72788 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices 

1See Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, Court No. 09–00396: Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant To Remand, dated 

August 9, 2010 (‘‘Remand Results’’); see also 

Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, Slip Op. 2010–106 (September 17, 2010) 

(‘‘Bon Ten v. United States’’). 

2See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 41374 (August 17, 2009) 

(‘‘Final Results’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, as amended by Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of 

China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 74 FR 55810 (October 29, 2009) 

(‘‘Amended Final Results’’). 

3See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Fourth 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 64916 (October 31, 

2008) (‘‘NSR Final Results’’). 

4See Final Results at Comment 29. 

5See id. 

the ESA. Owners of non-FERC dams 

often do not have regulatory oversight 

by a Federal agency and therefore, may 

not be aware of the requirements of the 

ESA and what this means to them. This 

survey will identify opportunities for 

fish passage improvements or dam 

removal that may fit into existing 

funding programs directed towards 

improving fish passage for diadromous 

fish species. Information from this 

survey will also be collected to educate 

NOAA on the current use, anticipated 

use, and community interest in small 

dams. This type of information will aid 

NMFS in developing tools to 

communicate and work effectively with 

dam owners within the GOM DPS. 

Information will be collected on current 

uses of dams, anticipated uses of dams, 

important issues or concerns to dam 

owners, and owners’ interest in creating 

fish passage or removing dams. Known 

associations or organizations with an 

interest in the dams will also be 

identified. 

Respondents will represent members 

of state and local agencies, private 

individuals and corporations, and 

commercial businesses. Results will be 

used to assist NMFS in identifying dam 

owners who are interested in discussing 

potential enhancements to Atlantic 

salmon habitats. 

II. Method of Collection 

The geographic spread of potential 

respondents is extensive and includes 

residents of Maine as well as 

nonresidents. Most respondents will be 

contacted via an initial letter and a 

follow-up telephone call. Personal 

interviews will be scheduled with a few 

respondents owning multiple (in excess 

of 5) dams and the information collected 

will be recorded electronically. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(new information collection). 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households, non-profit institutions; 

State, local, or tribal government; 

Federal government, business or other 

for-profit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

309. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 7 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 36. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0 for record keeping/reporting. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: November 22, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29722 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Amended 

Final Results Pursuant to a Final Court 

Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2010, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (the ‘‘Court’’ or ‘‘CIT’’) sustained 

the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (the 

‘‘Department’s’’) final results of 

redetermination pursuant to remand, 

wherein the Department determined to 

rescind the administrative review (‘‘AR’’) 

with respect to Dongguan Bon Ten 

Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bon Ten’’) pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.214(j) and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3).1 The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is January 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. As the Court’s 

decision is now final and conclusive, 

the Department is amending the final 

results of the 2007 AR of wooden 

bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) to 

reflect the Department’s redetermination 

to rescind the AR with respect to Bon 

Ten.2

DATES: Effective Date: November 26, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith, 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On August 17, 2009, the Department 

published its Final Results. In response 

to Bon Ten’s arguments in its 

administrative case brief, the 

Department determined not to rescind 

the AR with respect to Bon Ten because 

Bon Ten had not demonstrated that it 

had no shipments during the 2007 AR 

POR outside of the single shipment 

reviewed during a new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) 3 that overlapped, in part, with 

the 2007 AR POR.4 Additionally, 

because Bon Ten had not demonstrated 

its eligibility for a separate rate in the 

2007 AR, the Department maintained its 

determination to treat Bon Ten as part 

of the PRC-wide entity.5

On August 14, 2009, Bon Ten 

submitted comments alleging that the 

Department made a ministerial error 

with respect to the Final Results. Bon 

Ten’s ministerial error allegation 

focused on the Department’s finding in 

the Final Results that Bon Ten had not 

provided any assertion prior to the 

submission of its case brief that it had 

no shipments during the 2007 AR POR 

outside of the shipment reviewed in the 

context of the NSR. Bon Ten argued that 

the Department did not consider its 

February 5, 2009, submission 

concerning its shipments during the 

2007 AR POR in that finding. 

In the Amended Final Results, the 

Department determined that, although it 

had inadvertently overlooked Bon Ten’s 

February 5, 2009, submission for 

purposes of the Final Results, Bon Ten’s 

allegation did not reflect a ministerial 

error. The Department reasoned that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices 72789 

6See Amended Final Results and the 

Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘Ministerial 

Error Memorandum for the Final Results of the 

2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated October 7, 2009, at 

Issue 4. 

7See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Due Date for Interested 

Parties to Submit Comments on Draft Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,’’ dated July 

16, 2010. 

8See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 59208 (September 27, 

2010). 9See NSR Final Results. 

Bon Ten’s allegation required 

reconsideration of a methodological 

issue, namely whether the review 

should be rescinded with respect to Bon 

Ten based upon its February 5, 2009, 

submission. Accordingly, the 

Department continued to treat Bon Ten 

as part of the PRC-wide entity for the 

AR in the Amended Final Results. 

However, the Department clarified that 

Bon Ten lost the separate rate status it 

was granted during the NSR starting on 

August 1, 2007, which is the first day of 

the administrative review that did not 

overlap with Bon Ten’s NSR POR (i.e., 

January 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007).6

On October 16, 2009, Bon Ten filed a 

complaint with the Court challenging 

the Department’s determination not to 

rescind the AR with respect to Bon Ten 

and its determination that it could not 

address its failure to consider the 

February 5, 2009, submission as a 

ministerial error. On June 7, 2010, the 

Department filed an unopposed motion 

for voluntary remand with the Court so 

that the Department could fully 

consider and evaluate the overlooked 

record evidence, prepare draft remand 

results, issue a draft to the parties for 

comment, analyze those comments, and 

take such action as may be appropriate 

pertaining to Bon Ten. On June 8, 2010, 

the Court granted the Department’s 

voluntary remand motion. 

On June 11, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Bon Ten, in which the Department 

provided Bon Ten the opportunity to 

submit a no-shipment certification. On 

June 15, 2010, Bon Ten submitted a 

certification that it had no shipments of 

WBF during the period August 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007, the portion 

of the 2007 AR POR that was not 

covered by the preceding NSR POR. On 

July 16, 2010, the Department released 

to all interested parties for comment: 

(1) Our draft redetermination pursuant 

to the remand finding that Bon Ten had 

properly submitted its no-shipment 

certification and stating our intent to 

rescind the AR with respect to Bon Ten; 

(2) a U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data listing of all 

type 3 entries (i.e., entries subject to 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

tariffs) classified under subheadings 

7009.92.5000, 9403.50.9080, and 

9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States that 

entered the United States during the 

2007 AR POR and were exported/ 

manufactured by Bon Ten; and (3) a 

draft version of Bon Ten’s amended 

final cash deposit instructions reflecting 

the draft redetermination results, which 

the Department intends to send to CBP, 

pending the expiration of the period of 

appeal or, if appealed, pending a final 

and conclusive court decision.7 The 

Department received no comments from 

interested parties on the Department’s 

draft redetermination results, CBP data, 

or the draft version of the cash deposit 

instructions for Bon Ten. 

On August 9, 2010, the Department 

filed with the CIT its final remand 

redetermination, wherein it determined 

to rescind the 2007 AR with respect to 

Bon Ten, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j) 

and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). On 

September 17, 2010, the CIT sustained 

the final remand redetermination. On 

September 27, 2010, the Department 

notified the public that the Court’s 

decision in this case was not in 

harmony with the Final Results and the 

Amended Final Results.8 The deadline 

to appeal the CIT’s decision was 

November 16, 2010, 60 days after the 

date the CIT sustained the final results 

of redetermination on remand (i.e., 

September 17, 2010). The time period 

for appealing the CIT’s decision has 

expired and no party has appealed the 

CIT’s decision to the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit. Because there is 

now a final and conclusive court 

decision in this case, the Department is 

amending the final results of the 2007 

AR with respect to Bon Ten. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

Rescission of Administrative Review, In 

Part 

The remand redetermination 

explained that, in accordance with the 

CIT’s instructions, the Department 

reconsidered the record information 

with regard to Bon Ten’s no-shipment 

certification and separate-rate status for 

the 2007 AR. Based on this 

reconsideration, the Department has 

determined that Bon Ten made no 

shipments of WBF during the period 

August 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007, the portion of the 2007 AR POR 

that was not covered by the preceding 

NSR POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j) 

and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Therefore, 

the Department is amending the final 

results for Bon Ten, a company that was 

not selected for individual review, and 

the Department is rescinding the 2007 

AR with respect to Bon Ten. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Pursuant to the final court decision, 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

collect a cash-deposit rate for Bon Ten, 

effective upon publication of these 

amended final results, based on the rate 

established in the final results of Bon 

Ten’s NSR (i.e., 0.00 percent) until 

completion of any subsequent 

administrative review of Bon Ten.9 Bon 

Ten’s cash deposit rate will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure 

to comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained 

in the APO itself. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29825 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES