59208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

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

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

Redetermination Pursuant To Remand, dated 

August 9, 2010 (‘‘Bon Ten v. United States’’). 

2See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

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

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

Decision Memorandum, as amended by Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of 

China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 74 FR 55810 (October 29, 2009) 

(‘‘Amended Final Results’’). 

3See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Fourth 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 64916 (October 31, 

2008) (‘‘NSR Final Results’’). 

4See Final Results at Comment 29. 

5See id. 

6See Amended Final Results and the 

Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘Ministerial 

Error Memorandum for the Final Results of the 

2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

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

4. 

respondent with standing to participate 

in subsequent administrative review or 

judicial review. 

Reviewers may wish to refer to the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 

1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Jeffrey DeFreest, 

District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24179 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Modoc County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Modoc County Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Alturas, CA. The committee is meeting 

as authorized under the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

of the meeting is to review Resource 

Advisory Committee Project 

Applications. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

October 4, 2010, 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Modoc National Forest Office, 

Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., 

Alturas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly H. Anderson, Forest 

Supervisor and Designated Federal 

Officer, at (530) 233–8700; or Resource 

Advisory Coordinator, Stephen Riley at 

(530) 233–8771. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

business meeting on October 4, 2010 

will begin at 4 p.m., at the Modoc 

National Forest Office, Conference 

Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, 

California 96101. Agenda topics will 

include recruiting new project proposals 

that meet the intent of Public Law 110– 

343. Time will also be set aside for 

public comments at the beginning of the 

meeting. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Kimberly H. Anderson, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24177 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

Final Results of Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2010, the 

United States Court of International 

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

U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

(‘‘Department’’) final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the Court’s 

remand.1 Consistent with the decision 

of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken 

Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Department is 

notifying the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Department’s final results of 

the administrative review (‘‘AR’’) of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

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

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007.2

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith, Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, Office 

8, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street, and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4295. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

17, 2009, the Department published its 

Final Results. In response to Bon Ten’s 

arguments in its administrative case 

brief, the Department determined not to 

rescind the AR with respect to Bon Ten 

because Bon Ten had not demonstrated 

that it had no shipments during the 

2007 AR POR outside of the single 

shipment reviewed during a new 

shipper review (‘‘NSR’’) 3 that 

overlapped, in part, with the 2007 AR 

POR.4 Additionally, because Bon Ten 

had not demonstrated its eligibility for 

a separate rate in the 2007 AR, the 

Department maintained its 

determination to treat Bon Ten as part 

of the PRC-wide entity.5

On August 14, 2009, Bon Ten 

submitted comments alleging that the 

Department made a ministerial error 

with respect to the Final Results. Bon 

Ten’s ministerial error allegation 

focused on the Department’s finding in 

the Final Results that Bon Ten had not 

provided any assertion prior to the 

submission of its case brief that it had 

no shipments during the 2007 AR POR 

outside of the shipment reviewed in the 

context of the NSR. Bon Ten argued that 

the Department did not consider its 

February 5, 2009, submission 

concerning its shipments during the 

2007 AR POR in that finding. 

In the Amended Final Results, the 

Department determined that, although it 

had inadvertently overlooked Bon Ten’s 

February 5, 2009, submission for 

purposes of the Final Results, Bon Ten’s 

allegation did not reflect a ministerial 

error. The Department reasoned that 

Bon Ten’s allegation required 

reconsideration of a methodological 

issue, namely whether the review 

should be rescinded with respect to Bon 

Ten based upon its February 5, 2009, 

submission. Accordingly, the 

Department continued to treat Bon Ten 

as part of the PRC-wide entity for the 

AR in the Amended Final Results. 

However, the Department clarified that 

Bon Ten lost the separate rate status it 

was granted during the NSR starting on 

August 1, 2007, which is the first day of 

the administrative review that did not 

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

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

On October 16, 2009, Bon Ten filed a 

complaint with the Court challenging 

the Department’s determination not to 

rescind the AR with respect to Bon Ten 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES