U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4061 February 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Uncovered Innerspring Units from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1140 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Jennifer Merrill, Investigator 

Ralph Watkins, Industry Analyst 

Kelly Beck, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Lemuel Shields, Statistical Information Specialist 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4061 February 2009

Uncovered Innerspring Units from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1140 (Final)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Note.– Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks.

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1140 (Final)

UNCOVERED INNERSPRING UNITS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of uncovered innerspring units, provided for in subheading 9404.29.90 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce

(Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective December 31, 2007, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Leggett & Platt, Inc., Carthage, MO. The final

phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary

determinations by Commerce that imports of uncovered innerspring units from China were being sold at

LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling

of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of August 20,

2008 (73 FR 49219). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 22, 2008, and all persons

who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Uncovered Innerspring Units from South Africa and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1141-1142 (Final), USITC

Pub. 4051 (November 2008) at 3.

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). See also Memorandum INV-GG-003 (January 15, 2009), reflecting Commerce’s

dumping margins calculated for subject imports from China.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this investigation, we determine that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of uncovered innerspring units from China that have been found

by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair

value.

ADOPTION OF VIEWS IN UNCOVERED INNERSPRING UNITS FROM SOUTH

AFRICA AND VIETNAM

The instant investigation arose out of a group of simultaneously filed petitions seeking the

imposition of antidumping duties on imports of uncovered innerspring units from China, South Africa,

and Vietnam. The Commission was required to issue its determinations in the investigations of

uncovered innerspring units from South Africa and Vietnam in November 20081

 because Commerce

issued its final determinations in those investigations earlier than it did in the current investigation. In

making our determinations with respect to subject imports from South Africa and Vietnam, we cumulated

subject imports from China, South Africa, and Vietnam.

Under section 771(7)(G)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, we are required to make our

material injury determination in the instant investigation on the same record as that of the determinations

regarding imports from South Africa and Vietnam, except that the record in this investigation also

includes Commerce’s final determination in the investigation of subject imports from China and the

parties’ final comments concerning the significance of that determination.2

 Therefore, in this

investigation, we adopt the findings and analyses in the Commission’s determinations and views

regarding subject imports from South Africa and Vietnam with respect to the domestic like product, the

domestic industry, cumulation, and material injury.
 3

 In its preliminary determination, Commerce calculated a dumping margin of 118.17 percent for Ansahn Yuhua

Industrial Trade Co., Ltd., Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire and Spring Co., Ltd., Heibei Yilian Furniture Co., Ltd.,

Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co., Ltd., Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd., Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial Co., Ltd.,

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd., and Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd.; and a 234.51 percent China-wide

dumping margin. Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 Fed. Reg. 45729, 45737 (August 6, 2008).

In its final determination, Commerce calculated dumping margins of 164.74 percent for Ansahn Yuhua Industrial

Trade Co., Ltd., Heibei Yilian Furniture Co., Ltd., Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co., Ltd., Xilinmen Furniture Co.,

Ltd., Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd., and Zibo Senbao

Furniture Co., Ltd.; 234.51 percent for Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire and Spring Co., Ltd.; and a 234.51 percent Chinawide dumping margin. Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 Fed. Reg. 79443, 79446-47 (December 29, 2008).

4

With respect to the material injury analysis, we acknowledge that Commerce calculated dumping

margins for its final determination that were different from those in its preliminary determination.3

 The

changes to the dumping margins from the preliminary determination, however, do not alter our conclusion

that the domestic industry producing uncovered innerspring units is materially injured by reason of

cumulated subject imports from China, South Africa, and Vietnam.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing uncovered

innerspring units is materially injured by reason of subject imports of uncovered innerspring units from

China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
 1

 The Commission transmitted its determinations and views with respect to South Africa and Vietnam to

Commerce on December 4, 2008.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

 3

 The only party comments received were from counsel on behalf of the petitioner (Leggett & Platt).

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed by Leggett & Platt, Inc. (Leggett & Platt), Carthage,

MO, on December 31, 2007, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and

threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (LTFV) imports of uncovered

innerspring units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam.1

 Information relating to the background of the

investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

December 31, 2007 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the

Commission's investigations

January 28, 2008 Commerce’s notice of initiation

February 14, 2008 Commission’s preliminary determinations

August 6, 2008 Commerce’s preliminary determinations; scheduling of final phase of

Commission's investigations

August 29, 2008 Commerce’s postponement of final determination for China

October 21, 2008 Commerce’s final determinations (South Africa and Vietnam)

October 22, 2008 Commission’s hearing

November 21, 2008 Commission’s vote (South Africa and Vietnam)

December 4, 2008 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce (South Africa and

Vietnam)

December 29, 2008 Commerce’s final determination (73 FR 79443 (China))

January 5, 2009 Commission’s additional scheduling date for China investigation (74 FR 832,

January 8, 2009)

January 27, 2009 Commission’s vote (China)

February 11, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce (China)

The information contained in this report is intended to be used in conjunction with data presented

in the Commission’s report Uncovered Innerspring Units from South Africa and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731-

TA-1141-1142 (Final), USITC Publication 4051, December 2008 (“USITC Publication 4051”) and its

corresponding confidential version contained in memorandum No. INV-FF-144, Uncovered Innerspring

Units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam (“INV-FF-144”). No new information except for

Commerce’s final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV of uncovered innerspring units from

China, and party comments3

 thereon is included in the record for this proceeding.
 4

 Table I-1 of this report corresponds to table I-1 of USITC Publication 4051 and INV-FF-144.

I-2

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On December 29, 2008, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China. Table I-1 presents Commerce’s final

dumping margins with respect to imports of uncovered innerspring units from China.4

Table I-1

Uncovered innerspring units: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to

imports from China.

Exporter & Producer Final dumping margin (percent)

China:

Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. 164.75

East Grace Corporation (Exporter); Wuxi Xihuisheng

Commercial Co., Ltd. (Producer)

164.75

Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. 234.51

Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd. 164.75

Nanjing Meihua Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (Exporter); 

Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co., Ltd (Producer)

164.75

Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. 164.75

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd. 164.75

Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. 164.75

PRC–wide (including High Hope Int’l Group, Jiangsu Native 

Produce Import & Export Corp. Ltd., Jiangsu 

Soho International Group Holding Co., Ltd.)

234.51

Source: 73 FR 79443, December 29, 2008.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 249 / Monday, December 29, 2008 / Notices 79443 

1See Memorandum to the File from Erin Begnal, 

Senior Case Analyst, and Susan Pulongbarit, Case 

Analyst, through Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production 

Response of Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring 

Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated November 4, 2008 

(‘‘Foshan Jingxin Verification Report’’). 

2Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, hereafter known as 

‘‘Petitioner’’. 

3See the Department’s letter dated December 2, 

2008. 

4See Letter from Garvey Schubert Barer to 

Secretary of Commerce, Response to the 

Department Letter Dated December 3, 2008 

(December 8, 2008) and Letter from White & Case 

LLP to Secretary of Commerce, Petitioner 

Supplementary Information Response (December 8, 

2008). 

duty order on magnesium metal from 

the Russian Federation on April 15, 

2005. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Magnesium Metal from the 

Russian Federation, 70 FR 19930 (April 

15, 2005). On April 30, 2008, PSC 

VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation, a 

Russian Federation producer of the 

subject merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review. On April 30, 2008, U.S. 

Magnesium Corporation LLC, the 

petitioner in this proceeding, also 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review with respect to 

PSC VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation and 

Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW), 

another Russian Federation producer of 

the subject merchandise. On June 4, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of initiation of an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

magnesium metal from the Russian 

Federation for the period April 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 

31813 (June 4, 2008). The preliminary 

results of this administrative review are 

currently due no later than December 

31, 2008. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order for which a review is requested 

and a final determination within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary determination is published 

in the Federal Register. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within these time periods, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the preliminary determination to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review by the current deadline of 

December 31, 2008. We require 

additional time to analyze a number of 

complex cost–accounting and corporate 

affiliation issues relating to this 

administrative review. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

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

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of this review by 90 days to 

March 31, 2009. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: December 18, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. E8–30863 Filed 12–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–928] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 

2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

uncovered innerspring units 

(‘‘innersprings’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Pulongbarit or Paul Walker, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4031 or 

(202) 482–0413, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On August 6, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination that 

innersprings from the PRC are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at LTFV. See Uncovered Innerspring 

Units from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

45729 (August 6, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). The Department 

conducted a verification of Foshan 

Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Foshan Jingxin’’) from September 22– 

26, 2008.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i), we invited parties to 

comment on our Preliminary 

Determination. The Department 

received a case brief from Petitioner.2

No other party submitted case or 

rebuttal briefs. In addition, on December 

2, 2008, we placed new factual 

information on the record regarding 

Foshan Jingxin’s affiliate Foshan Ruixin 

Non-Woven Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ruixin’’).3 On 

December 8, 2008, we received 

comments on the new factual 

information from both Foshan Jingxin 

and Petitioner.4 No hearings were 

requested or held for this investigation. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by the parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice in its entirety (‘‘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 in the main Commerce 

building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

April 1, 2007, through September 30, 

2007. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is uncovered innerspring 

units composed of a series of individual 

metal springs joined together in sizes 

corresponding to the sizes of adult 

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

full long, queen, California king, and 

king) and units used in smaller 

constructions, such as crib and youth 

mattresses. All uncovered innerspring 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
79444 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 249 / Monday, December 29, 2008 / Notices 

units are included in this scope 

regardless of width and length. Included 

within this definition are innersprings 

typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 

inches in width and 68 inches to 84 

inches in length. Innersprings for crib 

mattresses typically range from 25 

inches to 27 inches in width and 50 

inches to 52 inches in length. 

Uncovered innerspring units are 

suitable for use as the innerspring 

component in the manufacture of 

innerspring mattresses, including 

mattresses that incorporate a foam 

encasement around the innerspring. 

Pocketed and non-pocketed 

innerspring units are included in this 

definition. Non-pocketed innersprings 

are typically joined together with helical 

wire and border rods. Non-pocketed 

innersprings are included in this 

definition regardless of whether they 

have border rods attached to the 

perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed 

innersprings are individual coils 

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

nonwoven synthetic material or woven 

material and then glued together in a 

linear fashion. 

Uncovered innersprings are classified 

under subheading 9404.29.9010 and 

have also been classified under 

subheadings 9404.10.0000, 

7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 

7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes only; the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope-Clarification Request 

Caye Home Furnishings LLC (Caye 

Furnishings), a U.S. manufacturer of 

living room furniture, requested that we 

clarify the scope language of the 

antidumping duty investigations on 

uncovered innerspring units from the 

PRC, South Africa, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam. See August 25, 

2008, letter from Caye Furnishings. 

Specifically, Caye Furnishings 

requested that we modify the scope of 

the investigations to exclude springs 

and individually wrapped pocket coils 

for upholstery seating that are not 

suitable for mattresses or mattress 

supports. 

Caye Furnishings asserted that the 

reference to mattresses in the scope 

language makes clear that Petitioner 

intended to cover innersprings that are 

used in the manufacture of innerspring 

mattresses and did not intend to cover 

innersprings that are not suitable for use 

in mattresses or mattress supports. Caye 

Furnishings asserted that innersprings 

and individually wrapped pocket coils 

that it imports for use in upholstery 

seating in the manufacture of living 

room furniture are not suitable for 

mattresses or mattress supports. Caye 

Furnishings also explained that, 

although the products it imports are 

normally classified under subheading 

7320.20.5020 of the HTSUS, which is 

not one of the HTSUS subheadings 

covered by the scope of the 

investigations, the scope description as 

written could result in the treatment of 

its imports as subject merchandise. 

In its September 11, 2008, comments 

on the issue, Petitioner stated that it 

believes the scope language is clear and 

that the merchandise described by Caye 

Furnishings is outside the scope of the 

investigations. Petitioner stated, 

however, that it does not object to the 

clarification of the scope for the reasons 

Caye Furnishings cited. See 

Memorandum to the File from Dmitry 

Vladamirov, Case Analyst, Re: LessThan-Fair Value Investigations of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

PRC, South Africa, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, dated September 

16, 2008. In its September 17, 2008, 

comments responding to the alternative 

versions of the scope-clarification 

language that we proposed, Petitioner 

stated that it does not object to 

amending the scope description of the 

investigations by excluding individual 

springs and individually wrapped 

pocket coils for upholstery seating 

(Petitioner stated that it objects to the 

proposed language which excludes any 

mention of end-use of the merchandise). 

We have considered the various 

alternatives on the record for 

modifications of the scope language. In 

addition to the difficulties associated 

with administering antidumping duty 

orders with end-use as a basis for 

whether certain products may be 

considered subject merchandise, we 

agree with Petitioner that the 

merchandise Caye Furnishings 

described in its request is not within the 

scope of the investigations. Therefore, 

we have not modified the scope 

language as suggested by any of the 

parties. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our findings at verification, 

and additional information placed on 

the record of this investigation, we have 

made changes since the Preliminary 

Determination. As further discussed 

below, we have determined to apply 

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

Foshan Jingxin for purposes of this final 

determination. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Adverse Facts Available 

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

that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 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 or manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) 

of the Act provides further that the 

Department may use an adverse 

inference when a party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information. 

Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C) 

and (D) of the Act, we are applying facts 

otherwise available to Foshan Jingxin 

because it withheld certain information 

that was specifically requested by the 

Department and significantly impeded 

the proceeding by not providing 

accurate or complete responses to the 

Department’s questions regarding the 

activities of its majority-owned affiliate, 

Ruixin, in the production of the 

merchandise under consideration and 

sale of subject merchandise to the 

United States. Additionally, because 

information discovered at verification 

directly contradicted information 

contained in Foshan Jingxin’s 

questionnaire responses, the 

Department was unable to verify certain 

statements in Foshan Jingxin’s 

questionnaire responses. See Foshan 

Jingxin Verification Report. 

Furthermore, based on the record 

evidence and pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, the Department has 

determined that Foshan Jingxin did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information. Specifically, the 

Department explained the nature of 

information on affiliates that it required 

in the investigation, gave Foshan Jinxing 

numerous opportunities to provide such 

information, received only denials from 

Foshan Jingxin that Ruixin was 

involved in the sale or production of the 

merchandise under consideration, 

discovered only at verification that 

Ruixin was in fact involved in the 

production of the merchandise under 

consideration, discovered after 

verification that Ruixin was involved in 

the sale of subject merchandise, and 

found that Foshan Jingxin, though its 

general manager, possessed this 

information throughout the 

investigation, yet failed to report it. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 249 / Monday, December 29, 2008 / Notices 79445 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

776(b) of the Act, we have applied total 

AFA to Foshan Jinxing. Accordingly, 

Foshan Jingxin will be assigned the 

PRC-wide rate as total AFA. For a 

complete analysis of comments received 

on this issue, see Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value FOPs. See Preliminary 

Determination. We received no 

comments on our surrogate country 

selection. Accordingly, for the final 

determination, we made no changes to 

our finding with respect to the selection 

of India as a surrogate country. 

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 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20589 (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 at 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the following separate rate 

applicants demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate-rate status: Zibo Senbao 

Furniture Co., Ltd., Hebei Yililan 

Furniture Co., Ltd., Xilinmen Group Co., 

Ltd., East Grace Corporation, Nanjing 

Meihua I&E Trade Co., Ltd., and 

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., 

Ltd. (collectively ‘‘SR applicants’’). 

No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate-rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that they are eligible 

for separate rate status. Normally the 

separate rate is determined based on the 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins established for exporters and 

producers individually investigated, 

excluding de minimis margins or 

margins based entirely on AFA. See 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

We determined in the Preliminary 

Determination that Jiangsu Soho 

Technology Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Soho 

Tech.’’) is not entitled to a separate rate. 

We received no comments on this 

denial of a separate rate and, for the 

final determination, continue to find 

that Soho Tech. is not entitled to a 

separate rate. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

determined that Foshan Jingxin was 

eligible for a separate rate because it 

demonstrated an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control. At 

verification we found no discrepancies 

in Foshan Jingxin’s responses to the 

Department’s separate rate questions. 

Consequently, for the final 

determination we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Foshan Jingxin 

demonstrates it is eligible for a separate 

rate. In past cases where a respondent 

company satisfies the separate-rates test, 

but fails to participate to the best of its 

ability in other aspects of the 

antidumping proceeding, resulting in 

the application of AFA, the Department 

may assign the AFA rate as a separate 

rate for that company. See, e.g., Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 52355 (September 13, 

2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Thus, for this final determination, the 

Department has assigned the AFA rate 

of 234.51 percent to Foshan Jingxin as 

its separate rate. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned a separate rate to 

six exporter/producer combinations that 

qualified for a separate rate using a 

weighted-average margin based on the 

experience of the mandatory 

respondents and excluding any de 

minimis or zero rates or rates based on 

total AFA. See Preliminary 

Determination. In light of the 

application of AFA for both mandatory 

respondents, this methodology is no 

longer appropriate. In cases where the 

estimated weighted-average margins for 

all individually investigated 

respondents are zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on AFA, the Department 

may use any reasonable method to 

assign the separate rate. See section 

735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. In this case, 

where there are no mandatory 

respondents receiving a calculated rate 

and the PRC-wide entity’s rate is based 

upon total AFA, we find that applying 

the simple average of the rates alleged 

in the petition is both reasonable and 

reliable for purposes of establishing a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 

(February 4, 2008) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 

2008) (‘‘Steel Pipe Final’’) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. Therefore, 

the Department will assign a separate 

rate to the six exporter/producer 

combinations using the simple average 

of the margins alleged in the petition, 

pursuant to its practice. This rate is 

corroborated, to the extent practicable, 

for the reasons stated below. See 

‘‘Corroboration’’ section below. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

45734. In the Preliminary Determination 

we treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

over their export activities. In addition, 

in the Preliminary Determination we 

determined that High Hope Int’l Group 

Jiangsu Native Produce Imp. & Exp. 

Corp. Ltd. would be treated as part of 

the PRC-wide entity due to its 

withdrawal from the investigation and, 

thus, its failure to demonstrate 

eligibility for a separate rate. Further, in 

the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that Jiangsu Soho 

International Group Holding Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jiangsu Soho’’) was not eligible for a 

separate rate and, for the final 

determination, we are treating Jiangsu 

Soho as part of the PRC-wide entity. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find that the 

use of facts available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
79446 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 249 / Monday, December 29, 2008 / Notices 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We determined that, because 

the PRC-wide entity did not respond to 

our request for information, it has failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide 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 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., 

the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other 

exporters of subject merchandise from 

the PRC. Such 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 (May 3, 

2000). The PRC-wide entity rate applies 

to all entries of subject merchandise 

except for entries from the respondents 

which are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

assigned to the PRC-wide entity the 

highest rate calculated from the petition, 

234.51 percent. See Preliminary 

Determination, 73 FR at 45735. We 

received no comments on this rate. 

Therefore, for the final determination, 

we have continued to assign to the PRCwide entity the rate of 234.51 percent. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. 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 Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 

From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 

4, 2000); see, e.g., 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; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

Because there are no cooperating 

mandatory respondents to corroborate 

the 234.51 percent margin used as AFA 

for the PRC-wide entity, we relied upon 

our pre-initiation analysis of the 

adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the petition. See 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Uncovered Innersprings from 

the People’s Republic of China (January 

22, 2008). During the initiation stage, we 

examined evidence supporting the 

calculations in the petition and the 

supplemental information provided by 

Petitioners to determine the probative 

value of the margins alleged in the 

petition. During our pre-initiation 

analysis, we examined the information 

used as the basis of export price and 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, 

and the calculations used to derive the 

alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations. Id. We 

received no comments as to the 

relevance or probative value of this 

information. In past cases where there 

were no cooperating mandatory 

respondents with which to corroborate 

the margin used as AFA, the 

Department relied upon our preinitiation analysis of the adequacy and 

accuracy of the information in the 

petition. See Steel Pipe Final, 73 FR at 

31972. Therefore, for the final 

determination, the Department finds 

that the rates derived from the petition 

for purposes of initiation have probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRCwide entity. 

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for the 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

45737. This change in practice is 

described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Policy 

Bulletin 05.1, states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate 

rates that the Department will now assign in 

its NME investigations will be specific to 

those producers that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries.’’ 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Producer 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd .................................... Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd .................................... 164.75 

East Grace Corporation .............................................................. Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial Co., Ltd ...................................... 164.75 

Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd ............................ Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd ............................ 234.51 

Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................. Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................. 164.75 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 249 / Monday, December 29, 2008 / Notices 79447 

Exporter Producer 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Nanjing Meihua Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co., Ltd ........................................... 164.75 

Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd ............................................................. Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd ........................................................ 164.75 

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd ............................... Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd ............................... 164.75 

Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................. Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................. 164.75 

PRC-wide (including High Hope Int’l Group Jiangsu Native 

Produce Imp. & Exp. Corp. Ltd. and Jiangsu Soho International Group Holding Co., Ltd.).

..................................................................................................... 234.51 

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). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue 

the suspension of liquidation required 

by section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, of all 

entries of subject merchandise from 

Foshan Jingxin, the SR Applicants and 

the PRC-wide entity entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 6, 2008, 

the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. CBP shall 

continue to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the estimated 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

U.S. price as shown above. See section 

735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: December 19, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Comment 1: Application of Facts 

Available for 

A. Unreported Affiliate. 

B. Unreported Factors of Production. 

Comment 2: Bona Fide Analysis of 

Foshan Jingxin’s Sales. 

Comment 3: Surrogate Financial Ratios. 

Comment 4: Calculation of the Scrap 

Surrogate Value. 

[FR Doc. E8–30852 Filed 12–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Southeast Region 

Gulf of Mexico Electronic Logbook 

Program 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2009 / Notices 

1Effective October 21, 2008, Commerce issued its 

final antidumping duty determinations for South 

Africa (73 FR 62481) and Vietnam (73 FR 62479). 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 26) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned investigation 

terminating the investigation on the 

basis of settlement agreements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 26, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by Bose Corporation of 

Framingham, Massachusetts (‘‘Bose’’). 

73 FR 882 (January 4, 2008). The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain noise-cancelling headphones by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of United States Patent Nos. 5,181,252 

and 6,597,792. The complaint named as 

respondents Phitek Systems Limited of 

New Zealand (‘‘Phitek New Zealand’’); 

Phitek Systems Limited of San Jose, 

California; GN Netcom, Inc. of Nashua, 

New Hampshire; Audio-Technica U.S., 

Inc. of Stow, Ohio (‘‘Audio-Technica’’); 

Creative Labs, Inc. of Milpitas, 

California (‘‘Creative’’); Logitech Inc. of 

Fremont, California; and Panasonic 

Corporation of North America of 

Secaucus, New Jersey (‘‘Panasonic’’). 

On November 18, 2008, complainant 

and four remaining respondents, Phitek 

New Zealand, Audio-Technica, 

Creative, and Panasonic, filed a joint 

motion pursuant to Commission rule 

210.21 for termination of the 

investigation based upon two settlement 

agreements. One settlement agreement 

is between Bose and Panasonic, and the 

other settlement agreement is between 

Bose and Phitek New Zealand, AudioTechnica, and Creative. The 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a response in support of the motion. 

On December 4, 2008, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting the joint motion 

and terminating the investigation with 

respect to all remaining respondents on 

the basis of the settlement agreements. 

No petitions for review were filed and 

the Commission has determined not to 

review the subject ID. The investigation 

is terminated. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 

and Commission rules 210.21, 210.42, 

19 CFR 210.21, 210.42. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 2, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–80 Filed 1–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations No. 731–TA–1140 (Final)] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Additional scheduling date for 

the subject investigations. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Merrill (202–205–3188), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

July 30, 2008, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the final phase of the subject 

investigations (73 FR 49219, August 20, 

2008). Subsequently, the Department of 

Commerce extended the date for its final 

determination in the investigation on 

China to December 19, 2008 (73 FR 

50932, August 29, 2008).1 Accordingly, 

the Commission is, hereby, issuing its 

additional scheduling date with respect 

to the antidumping duty investigation 

concerning China as follows: A 

supplemental brief addressing only 

Commerce’s final antidumping duty 

determination is due on January 8, 2009. 

The brief may not exceed five (5) pages 

in length. 

For further information concerning 

these investigations see the 

Commission’s notice cited above and 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 5, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. E9–117 Filed 1–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

in United States v. Lorain County 

Metropolitan Park District, et al. Under 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

Notice is hereby given that on 

December 30, 2008, a proposed Consent 

Decree was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Northern 

District of Ohio in United States v. 

Lorain County Metropolitan Park 

District, et al., Case No. 1:08–cv–03026– 

AA. The Consent Decree between the 

United States, on behalf of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘U.S. 

EPA’’), and the Settling Defendants 

relates to certain liabilities under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 

in connection with the Ford Road 

Industrial Landfill Superfund Site in 

Elyria, Ohio (the ‘‘Site’’). 

Under the proposed settlement, 

Settling Defendants will perform the 

$3.4 million remedy at the Site, which 

includes cover enhancement, hot spot 

removal, and groundwater monitoring, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES