

written data, views, or arguments—are 

solicited, received and then published 

in the Proposed Changes document. 

This document is distributed a 

minimum of 30 days in advance of the 

Code Development Hearings and serves 

as the agenda for that session. 

At the Code Development Hearing the 

ICC Code Development Committee for 

each code or subject area of the code 

considers testimony and takes action on 

each proposal (Approval, Disapproval, 

or Approval as Modified). At the 

conclusion of committee action on each 

proposal, any member of the public 

assembly may make a motion for a vote 

by the ICC members in attendance 

(‘‘assembly action’’) to consider an 

action different than the committee 

action. Successful assembly actions on 

code changes become part of the record 

of public comments and are considered 

at the Final Action Hearing. Following 

the Code Development Hearing, the 

Report of the Public Hearing is 

published and identifies the disposition 

of each proposal, the reason for the 

committee’s action, and successful 

assembly actions. Any person may 

provide additional comment on the 

committee actions in the public 

comment period following the first 

hearing. These comments are published 

and distributed in Final Action Agenda 

which serves as the agenda for the 

second public hearing in each cycle. 

Proposals which are approved by a 

vote of the Governmental Members of 

ICC at the Final Action Hearing are 

incorporated in either the Supplement 

or Edition, as applicable, with the next 

18-month cycle starting with the 

submittal deadline for proposals. 

Proponents of proposals will receive a 

copy of all documents (Proposed 

Changes, Report of the Public Hearing 

and Final Action Agenda). Any 

interested party may also request a 

copy, free of charge, by downloading the 

‘‘return coupon’’ from the ICC Web site 

at http://www.iccsafe.org and 

forwarding it as directed. 

The 2009 International Codes consist 

of the following: International Building 

Code; International Energy Conservation 

Code; International Existing Building 

Code; International Fire Code; 

International Fuel Gas Code; 

International Mechanical Code; ICC 

Performance Code for Buildings and 

Facilities; International Plumbing Code; 

International Private Sewage Disposal 

Code; International Property 

Maintenance Code; International 

Residential Code; International UrbanWildland Interface Code; and 

International Zoning Code. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Richard F. Kayser, 

Acting Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E8–2077 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES