41374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

to determine sex ratios, proportion of 

wild versus hatchery origin, gather 

scales for age determination and life 

history strategy, and to obtain fin clips 

for genetic analysis. Ultimately, these 

data are being used to guide the 

placement of hatchery reared CCC coho 

salmon smolts intended to improve 

weak or lost year classes in these 

systems. Requested unintentional 

mortality for juveniles and smolts of 

both species is two percent and there is 

no unintentional mortality requested for 

adults. 

Project 2 involves seasonal sampling 

of CCC steelhead and CCC coho salmon 

in Pescadero and San Gregorio creek 

lagoons to determine their abundance 

(using mark and recapture techniques), 

growth rates, and to determine smolt 

and adult life history information from 

scales. Sampling in late summer and fall 

will provide information on relative 

abundance and growth rates while 

sampling in spring will provide 

information on smolt abundance and 

growth during their rearing phase the 

previous year as well as the spring of 

their outmigration. Scales collected 

from a sub-sample of smolt and adult 

steelhead will be used to provide an 

index of where they reared as juveniles 

and to determine age and growth rates. 

This project also includes creel surveys 

at Pescadero Lagoon in order to collect 

scales and length measurements of adult 

CCC steelhead captured by fisherman 

during the catch and release fishing 

season. Data gathered from this project 

will contribute to the overall 

understanding and importance of lagoon 

habitats for these species. In particular, 

data gathered from Pescadero Lagoon 

may provide federal and state agencies 

with important information on the yearto-year impact of re-occurring fish kills 

during sand bar breach events on the 

overall production of salmonids in this 

system. Requested unintentional 

mortality for juveniles and smolts of 

both species is two percent and there is 

no unintentional mortality requested for 

adults. 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Division Chief, Endangered Species 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19719 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1641] 

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 57, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, Area 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the North Carolina 

Department of Commerce, grantee of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 57, submitted an 

application to the Board for authority to 

expand its zone to include an additional 

site (Site 16) in the Charlotte, North 

Carolina area, adjacent to the Charlotte 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry (FTZ Docket 62-2008, filed 10/28/ 

08); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 65583, 11/4/08), and the 

application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; 

Whereas, on April 24, 2009, the grant 

of authority was reissued to the 

Charlotte Regional Partnership, Inc. 

(Board Order 1613, 74 FR 21622, 05/8/ 

09); and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 57 is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, and subject to a sunset 

provision that would terminate 

authority for Site 16 on August 31, 2014, 

if no activity has occurred under FTZ 

procedures before that date. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th 

day of August 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19676 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

Order No. 1637 

Expansion of Foreign–Trade Zone 8, 

Toledo, Ohio 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign–Trade Zones (FTZ) Act of June 18, 

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the Board) 

adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the Toledo–Lucas County 

Port Authority, grantee of Foreign– 

Trade Zone No. 8, submitted an 

application to the Board for authority to 

expand Site 1 at the Port of Toledo 

Complex, within the Toledo/Sandusky 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry (FTZ Docket 64–2008, filed 12/2/ 

2008); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 78289, 12/22/2008) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 8 - 

Site 1 is approved, subject to the Act 

and the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th 

day of August 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19673 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–890 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41375 

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary results and partial 

rescission in the antidumping duty 

administrative review and new shipper 

reviews (‘‘NSRs’’) of wooden bedroom 

furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) for the administrative review 

and the new shipper reviews is January 

1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. In 

the administrative review, we have 

determined that the participating 

mandatory respondent, Guangdong 

Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yihua 

Timber’’), made sales in the United 

States at prices below normal value. 

With respect to the remaining 

respondents in the administrative 

review, we have determined that these 

entities have provided sufficient 

evidence demonstrating that they are 

separate from the PRC–entity and, with 

the exception of Orient International 

Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘Orient International’’), we have 

assigned a margin based on the rate 

calculated for Yihua Timber. For the 

NSRs, the Department also reviewed 

two exporter/producers, Golden Well 

International (HK), Ltd./Zhangzhou 

XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Golden Well’’) and Dongguan 

Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd./Dongguan 

Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sunshine’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

results in these reviews. Based on our 

analysis of the comments we received in 

these reviews, we made certain changes 

to our calculations for Yihua Timber 

and for the new shippers. The final 

dumping margins for these reviews are 

listed in the ‘‘Final Results Margins’’ 

section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 and (202) 

482–6478, respectively. 

Background 

The Department published its 

preliminary results on February 9, 2009. 

See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews and Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6372 

(February 9, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We invited parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. On 

February 24, 2009, and March 4, 2009, 

the Department sent Yihua Timber the 

Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire and 

addendum, respectively. On March 17, 

2009, Yihua Timber provided its 

response to the Fourth Supplemental 

Questionnaire. On February 24, 2009, 

March 10, 2009, March 20, 2009, and 

March 25, 2009, Yihua Timber provided 

information on the weights of it 

products. On March 6, 2009, we 

received publicly available surrogate 

value information from Yihua Timber 

and American Furniture Manufacturers 

Committee for Legal Trade and 

Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company 

(‘‘Petitioners’’). On March 16, 2009, we 

received rebuttal comments on the 

publicly available surrogate value 

information from Yihua Timber and the 

Petitioners. 

On April 20, 2009, the Department 

extended the deadline for the final 

results of the administrative and new 

shipper reviews to August 10, 2009. See 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 

FR 17951 (April 20, 2009). 

The Department conducted 

verification of Yihua Timber, Yihua 

Timber’s U.S. subsidiary New Classic 

Home Furnishings, Inc.’s (‘‘New 

Classic’’), and Sunshine’s data from 

April 6, 2009, to April 16, 2009, and 

April 22, 2009, to April 24, 2009. See 

‘‘Verification’’ section, below, for 

additional information. On May 18, 

2009, we requested that Yihua Timber 

submit revised U.S. sales and factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) databases pursuant 

to the minor corrections presented at 

Yihua Timber’s and New Classic’s 

verification. On May 22, 2009, Yihua 

Timber provided the revised U.S. sales 

and FOP databases. 

On May 21, 2009 Yihua Timber 

submitted unsolicited, untimely new 

factual information, which the 

Department rejected on May 26, 2009. 

See Letter from the Department, 

regarding ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Rejection of New Factual Information,’’ 

dated May 26, 2009. 

Interested parties submitted case and 

rebuttal briefs on May 27, 2009, and 

June 4, 2009, respectively. On May 28, 

2009, we rejected Yihua Timber’s case 

brief due to untimely new information 

included in Yihua Timber’s case brief. 

See Letter from the Department, 

regarding, ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Rejection of Case Brief,’’ dated May 28, 

2009. On June 6, 2009, Yihua Timber 

resubmitted its case brief with the new 

information redacted. On June 10, 2009, 

we rejected the rebuttal brief of Lifestyle 

Enterprise, Inc., Trade Masters of Texas, 

Inc., and Emerald Home Furnishings, 

LLC (collectively ‘‘Importers’ 

Coalition’’) and the rebuttal brief of 

COE, Ltd. due to untimely new 

arguments included in their rebuttal 

briefs. See Letters from the Department, 

regarding ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Rejection of New Argument,’’ dated 

June 10, 2009. On June 11, 2009, the 

Importers’ Coalition and COE, Ltd. 

resubmitted their respective rebuttal 

briefs with the new arguments redacted. 

On June 12, 2009, we rejected Yihua 

Timber’s rebuttal brief due to an 

untimely new argument included its 

rebuttal brief. See Letter from the 

Department, regarding ‘‘Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Rejection of 

Argument,’’ dated June 12, 2009. On 

June 15, 2009, Yihua Timber 

resubmitted its rebuttal brief with the 

new argument redacted. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in these 

reviews are addressed in the 

Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the 2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews,’’ dated August 

10, 2009, which is hereby adopted by 

this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, 

Room 1117, and is accessible on the 

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Period of Review 

The POR is January 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden 

bedroom furniture is generally, but not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

1A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-ofdrawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be 

in two or more sections), with one or two sections 

mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly 

larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 

2A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers 

usually composed of a base and a top section with 

drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest 

(often 15 inches or more in height). 

3A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, 

not more than four feet high, normally set on short 

legs. 

4A chest of drawers is typically a case containing 

drawers for storing clothing. 

5A chest is typically a case piece taller than it 

is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or 

without one or more doors for storing clothing. The 

piece can either include drawers or be designed as 

a large box incorporating a lid. 

6A door chest is typically a chest with hinged 

doors to store clothing, whether or not containing 

drawers. The piece may also include shelves for 

televisions and other entertainment electronics. 

7A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest 

of drawers normally used for storing undergarments 

and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 

8A hutch is typically an open case of furniture 

with shelves that typically sits on another piece of 

furniture and provides storage for clothes. 

9An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or 

wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, 

and with one or more drawers (either exterior below 

or above the doors or interior behind the doors), 

shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for 

storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used 

to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems. 

10As used herein, bentwood means solid wood 

made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to 

a curved shape by bending it while made pliable 

with moist heat or other agency and then set by 

cooling or drying. See Customs’ Headquarters’ 

Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 

11Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for 

the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24′′ in 

width, 18′′ in depth, and 49′′ in height, including 

a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or 

felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or 

not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), 

with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset 

mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from 

Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, 

Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part, 71 

FR 38621 (July 7, 2006). 

12Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror 

with a height in excess of 50′′ that is mounted on 

a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the 

scope of the order excludes combination cheval 

mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise 

is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, 

i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess 

of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged 

base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a 

cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the 

mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet 

lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet 

hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or 

without a working lock and key to secure the 

contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval 

mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated 

piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 

50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 

inches in depth. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

of Changed Circumstances Review and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 

(January 9, 2007). 

13Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture 

parts made of wood products (as defined above) 

that are not otherwise specifically named in this 

scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden 

footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and 

wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess 

the essential character of wooden bedroom 

furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or 

unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.90.7000. 

14Upholstered beds that are completely 

upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and 

completely covered in sewn genuine leather, 

synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative 

fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, 

footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered 

except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, 

or any other material and which are no more than 

nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 

72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007). 

exclusively, designed, manufactured, 

and offered for sale in coordinated 

groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the 

individual pieces are of approximately 

the same style and approximately the 

same material and/or finish. The subject 

merchandise is made substantially of 

wood products, including both solid 

wood and also engineered wood 

products made from wood particles, 

fibers, or other wooden materials such 

as plywood, strand board, particle 

board, and fiberboard, with or without 

wood veneers, wood overlays, or 

laminates, with or without non–wood 

components or trim such as metal, 

marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other 

resins, and whether or not assembled, 

completed, or finished. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following items: (1) wooden beds such 

as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; 

(2) wooden headboards for beds 

(whether stand–alone or attached to side 

rails), wooden footboards for beds, 

wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 

canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night 

stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, 

mule chests, gentlemen’s chests, 

bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests, 

wardrobes, vanities, chessers, 

chifforobes, and wardrobe–type 

cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass 

mirrors that are attached to, 

incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the 

dresser; (5) chests–on-chests,1

highboys,2 lowboys,3 chests of drawers,4

chests,5 door chests,6 chiffoniers,7

hutches,8 and armoires;9 (6) desks, 

computer stands, filing cabinets, book 

cases, or writing tables that are attached 

to or incorporated in the subject 

merchandise; and (7) other bedroom 

furniture consistent with the above list. 

The scope of the order excludes the 

following items: (1) seats, chairs, 

benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, 

stools, and other seating furniture; (2) 

mattresses, mattress supports (including 

box springs), infant cribs, water beds, 

and futon frames; (3) office furniture, 

such as desks, stand–up desks, 

computer cabinets, filing cabinets, 

credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining 

room or kitchen furniture such as dining 

tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, 

buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, 

and china hutches; (5) other non– 

bedroom furniture, such as television 

cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, 

occasional tables, wall systems, book 

cases, and entertainment systems; (6) 

bedroom furniture made primarily of 

wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) 

side rails for beds made of metal if sold 

separately from the headboard and 

footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in 

which bentwood parts predominate;10

(9) jewelry armories;11 (10) cheval 

mirrors;12 (11) certain metal 

parts;13 (12) mirrors that do not attach 

to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over 

a dresser if they are not designed and 

marketed to be sold in conjunction with 

a dresser as part of a dresser–mirror set; 

and (13) upholstered beds.14

Imports of subject merchandise are 

classified under subheading 

9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ‘‘wooden 

. . . beds’’ and under subheading 

9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ‘‘other . 

. . wooden furniture of a kind used in 

the bedroom.’’ In addition, wooden 

headboards for beds, wooden footboards 

for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and 

wooden canopies for beds may also be 

entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 

of the HTSUS as ‘‘parts of wood’’ and 

framed glass mirrors may also be 

entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 

of the HTSUS as ‘‘glass mirrors . . . 

framed.’’ This order covers all wooden 

bedroom furniture meeting the above 

description, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

we verified the information submitted 

by Yihua Timber, New Classic, and 

Sunshine. See Memorandum from Erin 

Begnal, Program Manager, Office 8 and 

Sergio Balbontin, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, Office 8 to Wendy 

J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors of 

Production Response of Guangdong 

Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41377 

(May 18, 2009) (‘‘Yihua Timber 

Verification Report’’); see also 

Memorandum from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, Office 4 and Gene 

Degnan, Acting Program Manager, 

Office 8 to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 

Office 8, ‘‘Verification of the U.S. Sales 

Questionnaire Responses of Guangdong 

Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. and 

their U.S. Subsidiary New Classic Home 

Furnishing, Inc. in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (May 18, 2009) 

(‘‘New Classic Verification Report’’), 

and Memorandum from Erin Begnal, 

Program Manager, Office 8 and Sergio 

Balbontin, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, Office 8 to Wendy 

J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, 

‘‘Verification Report of the Sales and 

Factors Response of Dongguan Sunshine 

Furniture Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (May 7, 2009) 

(‘‘Sunshine Verification Report’’) on file 

in the CRU. For the verified companies, 

we used standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records, as well as original source 

documents provided by respondents. 

For further details on the verifications, 

see the Yihua Timber Verification 

Report, New Classic Verification Report, 

and Sunshine Verification Report. 

New Shipper Status 

For these final results, no party has 

contested the bona fides of either 

Golden Well’s or Sunshine’s sales and 

we continue to find, as in the 

Preliminary Results, that both Golden 

Well and Sunshine have met the 

requirements to qualify as a new 

shipper during the POR and that their 

sales of wooden bedroom furniture to 

the United States are appropriate 

transactions for a new shipper. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on an analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations. For the final results, the 

Department has made the following 

changes: 

Surrogate Value Issues 

• The Department revised the 

surrogate value for Yihua Timber’s 

poplar, ash, and pine, veneers, and 

plywood using World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’) data rather than 

Philippine National Statistics Office 

(‘‘NSO’’) data as used in the 

Preliminary Results. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

3. See also ‘‘Final Results of the 

2007 Administrative and New 

Shipper Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ 

dated August 10, 2009 (‘‘SV 

Memo’’). 

• The Department revised the 

surrogate value for Yihua Timber’s 

plywood using WTA data rather 

than NSO data as used in the 

Preliminary Results. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4. See also SV Memo. 

• The Department revised the 

surrogate value for Yihua Timber’s 

medium density fiberboard 

(‘‘MDF’’). See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. 

• The Department revised the 

surrogate value for Yihua Timber’s 

particle board. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

8. See also SV Memo. 

• The Department will continue using 

the Camarines Sur data used in the 

Preliminary Results, to calculate 

electricity and truck freight; 

however, we will not inflate this 

data for the final results. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10 and 11, respectively. 

See also SV Memo. 

• The Department revised the 

selection of surrogate financial 

statements. We continued to use the 

financial statements for the fiscal 

year ending December 31, 2007, 

from the following producers: 

Maitland–Smith Cebu, Inc. 

(‘‘Maitland–Smith’’); Casa Cebuana 

Incorporated (‘‘Casa Cebuana’’); 

Diretso Design Furniture Inc., 

(‘‘Diresto’’); Global Classic Designs, 

Inc., (‘‘Global’’); and Las Palmas 

Furniture, Inc., (‘‘Las Palmas’’), all 

of which are Philippine producers 

of comparable merchandise. In 

addition, we used the financial 

statements for the same period from 

Arkane International Corporation; 

Giardini Sole Manufacturing and 

Trading Corporation (‘‘Giardini’’); 

and SCT Furnishing Corporation, 

also Phillippine producers of 

comparable merchandise. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comments 14–16 for discussion 

of financial ratios. See also SV 

Memo. 

• The Department made changes from 

the Preliminary Results in 

calculating the surrogate financial 

ratios for the following surrogate 

companies: Maitland–Smith, Casa 

Cebuana, Diretso, and Las Palmas. 

See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 14–16 

for a discussion of financial ratios. 

See also SV Memo. 

Yihua Timber–Specific Issues 

• The Department corrected the 

surrogate value for Yihua Timber’s 

brokerage and handling charge. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 13. 

• The Department adjusted Yihua 

Timber’s warehousing expense paid 

to its affiliated party to reflect 

market value. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

19. 

• The Department corrected its 

preliminary finding of facts 

available as to Yihua Timber’s FOP 

weights. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 20. 

• The Department is granting Yihua 

Timber a by–product offset. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 21. 

• The Department corrected its 

preliminary finding of partial 

adverse facts available as to Yihua 

Timber’s affiliate (Company A) 

sales. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 22. 

• The Department corrected its 

preliminary finding of facts 

available as to Yihua Timber’s 

inventory carrying costs. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 23. 

• The Department corrected Yihua 

Timber’s transportation expenses 

with respect to its Channel 1 sales. 

See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 24. 

• The Department corrected 

programming errors as to Yihua 

Timber’s gross weight, material 

conversion rates, damaged sales, a 

miscoded CONNUMU, and 

recalculation of USDUTYU, 

CREDITU, and WARRU. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 24. 

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 merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that the following companies 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status: 1) Yihua Timber; 2) 

Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd.; 

3) Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., 

Ltd.; 4) Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. 

aka Fujian Wonder Pacific, Inc. (Dare 

Group); 5) Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture 

Co., Ltd. (Dare Group); 6) Jiangsu Dare 

Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group); 7) 

Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., 

Ltd.; 8) Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of 

Yangchun; and 9) Zhongshan Gainwell 

Furniture Co., Ltd. Also, in the 

Preliminary Results, we stated that the 

new shipper, Sunshine, demonstrated 

its eligibility for separate–rate status. 

For these final results, we continue to 

find that evidence placed on the record 

of these reviews demonstrates that these 

companies provided information that 

shows both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under review, and, thus 

are eligible for separate–rate status. 

With respect to the following 

companies not selected for individual 

examination in this review: 1) COE, 

Ltd.; 2) Decca Furniture Limited; 3) 

Dongguan Landmark Furniture 

Products, Ltd.; 4) Dongguan Yihaiwei 

Furniture Limited; 5) Hwang Ho 

International Holdings Limited; 6) 

Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture 

Company, Ltd.; 7) Qingdao Shengchang 

Wooden Co., Ltd.; 8) Transworld 

(Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd.; and 9) 

Winny Universal, Ltd., Zhongshan 

Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, 

Ltd., we continue to grant a separate rate 

to these companies because they are 

wholly owned by individuals or 

companies located in a market 

economy. With respect to the new 

shipper, Golden Well, we continue to 

grant it a separate rate because it is 

wholly owned by individuals or 

companies located in a market 

economy. As wholly foreign–owned 

companies, we have no evidence 

indicating that these companies are 

under the control of the PRC. Therefore, 

a separate–rate analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether these companies 

are independent from government 

control. See Preliminary Results. See 

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71104– 

05 (December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign–owned 

and, thus, qualified for a separate rate). 

The following five exporters did not 

provide, as appropriate, either a 

separate rate application or certification: 

1) Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Bon Ten’’) (see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 29); 

2) Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft 

Furniture Factory (Joyce Art Factory) 

(‘‘Joyce Art’’); 3) Tianjin Sande 

Fairwood Furniture Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sande’’); 

4) Yida Co. Ltd., Yitai Worldwide Ltd., 

Yili Co., Ltd., and Yetbuild Co., Ltd. 

(collectively ‘‘Yida’’); and 5) Hamilton & 

Spill, Ltd. (‘‘Hamilton’’), and therefore 

have not demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate rate status in this 

administrative review. In the 

Preliminary Results, we found that 

Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., 

Ltd.’s (‘‘Dream Rooms’’) separate–rate 

certification was deficient, and thus, 

Dream Rooms did not demonstrate its 

eligibility for separate–rate status in this 

administrative review. See section 

776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Consequently, 

for the final results, the Department is 

continuing to treat Dream Rooms as part 

of the PRC–wide entity. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 30. 

In addition, while we found Orient 

International Holding Shanghai Foreign 

Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Orient 

International’’) to be part of the PRC– 

wide entity in the Preliminary Results, 

we are granting Orient International a 

separate rate for purposes of the final 

results. However, we continue to find 

that Orient International did not act to 

the best of its ability in this 

administrative review, and thus we have 

assigned Orient International a rate 

based on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for the final results. See 

‘‘Adverse Facts Available’’ section 

below. See also Issues and Decision 

Memorandum Comment 32. 

Adverse Facts Available 

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

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary 

information is not on the record or an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding, 

or (D) provides information that cannot 

be verified as provided by section 782(i) 

of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Orient International 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined that because Orient 

International ceased participating in this 

administrative review, Orient 

International’s information could not be 

verified. As a result, we found that 

Orient International did not 

demonstrate its entitlement to a separate 

rate and was, therefore, subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. See Preliminary Results. 

As stated above, for the final results, we 

no longer find Orient International to be 

part of the PRC–entity. Orient 

International’s separate rate certification 

demonstrates that Orient International 

provided information that shows both a 

de jure and de facto absence of 

government control with respect to its 

exports of the merchandise under 

review, and, thus is eligible for 

separate–rate status. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 32. 

However, we find that the application of 

facts available is warranted. In 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

through (D), by not responding to the 

Department’s questionnaire and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41379 

15Bon Ten, Dream Rooms, Hamilton, Joyce Art, 

Sande, and Yida are all part of the PRC-wide entity. 

informing the Department that it would 

no longer participate in the 

administrative review as a mandatory 

respondent, we find that Orient 

International withheld information 

requested, failed to produce the 

requested information in a timely 

manner, significantly impeded the 

proceeding, and did not allow for 

verification, as it had ceased 

cooperating with the Department. 

Moreover, pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, the Department finds that 

Orient International failed to cooperate 

to the best of its ability by not providing 

a questionnaire response that was 

essential to the calculation of the 

antidumping duty margin. Orient 

International was provided an ample 

amount of time to submit a response to 

the Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire. At no point did Orient 

International seek clarification from the 

Department on the specific requests for 

information, but rather submitted a 

letter to the Department indicating that 

it would no longer respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and that it would no longer participate 

in the proceeding as a mandatory 

respondent. Because Orient 

International failed to cooperate with 

the Department in this matter, we find 

it appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of Orient 

International in selecting from among 

the facts otherwise available. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. By doing so, 

we will ensure that Orient International 

will not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate had it cooperated 

fully in this investigation. See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, vol. 

1 (1994) at 870 (‘‘SAA’’). See also Issues 

and Decision Memorandum Comment 

32. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Results Margins’’ section, below, have 

overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., 

the PRC–wide rate) to all other exporters 

of subject merchandise from the PRC. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide rate 

applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

respondents that are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Results Margins’’ section, below. 

The Department based the margin for 

the PRC–wide entity on AFA. See 

Preliminary Results. Pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act, the Department found 

that because the PRC–wide entity failed 

to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires, withheld or failed to 

provide information in a timely manner 

or in the form or manner requested by 

the Department, submitted information 

that could not be verified, or otherwise 

impeded the process, it was appropriate 

to apply a dumping margin for the PRC– 

wide entity using facts otherwise 

available on the record. The Department 

further determined that an adverse 

inference was appropriate because the 

PRC–wide entity failed to respond to 

requests for information and therefore 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability. See ‘‘Selection of AFA 

Rate,’’ below. 

Selection of AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

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

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects, as AFA, the highest 

rate on the record of any segment of the 

proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 

19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

have consistently upheld the 

Department’s practice in this regard. See 

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 

899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 

(‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United 

States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 

2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

less than fair value investigation); see 

also Kompass Food Trading Int’l v. 

United States, 24 CIT 678, 680 (2000) 

(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 

2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘so as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Static Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See, 

SAA at 870; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 

76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); D&L 

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

1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing 

the appropriate balance between 

providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and its normal practice, the 

Department has assigned the rate of 

216.01 percent, the highest rate on the 

record of any segment of the proceeding, 

a calculated company–specific rate in a 

new shipper review of wooden bedroom 

furniture from the PRC, to Orient 

International and to the PRC–wide 

entity,15 as AFA. See Wooden Bedroom 

Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of the 2004–2005 

Semi–Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 

FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (‘‘Final 

04–05 New Shipper Reviews’’). 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise. See 

SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996) (unchanged in the final 

determination, Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part: 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 

1997)). Independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) 

(unchanged in final determination, 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra 

High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 

Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 

(November 5, 2003)); and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Live Swine From 

Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 

11, 2005). 

The AFA rate that the Department is 

now using was determined in the 

published final results of a previous 

new shipper review. See Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

2004–2005 Semi–Annual New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 70739, 70741 (December 

6, 2006). In that new shipper review, the 

Department calculated a company– 

specific rate, which was above the PRC– 

wide rate established in the 

investigation. Because this rate is a 

company–specific calculated rate, we 

have determined this rate to be reliable. 

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. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin). 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221 

(Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated). To 

assess the relevancy of the rate used, the 

Department compared the margin 

calculations of the mandatory 

respondent in the instant administrative 

review with the 216.01 percent 

calculated rate from the 2004–2005 new 

shipper review. The Department found 

that the margin of 216.01 percent was 

within the range of the margins 

calculated on the record of the instant 

administrative review. Because the 

record of this administrative review 

contains margins within the range of 

216.01 percent, we determine that the 

rate from the 2004–2005 review 

continues to be relevant for use in this 

administrative review. 

As the adverse margin is both reliable 

and relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value. Accordingly, we 

determine that this rate meets the 

corroboration criterion established in 

section 776(c) of the Act that secondary 

information have probative value. As a 

result, the Department determines that 

the margin is corroborated for the 

purposes of this administrative review 

and may reasonably be applied to the 

PRC–wide entity as AFA. 

Final Results Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average percentage margins 

exist for the POR: 

Administrative Review 

Exporter Antidumping Duty Percent Margin 

Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.) ................................. 29.98% 

Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................... 29.98% 

COE, Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Decca Furniture Limited ................................................................................................................................ 29.98% 

Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. ............................................................................................... 29.98% 

Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited ........................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific , Inc. (Dare Group) ......................................... 29.98% 

Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) ..................................................................................... 29.98% 

Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) ............................................................................................ 29.98% 

Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited ..................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. ............................................................................................ 29.98% 

Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. ................................................................. 216.01% 

Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................. 29.98% 

Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................. 29.98% 

Winny Universal, Ltd., Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, Ltd. ......................................... 29.98% 

Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun ..................................................................................................... 29.98% 

Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................... 29.98% 

PRC–Wide Entity16 ........................................................................................................................................ 216.01% 

16Bon Ten, Dream Rooms, Hamilton, Joyce Art, Sande, and Yida are all part of the PRC-wide entity. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41381 

New Shipper Review 

Exporter / Producer Combination Antidumping Duty Percent Margin 

Golden Well International (HK), Ltd. / Producer: Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. .................. 0% 

Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. /Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. ...................................... 0% 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries of 

subject merchandise in accordance with 

the final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

exporter/importer- (or customer) 

-specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Where appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For duty– 

assessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per–unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty–assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer) -specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 

customer’s) entries of subject 

merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. We intend to 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC–wide entity at the 

PRC–wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review and new shipper 

reviews for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) 

for the exporters listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rates shown for 

those companies; 2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and non– 

PRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter–specific rate 

published for the most recent period; 3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the PRC– 

wide rate of 216.01 percent; and 4) for 

all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non–PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also 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 during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and notice in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: August 10, 2009. 

Carole Showers, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

Appendix 

Comment 1: Use of the Philippines as 

Surrogate Country 

Comment 2: Net Import Quantity - 

Philippines 

Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Poplar, 

Ash and Pine, Veneers and Plywood 

Comment 4: Surrogate Value for 

Plywood 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for 

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) 

Comment 6: HS Code for Calculation of 

the Surrogate Value for Pine 

Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Sealer 

Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Particle 

Board 

Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Labor 

Comment 10: Surrogate Value for 

Energy 

Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Truck 

Freight 

Comment 12: Treatment of Ocean 

Freight Expense 

Comment 13: Treatment of and 

Surrogate Value for Brokerage & 

Handling 

Comment 14: Selection of Financial 

Statements 

Comment 15: Treatment of Works–inProgress and Changes in Finished Goods 

Inventory in Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 16: Treatment of Indirect 

Materials, Indirect Labor & 

Subcontractor Expenses 

Comment 17: Constructed Export Price 

Offset 

Comment 18: Yield Ratio Calculation 

Comment 19: Treatment of Warehousing 

Expense 

Comment 20: Treatment of Yihua 

Timber’s FOP and Gross Weights 

Comment 21: By–Product Offset 

Comment 22: Yihua Timber Affiliate’s 

(Company A’s) Sales 

Comment 23: Inventory Carrying Costs 

Comment 24: Inland Freight for Yihua 

Timber’s Channel 1 Sales 

Comment 25: SAS Programming 

Changes and Error 

Comment 26: Use of Combination Rates 

Comment 27: Absorption of 

Antidumping Duties 

Comment 28: Cash Deposit Instruction 

for Companies that Lost Their Separate 

Rate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41382 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

Comment 29: Whether to Rescind the 

Review with Respect to Dongguan Bon 

Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. 

Comment 30: Whether to Grant Dream 

Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. a 

Separate Rate 

Comment 31: Whether the Department 

Failed to Timely Initiate the 

Administrative Review Thereby 

Erroneously Choosing Orient 

International as a Mandatory 

Respondent 

Comment 32: Separate Rate Status of 

Orient International 

[FR Doc. E9–19666 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 34–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 49—Newark, New 

Jersey Area, Application for Subzone 

Status, The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. 

(Watches, Jewelry Products and 

Leather Goods), Secaucus, New Jersey 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, 

requesting special–purpose subzone 

status for the distribution facility of the 

Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. (Swatch), 

located in Secaucus, New Jersey. The 

application was submitted pursuant to 

the provisions of the Foreign–Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Foreign– 

Trade Zones Board (15 CFR part 400). It 

was formally filed on August 7, 2009. 

The Swatch facility (56,110 sq. ft., 1 

acre, 160 employees) is located at 55 

Metro Way, Secaucus, New Jersey. It is 

used for the receipt, handling, 

packaging, and distribution of watches, 

jewelry products, and leather watch 

cases. All of the products are sourced 

from abroad and some 10–15% will be 

exported. 

FTZ procedures could exempt Swatch 

from customs duty payments on the 

foreign goods exported from the 

proposed subzone. On domestic sales, 

the company would be able to defer 

duty payments until merchandise is 

shipped from the facility and entered for 

consumption. Certain logistical/supply 

chain management efficiencies would 

also be realized through the use of CBP 

weekly entry procedures. The 

application indicates that the savings 

from FTZ procedures would help 

improve the facility’s international 

competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Claudia Hausler of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to evaluate 

and analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is October 16, 2009. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 

subsequent 15-day period to November 

2, 2009. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room 

2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230–0002 and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s 

Web site, which is accessible via 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Claudia Hausler at 

ClaudialHausler@ita.doc.gov, or (202) 

482–1379. 

Dated: August 7, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19677 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1640] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, 

Hoku Materials, Inc. (Polysilicon), 

Pocatello, Idaho 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign– 

Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign–Trade Zones 

Act provides for ‘‘ . . . the establishment 

. . . of foreign–trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign–trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR Part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special–purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, Boundary County, Idaho, 

grantee of FTZ 242, has made 

application to the Board for authority to 

establish special–purpose subzone 

status at the polysilicon manufacturing 

plant of Hoku Materials, Inc., located in 

Pocatello, Idaho (FTZ Docket 53–2008, 

filed 10/03/2008, and amended 12/31/ 

2008); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 59597–59598, 10/09/ 

2008); and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations would be satisfied, 

and that approval of the application, as 

amended, would be in the public 

interest, if approval were subject to the 

condition listed below; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to the manufacture of 

polysilicon at the Hoku Materials, Inc., 

facility, located in Pocatello, Idaho 

(Subzone 242A), as described in the 

application and Federal Register notice, 

subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28, 

and also subject to a restriction 

prohibiting any admission of silicon 

metal subject to an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th 

day of August 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19675 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO99 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; LowEnergy Marine Seismic Survey in the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean, August 2009 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an 

incidental take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES