Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46083 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; NIST Construction 

Grant Program Application 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 9, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Barbara Lambis, 301–975– 

4447, Barbara.lambis@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The NIST Construction Grant Program 

(Program) is a competitive financial 

assistance (grant) program for research 

science buildings through the 

construction of new buildings or 

expansion of existing buildings. For 

purposes of this program, ‘‘research 

science building’’ means a building or 

facility whose purpose is to conduct 

scientific research, including 

laboratories, test facilities, measurement 

facilities, research computing facilities, 

and observatories. In addition, 

‘‘expansion of existing buildings’’ 

means that space to conduct scientific 

research is being expanded from what is 

currently available for the supported 

research activities. 

This request is for the information 

collection requirements associated with 

requesting updated information from 

the unfunded meritorious 2008 

applicants. The information will be 

used to make final selections of funding 

recipients. 

II. Method of Collection 

Letters of Intent are submitted by 

paper and full proposals are submitted 

by paper or electronically via http:// 

grants.gov. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0693–0055. 

Form Number(s): NIST–1101, NIST– 

1101A, and NIST–1101B. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: U.S. institutions of 

higher education and non-profit 

organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 500. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 250,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: None. 

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: September 2, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–21495 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–888] 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The period of 

review (POR) is August 1, 2007 through 

July 31, 2008. We have preliminarily 

determined an antidumping duty 

margin for Foshan Shunde Yongjian 

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(Foshan Shunde) based upon the 

application of facts available with 

adverse inference (AFA). We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. We intend to issue 

final results no later than 120 days from 

the publication of this notice, pursuant 

to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 as amended (the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 6, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order regarding floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof (ironing tables) 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) 

(Amended Final and Order). 

On August 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on ironing 

tables from the PRC. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). 

On August 29, 2008, Home Products 

International, Inc. (the Petitioner in this 

proceeding), requested, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), an 

administrative review of this order for 

Foshan Shunde and Since Hardware 

(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware). 

On that same date, Foshan Shunde 

requested a review of its sales. Since 

Hardware’s request for an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

1Our Extension of Preliminary Results 

erroneously gives the extended deadline as 

September 1, 2009. See Extension of Preliminary 

Results at 20280. However, the correct deadline is 

August 31, 2009. 

administrative review of its sales 

followed on September 2, 2008. Because 

the deadline for filing a request for 

review, August 31, 2008, fell on a 

weekend Since Hardware’s request was 

timely filed on the first business day 

thereafter. Since Hardware also 

requested that the Department defer 

initiation of the administrative review 

for one year, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(c). 

On September 30, 2008, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of Foshan Shunde and Since 

Hardware. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794 

(September 30, 2008). On October 29, 

2008, the Department published its 

notice of deferral of the administrative 

review for one year with respect to 

Since Hardware, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(c) (this notice of deferral was 

inadvertently omitted from our 

September 30th notice of initiation). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). 

On May 1, 2009, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), the Department extended 

the deadline for the preliminary results 

of review until August 31, 2009.1 See 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of the Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 20280 

(May 1, 2009) (Extension of Preliminary 

Results). 

On August 3, 2009, we invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Department’s surrogate country 

selection and to submit publicly 

available information to value the 

factors of production. Petitioners 

submitted comments concerning 

surrogate values and factors of 

production in their August 13, 2009 

submission. On February 26, 2009, 

Foshan Shunde submitted public 

comments concerning surrogate values 

and factors of production; Petitioner did 

not comment directly on the use of 

India as a surrogate country. 

The Department issued its original 

antidumping questionnaire to Foshan 

Shunde on October 14, 2008. Foshan 

Shunde timely filed its response to 

Section A of the questionnaire on 

November 18, 2008. Foshan Shunde’s 

Sections C and D responses followed on 

December 4, 2008. Petitioner filed 

comments on Foshan Shunde’s section 

A response on November 24, 2008, and 

on the sections C and D responses on 

December 15, 2008. 

The Department subsequently issued 

supplemental requests for information 

on February 10, 2009, April 16, 2009, 

May 29, 2009, and July 27, 2009. Foshan 

Shunde timely responded to each of 

these supplemental requests for 

information on March 18, 2009, May 1, 

2009, June 22, 2009, and August 10, 

2009, respectively. Petitioner 

commented after each Foshan Shunde 

response thereafter, on March 30, 2009, 

May 7, 2009, June 30, 2009 and August 

13, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Foshan 

Shunde submitted rebuttal comments to 

Petitioner’s August 13, 2009 letter. 

Because Foshan Shunde submitted its 

August 27, 2009 comments four days 

prior to the fully extended deadline for 

the Department issuing its preliminary 

results, we have not considered Foshan 

Shunde’s August 27, 2009 comments in 

these preliminary results. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

product covered consists of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

The subject tables are designed and 

used principally for the hand ironing or 

pressing of garments or other articles of 

fabric. The subject tables have fullheight leg assemblies that support the 

ironing surface at an appropriate (often 

adjustable) height above the floor. The 

subject tables are produced in a variety 

of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, 

or matte, and they are available with 

various features, including iron rests, 

linen racks, and others. The subject 

ironing tables may be sold with or 

without a pad and/or cover. All types 

and configurations of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables are covered by 

this review. 

Furthermore, this order specifically 

covers imports of ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

For purposes of this order, the term 

‘‘unassembled’’ ironing table means a 

product requiring the attachment of the 

leg assembly to the top or the 

attachment of an included feature such 

as an iron rest or linen rack. The term 

‘‘complete’’ ironing table means product 

sold as a ready-to-use ensemble 

consisting of the metal-top table and a 

pad and cover, with or without 

additional features, e.g., iron rest or 

linen rack. The term ‘‘incomplete’’ 

ironing table means product shipped or 

sold as a ‘‘bare board’’—i.e., a metal-top 

table only, without the pad and cover– 

with or without additional features, e.g., 

iron rest or linen rack. The major parts 

or components of ironing tables that are 

intended to be covered by this order 

under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ 

consist of the metal top component 

(with or without assembled supports 

and slides) and/or the leg components, 

whether or not attached together as a leg 

assembly. The order covers separately 

shipped metal top components and leg 

components, without regard to whether 

the respective quantities would yield an 

exact quantity of assembled ironing 

tables. 

Ironing tables without legs (such as 

models that mount on walls or over 

doors) are not floor-standing and are 

specifically excluded. Additionally, 

tabletop or countertop models with 

short legs that do not exceed 12 inches 

in length (and which may or may not 

collapse or retract) are specifically 

excluded. 

The subject ironing tables are 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0011. The 

subject metal top and leg components 

are classified under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope remains dispositive. 

Non-Market-Economy Status 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is a Non-Market Economy 

(NME) shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME. See, e.g., 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500, 7500– 

01 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). None of the parties to these 

reviews has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated normal 

value (NV) in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46085 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving 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 rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to its export activities. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 

(Sparklers), as further developed in 

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). It is the 

Department’s practice to require a party 

to submit evidence that it operates 

independently of the State-controlled 

entity in each segment of a proceeding 

in which it requests separate rate status. 

The process requires exporters to submit 

a separate-rate status application. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the 2005–2006 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007); 

and Peer Bearing Co., Changshan v. 

United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 

1324–45 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (affirming 

the Department’s separate rates 

determination in that underlying 

review). 

As explained below, in this review we 

have determined that Foshan Shunde 

failed to provide reliable and verifiable 

responses to the Department’s requests 

for information (see ‘‘Use of Adverse 

Facts Available’’, below). Accordingly, 

because the Department determines that 

Foshan Shunde’s responses are 

unreliable and inconsistent, the 

Department finds that Foshan Shunde 

has not demonstrated that it operates 

free from government control. Thus, for 

purposes of this review, the Department 

determines that Foshan Shunde is part 

of the PRC-wide entity. See 

Memorandum to John M. Andersen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Import 

Administration, ‘‘Floor-standing, Metaltop Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China: Use of Facts Available for Foshan 

Shunde Yongjian Hardware & 

Housewares Co., Ltd.,’’ dated August 31, 

2009 (Facts Available Memorandum); 

see also, Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 883 

(January 9, 2009) (where the Department 

revoked a respondent’s separate rate 

status after the respondent refused to 

cooperate with the Department’s 

administrative review). 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

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

1930, as amended (the Act), provides 

that, if an interested party (A) 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 section 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Where the Department determines a 

response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, 

section 782(d) of the Act requires the 

Department to inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. Section 

782(e) of the Act states that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, 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 * * * 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.’’ See also 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316 at 870 (1994). 

Finally, section 776(c) of the Act 

provides that when the Department 

relies upon secondary information 

rather than upon information obtained 

in the course of an investigation or 

review, it shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

its disposal. Secondary information is 

defined as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See id. 

Corroborate means 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 

relevance and reliability of that 

information. 

In this case, the Department finds that 

Foshan Shunde has provided inaccurate 

and unreliable information concerning 

its production costs and factors of 

production including its steel inputs 

and the long products utilized in the 

manufacturing process. Additionally, 

there is evidence that Foshan Shunde 

has failed to completely recount the role 

that an affiliated company played in 

selling the subject merchandise. For a 

complete discussion of the deficiencies 

in Foshan Shunde’s questionnaire 

responses, see the Facts Available 

Memorandum at pages 1–7. Further, the 

deficiencies in Foshan Shunde’s 

responses give rise to concerns about 

the reliability of Foshan Shunde’s entire 

response, including Foshan Shunde’s 

claim of eligibility for separate rate 

status. 

Additionally, we find that, in failing 

to provide reliable information in 

response to the Department’s five 

requests for information (see 

‘‘Background’’ above for the dates of 

these questionnaires) concerning its 

factors of production, Foshan Shunde 

has significantly impeded this 

proceeding within the meaning of 

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

Because Foshan Shunde provided 

unusable and inaccurate information in 

response to the Department’s requests 

for information, and because the 

requested information is essential to the 

Department’s analysis, the Department 

can no longer rely on this information 

for purposes of determining Foshan 

Shunde’s margin of dumping in this 

administrative review. Therefore, in 

issuing these preliminary results of 

review we are required to resort to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

use of the facts otherwise available for 

the PRC entity, which includes Foshan 

Shunde. 

Finally, we preliminarily determine 

that Foshan Shunde has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information. For a complete discussion 

of the deficiencies in Foshan Shunde’s 

questionnaire response, necessitating 

reference to Foshan Shunde’s business 

proprietary information, see the Facts 

Available Memorandum. A public 

version of this proprietary 

memorandum is available in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit 

located in the Main Commerce Building. 

For the reasons summarized above 

and fully discussed in the Facts 

Available Memorandum, we have 

determined the data submitted by 

Foshan Shunde concerning its factors of 

production are unreliable and 

inaccurate. Moreover, our analysis of 

these data indicate these deficiencies 

and irregularities taken together 

establish a pattern of behavior that 

undermines the reliability and 

credibility of Foshan Shunde’s entire 

questionnaire response, including 

Foshan Shunde’s claim for separate rate 

status. Furthermore, despite the 

Department’s attempts to permit Foshan 

Shunde to remedy and clarify the 

deficiencies previously discussed, 

Foshan Shunde failed to do so. 

Therefore, the Department finds Foshan 

Shunde has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability with respect to its 

obligation to provide accurate 

information concerning its factors of 

production. See Facts Available 

Memorandum. As Foshan Shunde failed 

to demonstrate its eligibility for separate 

rate status, we are treating Foshan 

Shunde as part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Accordingly, we are preliminarily 

assigning the PRC-wide entity a margin 

based upon adverse inferences. As AFA, 

we preliminarily assign the PRC-wide 

entity a margin of 157.68 percent, the 

highest rate calculated in the original 

less-than-fair-value investigation. See 

Amended Final and Order. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

As noted above, section 776(c) of the 

Act requires the Department to 

corroborate secondary information 

‘‘from independent sources that are 

reasonably at its disposal.’’ Independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

secondary evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties in the course of a particular 

segment. 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 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)). However, unlike other types of 

information, there are no independent 

sources for calculated dumping margins. 

The only source for an antidumping 

duty margin is the investigation or prior 

administrative reviews of an 

antidumping duty order. 

The AFA rate that the Department is 

now using was determined in a 

previously published antidumping 

determination. See Amended Final and 

Order. In that amended final 

determination, the Department 

calculated a company-specific rate 

applicable to Shunde Yongjian 

Housewares Co., Ltd. Because this rate 

is a company-specific calculated rate 

concerning subject merchandise, we 

have determined this rate to be reliable. 

Id. 

As 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 Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996) (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). 

The Federal Circuit has stated that 

Congress ‘‘intended for an adverse facts 

available rate to be a reasonably 

accurate estimate of the respondent’s 

actual rate, albeit with some built-in 

increase intended as a deterrent to noncompliance.’’ See F. Lli De Cecco Di 

Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United 

States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 

2000). In applying this precedent, 

neither the Federal Circuit nor the Court 

of International Trade has required the 

Department to follow a formulaic 

approach. Section 776(c) of the Act 

requires that the Department corroborate 

secondary information used in 

calculating a margin ‘‘to the extent 

practicable.’’ Thus, the aspirational goal 

articulated by the Federal Circuit of 

what Congress intended must be 

balanced against the practicalities of the 

case and the evidence on the 

administrative record. 

In this case, the Department rejected 

all of Foshun Shunde’s data and instead 

is applying AFA for the entire record. 

As a result, there is no reliable 

information on this record for which to 

calculate a margin for Foshun Shunde. 

Because of the facts of this particular 

case, the Department will rely on its 

general practice, and apply the highest 

calculated rate from any segment of the 

proceeding. The Department determines 

that there is no other calculated margin 

in the history of this antidumping duty 

order that would ensure that Foshun 

Shunde will not benefit from failing to 

cooperate in this administrative review. 

In reviews in which the respondent 

does not cooperate, the Department 

relies upon the ‘‘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.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190–91 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990). Because of the Department’s 

well known practice, respondents will 

cooperate fully and provide the 

Department with information if they 

expect to receive a rate lower than the 

highest previously calculated rate for 

any entity, or not cooperate if they 

anticipate receiving a margin higher 

than the highest previously calculated 

rate for any entity. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 157.68 

percent margin is corroborated, to the 

extent practicable, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

As explained above, the PRC-wide 

entity, which includes Foshan Shunde, 

withheld necessary information by 

failing to supply full, accurate and 

reliable responses to the Department’s 

numerous requests for information. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine it 

is appropriate to apply a dumping 

margin for the PRC-wide entity using 

facts available on the record. See section 

776(a) of the Act. In addition, because 

the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate 

to the best of its ability, we find an 

adverse inference is warranted. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46087 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margin 

exists: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

The PRC-Wide Entity (including 

Foshan Shunde Yongjian 

Housewares & Hardware Co., 

Ltd.) ......................................... 157.68 

Assessment Rate 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For assessment 

purposes, where possible, we calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for ironing tables from 

the PRC based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

Where assessments are based upon total 

facts available, including total AFA, we 

instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad 

valorem margin rate published above. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review 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 established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (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 157.68 percent 

(see Ironing Tables Order); 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, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of 

the case brief, parties are encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days after the case 

brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing will be held 37 

days after the publication of this notice, 

or the first workday thereafter unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a 

public hearing should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. If a hearing is 

held, an interested party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on 

arguments included in that party’s case 

brief and may make a rebuttal 

presentation only on arguments 

included in that party’s rebuttal brief in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 

within 48 hours before the scheduled 

time. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during these review 

periods. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

this notice is published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21426 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1643] 

Approval for Expanded Manufacturing 

Authority; Foreign-Trade Subzone 15E; 

Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., 

U.S.A., Inc. (Internal Combustion 

Engines); Maryville, MO 

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, Greater Kansas City ForeignTrade Zone, Inc., grantee of ForeignTrade Zone 15, has requested an 

expansion of the scope of manufacturing 

authority on behalf of Kawasaki Motors 

Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A., Inc. 

(KMMC), operator of Subzone 15E at the 

KMMC engine manufacturing plant in 

Maryville, Missouri (FTZ Docket 59– 

2008, filed 10–14–08); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 62950, 10–22–08) 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 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES