Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 69055 

1The petitioner is Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioner’’). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 

30, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

3See the Department’s letters dated March 31, 

2010. 

4See the Department’s letter dated April 23, 2010; 

see also Delivery Memo. 

5See Delivery Memo. 

the issues contained in the enclosed 

agenda. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

December 8, 2010, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Holiday Inn Hotel in Mayaguez, 

Puerto Rico. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

268 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–2577; 

telephone: (787) 766–5926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Catch 

Share Panel of The Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council will hold a public 

meeting to discuss the following agenda 

items: 

—Alternatives for the collection of 

statistical data for the deep-water 

fishes in the west coast of Puerto Rico. 

—Report on the ‘‘Energy and Fisheries’’ 

Workshop—Nelson Crespo. 

—‘‘Catch Shares Experience in the 

United States’’ Presentation—Greg 

Engstron. 

—Other Issues. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Simultaneous interpretation will be 

provided (English-Spanish). For more 

information or request for sign language 

interpretation and other auxiliary aids, 

please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolo ́n, 

Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council, 268 Mun ̃ oz 

Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico, 00918–2577, telephone: 

(787) 766–5926, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Dated: November 5, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28411 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–928] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on uncovered 

innerspring units (‘‘innersprings’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

August 6, 2008–January 31, 2010. As 

discussed below, we preliminarily 

determine that the PRC-wide entity 

made sales in the United States at prices 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 10, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1655. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

1, 2010, we received a request from the 

Petitioner 1 to conduct administrative 

reviews for two companies, Foshan 

Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jingxin’’) and Top One Manufacturing 

Factory (‘‘Top One’’). On March 30, 

2010, we initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping order on 

innersprings from the PRC.2

On March 31, 2010, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to Jingxin and Top One, since they were 

the only two companies for which a 

review was requested.3 On April 3, 

2010, Jingxin received the antidumping 

duty questionnaire. On April 23, 2008, 

the Department re-issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to Top 

One because the initial questionnaire 

had not been delivered by FedEx.4 On 

April 26, 2010 Top One received the 

antidumping duty questionnaire 

reissued by the Department on April 23, 

2010.5 We note that neither Jingxin nor 

Top One responded to the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is uncovered innerspring units 

composed of a series of individual metal 

springs joined together in sizes 

corresponding to the sizes of adult 

mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, 

full long, queen, California king and 

king) and units used in smaller 

constructions, such as crib and youth 

mattresses. All uncovered innerspring 

units are included in the scope 

regardless of width and length. Included 

within this definition are innersprings 

typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 

inches in width and 68 inches to 84 

inches in length. Innersprings for crib 

mattresses typically range from 25 

inches to 27 inches in width and 50 

inches to 52 inches in length. 

Uncovered innerspring units are 

suitable for use as the innerspring 

component in the manufacture of 

innerspring mattresses, including 

mattresses that incorporate a foam 

encasement around the innerspring. 

Pocketed and non-pocketed 

innerspring units are included in this 

definition. Non-pocketed innersprings 

are typically joined together with helical 

wire and border rods. Non-pocketed 

innersprings are included in this 

definition regardless of whether they 

have border rods attached to the 

perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed 

innersprings are individual coils 

covered by a ‘‘pocket’’ or ‘‘sock’’ of a 

nonwoven synthetic material or woven 

material and then glued together in a 

linear fashion. 

Uncovered innersprings are classified 

under subheading 9404.29.9010 and 

have also been classified under 

subheadings 9404.10.0000, 

7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 

7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only; the written description 

of the scope of the order is dispositive. 

Facts Available 

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

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

that, if an interested party: (A) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
69056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 

6See Delivery Memo. 

7 In a non-market economy companies that do not 

submit a response to the questionnaire or do not 

adequately establish that they are independent of 

government control are subject to the single 

economy-wide rate. In this case, by failing to 

respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire, 

Jingxin and Top One did not provide evidence that 

they are independent of government control. 

8See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

9See also Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994). 

10 Id. 

11See section 776(b) of the Act. 

12See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Results of the First Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 

2007) (decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide 

entity unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and First New Shipper 

Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007). 

13See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 

33977 (June 16, 2008). 

14See Uncovered InnerspringUnits from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 79443 

(December 29, 2008). 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section above, neither 

Jingxin nor Top One responded to the 

antidumping duty questionnaires issued 

by the Department on March 31, 2010, 

and April 23, 2010, respectively. 

Additionally, the Department confirmed 

delivery for the initial questionnaires.6

Therefore, the Department finds that 

Jingxin and Top One did not cooperate 

to the best of their abilities, and their 

non-responsiveness necessitates the use 

of facts available, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. 

Based upon Jingxin’s and Top One’s 

failure to submit responses to the 

Department’s questionnaires, the 

Department finds that Jingxin and Top 

One withheld requested information, 

failed to provide the information in a 

timely manner and in the form 

requested, and significantly impeded 

this proceeding, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. 

Further, because Jingxin and Top One 

failed to demonstrate that they qualify 

for separate rate status,7 we consider 

both entities to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity. Thus, we find that the PRC-wide 

entity, including Jingxin and Top One, 

withheld requested information, failed 

to provide information in a timely 

manner and in the form requested, and 

significantly impeded this proceeding. 

Therefore, the Department must rely on 

the facts otherwise available in order to 

determine a margin for the PRC-wide 

entity, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), 

(B) and (C) of the Act.8

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if 

the Department ‘‘finds that an interested 

party has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information from the 

administering authority or the 

Commission, the administering 

authority or the Commission * * *, in 

reaching the applicable determination 

under this title, may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ 9 Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 10 An 

adverse inference may include reliance 

on information derived from the 

petition, the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record.11

Because Jingxin and Top One, which 

are part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to 

cooperate to the best of their ability in 

providing the requested information, as 

discussed above, we find it appropriate, 

in accordance with sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as 

section 776(b), of the Act, to assign total 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to the 

PRC-wide entity.12 By doing so, we 

ensure that the companies that are part 

of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than had they cooperated 

fully in this review. 

As discussed above, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use, as AFA, information derived from 

the petition, the final determination in 

the less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) 

investigation, any previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting an AFA rate, the Department’s 

practice has been to assign noncooperative respondents the highest 

margin determined for any party in the 

LTFV investigation or in any 

administrative review.13 As AFA, we are 

assigning the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes Jingxin and Top One, the 

highest rate from any segment of this 

proceeding, which in this case is 234.51 

percent, as establish in the 

investigation.14

Corroboration of PRC-Wide Entity Rate 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that 

where the Department relies on 

secondary information, the Department 

corroborate, to the extent practicable, a 

figure which it applies as AFA. To be 

considered corroborated, information 

must be found to be both reliable and 

relevant. As noted above, we are 

applying as AFA the highest rate from 

any segment of this proceeding, which 

is the rate currently applicable to all 

exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. 

The AFA rate in the current review (i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent) 

represents the highest rate from the 

petition in the LTFV investigation.15

For purposes of corroboration, the 

Department will consider whether that 

margin is both reliable and relevant. The 

AFA rate we are applying for the current 

review was corroborated in the LTFV 

investigation.16 Moreover, no 

information has been presented in the 

current review that calls into question 

the reliability of this information. 

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, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as best information 

available (the predecessor to adverse 

facts available) because the margin was 

based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

The information used in calculating this 

margin was based on sales and 

production data submitted by the 

petitioner in the LTFV investigation, 

together with the most appropriate 

surrogate value information available to 

the Department chosen from 

submissions by the parties in the LTFV 

investigation. Furthermore, the 

calculation of this margin was subject to 

comment from interested parties in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Notices 69057 

17See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 

FR 45729 (August 6, 2008) (‘‘Innersprings 

Investigation Prelim’’). 18The PRC-wide entity includes Jingxin and Top 

One. 

19See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

20See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

21See section 351.309(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

proceeding after this margin was 

selected in calculating the rate for the 

PRC-wide entity in the investigation’s 

Innersprings Investigation Prelim.17 As 

there is no information on the record of 

this review that demonstrates that this 

rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, 

we determine that this rate continues to 

have relevance. 

As the 234.51 percent rate is both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

it has probative value and is 

corroborated to the extent practicable, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act. Therefore, we have assigned this 

AFA rate to exports of the subject 

merchandise by the PRC-wide entity. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margin exists for the period August 6, 

2008–January 31, 2010: 

INNERSPRINGS FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

PRC-wide Entity 18 ................ 234.51 

In accordance with section 

351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, for purposes of the final 

results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

results. Interested parties must provide 

the Department with supporting 

documentation for the publicly 

available information to value each 

factor of production. Additionally, in 

accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, for 

purposes of the final results of this 

administrative review, interested parties 

may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less 

than ten days before, on, or after, the 

applicable deadline for submission of 

such factual information. However, the 

Department notes that section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally 

cannot accept the submission of 

additional, previously absent-from-therecord alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations.19

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review.20 Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments, limited to issues 

raised in such briefs or comments, may 

be filed no later than 37 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review.21 The Department 

urges interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of each argument 

contained within the case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review excluding any 

reported sales that entered during the 

gap period. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) For subject merchandise 

exported by Jingxin and Top One the 

cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 

rate of 234.51 percent; (2) for all other 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not been found to be 

entitled to a separate rate, and thus, are 

a part of the PRC-wide entity, the cashdeposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 

of 234.51 percent; and (3) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise, 

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC supplier of that 

exporter. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under section 

351.402(f) of the Department’s 

regulations 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 the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review, and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

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

sections 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28415 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

Foreign-Trade Zone 226—Merced, 

Madera, Fresno, and Tulare Counties, 

California; Site Renumbering Notice 

Foreign-Trade Zone 226 was 

approved by the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board on December 22, 1997 (Board 

Order 946, 63 FR 778–779, 01/07/98) 

and expanded on May 14, 2003 (Board 

Order 1276, 68 FR 27985, 05/22/03). 

FTZ 226 currently consists of 12 

‘‘Sites’’ totaling some 2,424 acres located 

within and adjacent to the Fresno 

Customs port of entry area. The current 

update does not alter the physical 

boundaries that have previously been 

approved, but instead involves an 

administrative renumbering of existing 

Site 4A to separate unrelated, noncontiguous sites for recordkeeping 

purposes. 

Under this revision, the site list for 

FTZ 226 will be as follows: Site 1 (791 

acres)—Castle Airport (formerly Castle 

Air Force Base) Morimoto Industrial 

Park, 3450 C Street, Atwater (Merced 

County); Site 2 (242 acres)—within the 

MidState 99 Distribution Center, Visalia 

(Tulare County) (includes 65 acres 

located at 2525 North Plaza Drive 

approved on a temporary basis until 

3/1/11); Site 3 (191 acres)—Mid Cal 

Business Park, Highway 33, Gustine 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES