Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26371 

1As 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 

Continued 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On May 26, 2009, Triveni requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Triveni requested that 

the Department extend the application 

of the provisional measures prescribed 

under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month 

period to a six-month period. In 

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because 

(1) our preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12826 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 20, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results and partial rescission of the 2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China 

covering the period April 1, 2007, 

through August 13, 2007. No interested 

party commented on the preliminary 

results or the partial rescission. We have 

made no changes to the margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

do not differ from the preliminary 

results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the reviewed firms 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

1280, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on brake rotors 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covers one mandatory respondent 

(Yantai Winhere Auto-Part 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Winhere)) and 

the following 11 respondents not 

selected for individual review: Laizhou 

Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. 

(LABEC); Laizhou Hongda Auto 

Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (Laizhou 

Hongda); Longkou Jinzheng Machinery 

Co., Ltd. (Jinzheng); Longkou TLC 

Machinery Co., Ltd. (Longkou TLC); 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. (Gren); 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry 

Co., Ltd. (Meita); Xianghe Zichen 

Casting Company, Ltd. (Xianghe 

Zichen); Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. (Zibo Botai); Laizhou Luda Sedan 

Fittings Company, Ltd. (Luda); Laizhou 

Sanli (Sanli); and Zibo Golden Harvest 

Machinery Limited Company (ZGOLD). 

We are rescinding this review with 

respect to China National Automotive 

Industry Import & Export Corporation or 

National Automotive Industry Import & 

Export Corporation (CAIEC) and 

Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry 

(Laizhou CAPCO). See ‘‘Final Partial 

Rescission of 2007 Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

On March 20, 2009, the Department 

published the preliminary results and 

partial rescission of this administrative 

review. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of the 2007 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 

11911 (Preliminary Results). We invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Comments were 

due April 20, 2009, however, no 

interested party submitted comments. 

We have conducted this administrative 

review in accordance with sections 751 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act) and sections 19 

CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221 of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is April 

1, 2007, through August 13, 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 

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).1 Although the 

26372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 

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

available at www.usitc.gov. 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Final Partial Rescission of 2007 

Administrative Review 

We preliminarily rescinded the 

review for CAIEC and Laizhou CAPCO 

because the Department concluded that 

these companies did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results at 74 

FR 11914. No interested parties filed 

comments objecting to our preliminary 

rescission. Therefore, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to these companies. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

antidumping duty margins exist in these 

final results: 

BRAKE ROTORS FROM THE PRC 

Individually reviewed exporter 2007 administrative review Weighted-average percent margin 

(percent) 

Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd ............................................................................................ 0.04 (de minimis) 

Separate-rate applicant exporters 2007 administrative review Weighted-average percent margin 

(percent) 

Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis) 

Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd .......................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis) 

Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................. 0.04 (de minimis) 

Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis) 

Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. ................................................................................................................................ 0.04 (de minimis) 

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis) 

Xianghe Zichen Casting Company, Ltd ............................................................................................................. 0.04 (de minimis) 

Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................... 0.04 (de minimis) 

PRC–wide rate Margin (percent) 

PRC-Wide Rate (including Laizhou Luda Sedan Fittings Company, Ltd., Laizhou Sanli and Zibo Golden 

Harvest Machinery Limited Company).

43.32 

Assessment 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for Winhere, we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific assessment rates for the 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Because we do not have entered values 

on the record for Winhere’s sales, we 

calculated a per-unit 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)(1), 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). 

As stated in the Preliminary Results, 

for the companies receiving a separate 

rate that were not selected for 

individual review (i.e., Gren, Jinzheng, 

LABEC, Laizhou Hongda, Longkou TLC, 

Meita, Xianghe Zichen, and Zibo Botai), 

we calculated an assessment rate based 

on the weighted-average margin 

calculated for Winhere, the only 

mandatory respondent in this review. 

As Winhere’s margin is de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties with respect to 

these companies. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity 

which includes Luda, Sanli and ZGOLD 

(i.e., the respondents that did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate-rate status), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate appropriate entries at 

the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the PRC was revoked 

effective August 14, 2007. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Revocation of Antidumping Duty 

Order Pursuant to Second Five-Year 

(Sunset) Review, 73 FR 36039 (June 25, 

2008). As a result, we instructed CBP to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

of entries of the subject merchandise. 

Therefore, the collection of cash 

deposits of antidumping duties on 

entries of the subject merchandise is no 

longer required. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as the final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. This notice also 

serves as the only reminder to parties 

subject to administrative protective 

order (APO) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction or 

conversion to judicial protective order 

of proprietary information disclosed 

under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 2, 2009 / Notices 26373 

1See Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 74 FR 17153 (April 14, 

2009) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 

68545 (July 24, 1996). 

3See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from 

Turkey, 74 FR 681 (January 7, 2009). 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation. This 

administrative review and this notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12827 Filed 6–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–805] 

Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

certain pasta from Turkey as requested 

by Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticret A.S. 

(‘‘Marsan’’). On April 8, 2009, the 

Department preliminary found that 

Marsan is the successor–in-interest to 

Gidasa Sabanci Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret 

A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’), and should be accorded 

the same antidumping duty treatment 

accorded Gidasa with respect to the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey.1 The Department gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the preliminary results, but 

received no comments. Therefore, the 

final results do not differ from the 

preliminary results of review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Turkey.2 On December 3, 2008, 

Marsan requested that the Department 

initiate and conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review to 

determine that, for purposes of the 

antidumping law, Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa. See 

December 3, 2008, letter from Marsan to 

the Secretary of Commerce. On January 

7, 2009, the Department published a 

notice of initiation of a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping order.3 On February 23, 

2009, the Department requested 

additional information from Marsan 

regarding its operations in Turkey. See 

February 23, 2009, changed 

circumstances review questionnaire 

from the Department to Marsan. On 

March 16, 2009, Marsan replied to the 

Department’s questionnaire. See March 

16, 2009, letter from Marsan to the 

Secretary of Commerce. On April 14, 

2009, the Department published the 

preliminary results of review and 

invited interested parties to comment. 

See Preliminary Results. We received no 

comments. 

Scope of Review 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds (2.27 

kilograms) or less, whether or not 

enriched or fortified or containing milk 

or other optional ingredients such as 

chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, 

milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, 

coloring and flavorings, and up to two 

percent egg white. The pasta covered by 

this scope is typically sold in the retail 

market, in fiberboard or cardboard 

cartons, or polyethylene or 

polypropylene bags of varying 

dimensions. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

review are refrigerated, frozen, or 

canned pastas, as well as all forms of 

egg pasta, with the exception of non–egg 

dry pasta containing up to two percent 

egg white. 

The merchandise subject to review is 

currently classifiable under item 

1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise subject 

to the order is dispositive. 

Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.216, the 

Department will conduct a changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for review of, 

an antidumping duty order which 

shows changed circumstances sufficient 

to warrant a review of the order. In this 

case, the Department found that the 

information submitted by the 

respondent provided sufficient evidence 

of changed circumstances to warrant a 

review to determine whether Marsan is 

the successor–in-interest to Gidasa. 

Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) 

of the Act, the Department initiated a 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether Marsan is the 

successor–in-interest to Gidasa for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability with respect to imports of 

certain pasta from Turkey. 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992). While no single factor 

or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh 

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we determine that