55814 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 9, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on folding 

metal tables and chairs (‘‘FMTCs’’) from 

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

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation: Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). On June 23, 2008, Meco 

Corporation (‘‘Meco’’), a domestic 

producer of the like product, requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of Dongguan 

Shichang Metals Factory Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Shichang’’). The Department 

published a notice of initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of FMTCs from the PRC for the period 

June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

Rescission of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if the party 

that requested the review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

the requested review. On August 11, 

2008, Meco timely withdrew its request 

for an administrative review of 

Shichang (i.e., within 90 days of the 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

this review). Because Meco was the only 

requesting party of an administrative 

review with respect to Shichang, the 

Department hereby rescinds the 

administrative review of FMTCs with 

respect to Shichang, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

15 days after the publication of this 

notice of partial rescission of 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under section 351.402(f) of the 

Department’s regulations to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s assumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22711 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–836] 

Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results and partial 

rescission of the 2006–2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on glycine from 

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

See Glycine from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 

18503 (April 4, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Based upon our 

analysis of the comments and 

information received, we made changes 

to the margin calculation for the final 

results. We find that certain 

manufacturers/exporters sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

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

March 1, 2006, through February 28, 

2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 26, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Toni Dach, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482– 

1655, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The following events have occurred 

subsequent to the publication of the 

Preliminary Results. On April 10, 2008, 

the Department issued Baoding 

Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Baoding Mantong) a supplemental 

questionnaire, and Baoding Mantong 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire on April 17, 2008. On 

April 24, 2008, the Department 

extended the deadline for submitting 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information, and 

for submitting case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs. On April 30, 2008, the 

Department further extended the 

deadline for submitting case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. 

On May 8, 2008, parties submitted SV 

comments, and on May 19, 2008, Geo 

Specialty Chemicals Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

submitted rebuttal comments. On May 

19, 2008, Baoding Mantong submitted 

its case brief, and on May 28, 2008, 

Petitioner submitted its case brief. On 

June 3, 2008, Baoding Mantong 

submitted its rebuttal brief, and on June 

4, 2008, Petitioner submitted its rebuttal 

brief. On June 18, 2008, the Department 

rejected Baoding Mantong’s rebuttal 

brief for containing new factual 

information, which Baoding Mantong 

resubmitted on June 19, 2008. On July 

15, 2008, we extended the time limit for 

the completion of the final results of 

this review by thirty days until 

September 2, 2008. See Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 40480 

(July 15, 2008). On August 29, 2008, we 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the final results by an extra 17 days 

until September 19, 2008. See Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 50939 

(August 29, 2008). Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

glycine, which is a free-flowing 

crystalline material, like salt or sugar. 

Glycine is produced at varying levels of 

purity and is used as a sweetener/taste 

enhancer, a buffering agent, 

reabsorbable amino acid, chemical 

intermediate, and a metal complexing 

agent. This review covers glycine of all 

purity levels. Glycine is currently 

classified under subheading 

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 55815 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and Customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under 

the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the briefs are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results in 

the 2006–2007 Administrative Review 

of Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated 

September 19, 2008, (‘‘I&D Memo’’), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues raised, all of which 

are addressed in the I&D Memo, is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in the briefs and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room 

1117 of the Department of Commerce. In 

addition, a complete version of the I&D 

Memo can be accessed directly on the 

Web at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the I&D 

Memo are identical in content. 

Separate Rates 

Baoding Mantong requested a 

separate, company-specific antidumping 

duty rate. In the Preliminary Results, we 

found that Baoding Mantong met the 

criteria for the application of a separate 

antidumping duty rate. Preliminary 

Results, 73 FR at 18505. Therefore, the 

Department has applied a rate to 

Baoding Mantong separate from the rate 

established for the PRC-wide entity. 

Also in the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that Nantong 

Dongchang Chemical Industry 

Corporation (‘‘Nantong Dongchang’’) 

ceased to participate in the 

administrative review without having 

demonstrated its entitlement to a 

separate rate. Id. Accordingly, Nantong 

Dongchang does not qualify for separate 

rate status, but rather is appropriately 

considered to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity which is assigned a rate of 155.89 

percent based on facts otherwise 

available with an adverse inference 

(‘‘AFA’’). Id. The Department did not 

receive comments on this issue prior to 

these final results. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

the PRC-Wide Rate 

As noted above, the Department 

found that Nantong Dongchang did not 

establish its eligibility for separate rate 

status, and thus is deemed to be part of 

the PRC-wide entity. Also, in the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

noted that Nantong Dongchang ceased 

participating in the administrative 

review, and did not respond to any 

portions of the Department’s 

questionnaires. As the Department 

found that the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes Nantong Dongchang, failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability in 

responding to the Department’s requests 

for information and thereby impeded 

the Department’s proceeding, the 

Department assigned the PRC-wide 

entity a rate based on AFA pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and 

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Preliminary 

Results at 73 FR at 18506. The 

Department did not receive any 

comments regarding its preliminary 

application of AFA to the PRC-wide 

entity. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 

18505–18507. Therefore, for these final 

results, the Department has not altered 

its analysis or decision to apply total 

AFA to the PRC-wide entity. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this review, and 

comments received from the interested 

parties, we have made changes to the 

margin calculations for Baoding 

Mantong. 

We have made modifications to our 

selecetion of certain SVs used in the 

Preliminary Results. The values that 

were modified for these final results are 

those for steam coal, acetic acid, liquid 

chlorine, and the surrogate financial 

ratios. For further details see I&D Memo 

at Comments 1, 2, 4, and 5, and 

Memorandum to the File through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9 

from Toni Dach, International Trade 

Analyst, Office 9, regarding, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Values for the Final Results,’’ 

dated September 19, 2008. 

We determine that the following 

antidumping duty margins exist for the 

period of March 1, 2006, through 

February 28, 2007: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. ........................... 52.02 

PRC-Wide Rate (including 

Nantong Dongchang Chemical 

Industry Corporation) .............. 155.89 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of glycine from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baoding 

Mantong, which has a separate rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate shown above; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above that have a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

the cash deposit rate for all other PRC 

exporters will be 155.89 percent, the 

current PRC-wide rate; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters 

will be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These cash deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return/destruction or conversion to 

judicial protective order of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 

Failure to comply is a violation of the 

APO. 

This notice of final results is issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55816 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Issues 

Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Steam Coal. 

Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Acetic Acid. 

Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Ammonia. 

Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios. 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Chlorine. 

Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Truck 

Freight. 

[FR Doc. E8–22714 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 0808271163; RIN 0648–ZA70] 

NOAA Community-based Restoration 

Program Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2005 NOAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register that announced revisions to 

guidelines for the Community-based 

Restoration Program (Program). The 

notice requested public comment on 

proposed updates to the guidelines that 

describe how the Program is 

implemented, and notified the public 

about a constituent feedback meeting 

that was scheduled for September 13, 

2005 in Washington DC. This notice 

makes minor changes to the previously 

published guidelines and responds 

generally to the comments received, 

summarizes the constituent feedback 

meeting in Washington, D.C., and 

highlights specific authorization for the 

Program established in the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006. NOAA expects to periodically 

update these guidelines every 3 to 5 

years to reflect the evolution of the 

Program. This is not a solicitation of 

project proposals. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Bruckner, (301) 713–0174, or by 

e-mail at Robin.Bruckner@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

NOAA Community-based Restoration 

Program (Program) was established in 

1996. Proposed Guidelines for the 

Program were first published in the 

Federal Register on October 1, 1999 (64 

FR 53339). In that document, comments 

were sought on modifications to the 

Program that would allow greater 

flexibility to support community-based 

habitat restoration projects. Final 

Program Guidelines, including 

responses to comments, were published 

on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16890). In the 

time since the original guidelines were 

issued, the Program has: experienced an 

increase in base funding; emphasized 

certain techniques through targeted 

initiatives, such as fish passage and 

marine debris prevention and removal, 

to expand benefits to aquatic resources; 

undertaken projects in new geographic 

locations; increased its focus on 

ecosystem-based approaches to 

management; and generally has 

implemented increased numbers of 

locally initiated, grass-roots habitat 

restoration projects through 

partnerships at the local, regional and 

national levels. The Program is now 

specifically authorized through the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 on January 

12, 2007. The NOAA Restoration Center 

(Restoration Center) within NMFS is 

issuing revised Program guidelines, 

which include measures that are in 

place or planned to enable the Program 

to demonstrate increased accountability 

for the expenditure of public dollars. 

Responses to Comments 

The Program received comments from 

three entities during the comment 

period (August 24, 2005 through 

October 11, 2005). A private individual, 

Trout Unlimited, and the Massachusetts 

Division of Marine Fisheries submitted 

comments. Comments are summarized 

below, by commenter, with responses. 

Comment 1: The first commenter 

noted the Program had reached $13 

million in appropriations and inquired 

about the Program’s accomplishments in 

2004. Specifically, the commenter 

requested names and locations of 

projects, the amount of money spent, 

and what was accomplished (e.g. acres 

restored). 

Response: Project-specific information 

is made available to the public via the 

‘‘Funded Projects’’ section of the 

Restoration Center website at: http:// 

seahorse2.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcrcdblapp/ 

class/. Projects can be viewed by 

location, habitat type, or partnership. 

Project names, locations, funding 

recipients, award amounts and year 

awarded, project partners and contacts, 

and a summary of each project’s goals, 

objectives and results can be found 

there. 

Comment 2: Trout Unlimited offered 

full support for the proposed Program 

changes, and emphasized the most 

beneficial changes. These included: (1) 

the requirement for project partners to 

provide detailed project information for 

the Restoration Center database; (2) the 

requirement for science-based 

monitoring where appropriate as 

supported by the Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000; (3) consideration of 

habitat restoration in the Great Lakes 

region; and (4) the increase of upper and 

lower funding ranges for financial 

assistance for projects. 

Response: NOAA agrees with the 

commenter that the proposed changes: 

(1) are essential to evaluate progress of 

work funded by the Program; (2) 

represent a long-term commitment of 

the Program to measure project 

outcomes such as improvements in 

habitat productivity and fish 

populations; (3) represent a reasonable 

direction for the Program expansion 

(into the Great Lakes, dependant on 

Congressional appropriations) given 

NOAA’s traditional responsibilities for 

habitat restoration in large aquatic 

systems; and (4) increases efficiency and 

cost-effectiveness of the Program. 

Regarding the fourth point, since small 

projects often require the same level of 

NOAA staff support to ensure 

environmental compliance as do larger 

projects, they have become less costeffective. NOAA agrees with the 

commenter that national and regional 

partnerships can provide smaller 

awards more cost-effectively as part of 

larger, more comprehensive restoration 

activities. 

Comment 3: The Massachusetts 

Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) 

was generally very supportive of the 

goals and efforts of programs within 

NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat 

Conservation, and offered specific 

comments in the context of improving 

federal-state communication and project 

execution. The commenter: (1) 

requested clarification of state-federal 

interactions to ensure the objectives of 

the Program are consistent with existing 

state authority and objectives for 

anadromous and marine fisheries 

resources; (2) requested a process that 

would allow the state to provide 

technical comments and approval on 

project proposals and designs, and 

suggested that NOAA require support 

letters from the state agency with 

responsibility over the target resources; 

(3) suggested that formal partnerships 

between NOAA and state agencies be 

established to provide a streamlined and 

dedicated annual funding source for 

ongoing state programs that routinely 

address priority anadromous fish 

restoration projects; and (4) suggested 

that improvements were needed in the 

coordination between the Program and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES