Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29167 

use a computer-assisted data collection 

instrument on a laptop to obtain 

information about the current residents 

of the sample housing unit including 

those who may have moved into the 

selected housing unit since Census Day 

(April 1, 2010). The interviewer will 

also attempt to collect data on certain 

persons who moved out of the sample 

housing unit between Census Day and 

the CCM PI interview. We will include 

nonmatched Census addresses in the 

CCM PI so we can ascertain their Census 

enumeration status earlier than if they 

were included in the Person Followup 

operation that is conducted later in the 

CCM processing. 

The CCM PI operation will collect the 

information listed below only for 

persons in housing units (PI is not 

conducted in businesses or Group 

Quarters). The automated CCM PI 

instrument will collect the following 

information for the housing units 

included in this operation: 

1. Roster of people living at the 

housing unit at the time of the CCM PI 

Interview. 

2. Census Day address information for 

people who moved into the sample 

address since Census Day. 

3. Other addresses where a person 

may have been counted on Census Day. 

4. Information to determine where 

each person should be counted on 

Census Day (according to Census 

residence rules). For example, 

interviewers will probe for persons who 

might have been left off the household 

roster; ask additional questions about 

persons who moved from another 

address on Census Day to the sample 

address; collect additional information 

for persons with multiple addresses. 

5. Demographic information for each 

person in the household on Interview 

Day or Census Day, including name, 

date of birth, age, Hispanic Origin, race, 

and relationship. 

6. Name and above information for 

any person who has moved out of the 

sample address since Census Day (if 

known). 

The CCM Person Interview Reinterview 

(PI RI) is a quality control operation that 

will be conducted on 10 percent of the 

PI cases. The purpose of the PI RI is to 

confirm that the CCM PI interviewer 

conducted a CCM PI interview with a 

household member or a proxy 

respondent and to conduct the complete 

CCM PI interview as needed if the 

original interview seems questionable. 

II. Method of Collection 

The CCM Person Interview and 

Reinterview operations will be 

conducted using a computer-assisted 

data collection instrument on a laptop. 

The CCM PI will be conducted through 

personal interviews while the CCM PI 

RI will be conducted by telephone and 

person interviews. The CCM PI and PI 

RI operations will occur starting August 

14, 2010 through October 9, 2010. 

Definition of Terms 

Components of Coverage Error—The 

two components of census coverage 

error are census omissions (missed 

persons or housing units) and erroneous 

enumerations (persons or housing units 

enumerated in the census that should 

not have been). Examples of erroneous 

enumerations are persons or housing 

units enumerated in the census that 

should not have been enumerated at all, 

persons or housing units enumerated in 

an incorrect location, and persons or 

housing units enumerated more than 

once (duplicates). 

Net Coverage Error—Net Coverage 

Error is a measure of the difference 

between census omissions and 

erroneous enumerations. A positive net 

error indicates an undercount, while a 

negative net error indicates an 

overcount. 

For more information about the 

Census 2010 Coverage Measurement 

Program, please visit the following page 

of the Census Bureau’s Web site: 

http://www.census.gov/cac/www/pdf/ 

coverage-measurement-program.pdf. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

362,250 sample addresses for PI and 

36,225 sample addresses for PI RI. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 99,619 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No cost 

to the respondents except for their time 

to respond. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S. Code, 

Sections 141, 193, and 221. 

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: June 16, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–14479 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–939 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof 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. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

certain tow behind lawn groomers and 

certain parts thereof (‘‘lawn groomers’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) are being, or is 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 (the ‘‘Act’’). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. The period 

covered by the investigation is October 

1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan, Thomas Martin or 

Zhulieta Willbrand, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4081, (202) 482– 

3936, and (202) 482- 3147 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 28, 2009. See Certain 

Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 4929 (January 28, 

2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On February 19, 2009, Jiashan 

Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Superpower’’), informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

in the verification of its information and 

withdrew from the investigation. See 

Letter to Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China; A–570–939; 

Notice by Jiashan Superpower Tools 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 19, 2009. On 

March 2, 2009, Princeway Furniture 

(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Princeway’’) 

also informed the Department that it 

would not participate in the verification 

of its information and withdrew from 

the investigation, and Princeway 

requested that the Department remove 

all of its submissions from the 

administrative record, certify the 

destruction of the submissions, and 

certify the destruction of Princeway’s 

submissions that are in the possession 

of interested parties to the proceeding. 

See Letter to Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Lawn Groomers from China’’ dated 

March 2, 2009. On March 6, 2009, 

Superpower also requested that the 

Department remove all of its business 

proprietary submissions from the 

administrative record. See Letter to 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China; A–570–939; 

Withdrawal of Confidential Business 

Proprietary Information by Jiashan 

Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

February 19, 2009. On March 6, 2009, 

Agri–Fab, Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department amend the 

Preliminary Determination with regards 

to Princeway. See Letter to Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Tow Behind Lawn 

Groomers and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, Request to 

Reconsider and Amend Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value for Princeway’’ dated March 6, 

2009. 

On March 12, 2009, Petitioner filed its 

case brief. After requesting an extension, 

Superpower filed a case brief on March 

17, 2009. On March 18, 2009, Petitioner 

filed its rebuttal brief. Neither 

Princeway nor Superpower filed a 

rebuttal brief. No party requested a 

hearing. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain non–motorized tow behind lawn 

groomers, manufactured from any 

material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn 

groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, 

aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. 

Unless specifically excluded, lawn 

groomers that are designed to perform at 

least one of the functions listed above 

are included in the scope of this 

investigation, even if the lawn groomer 

is designed to perform additional non– 

subject functions (e.g., mowing). 

All lawn groomers are designed to 

incorporate a hitch, of any 

configuration, which allows the product 

to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn 

groomers that are designed to 

incorporate both a hitch and a push 

handle, of any type, are also covered by 

the scope of this investigation. The 

hitch and handle may be permanently 

attached or removable, and they may be 

attached on opposite sides or on the 

same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn 

groomers designed to incorporate a 

hitch, but where the hitch is not 

attached to the lawn groomer, are also 

included in the scope of the 

investigation. 

Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as 

well as a series of brushes attached to 

an axle or shaft which allows the 

brushing component to rotate. Lawn 

sweepers also include a container 

(which is a receptacle into which debris 

swept from the lawn or turf is 

deposited) supported by the frame. 

Aerators consist of a frame, as well as 

an aerating component that is attached 

to an axle or shaft which allows the 

aerating component to rotate. The 

aerating component is made up of a set 

of knives fixed to a plate (known as a 

‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs with 

protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or 

any other configuration, that are 

designed to create holes or cavities in a 

lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist 

of a frame, as well as a series of tines 

designed to remove material (e.g., dead 

grass or leaves) or other debris from the 

lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are 

attached to and suspended from the 

frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a 

frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a 

container of any size, shape, or material) 

that holds a media to be spread on the 

lawn or turf. The media can be 

distributed by means of a rotating 

spreader plate that broadcasts the media 

(‘‘broadcast spreader’’), a rotating 

agitator that allows the media to be 

released at a consistent rate (‘‘drop 

spreader’’), or any other configuration. 

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

100 pounds or less are covered by the 

scope of the investigation. Other lawn 

groomers–sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders–with a net fully assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds 

or less are covered by the scope of the 

investigation. 

Also included in the scope of the 

investigation are modular units, 

consisting of a chassis that is designed 

to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch 

may or may not be included, which 

allows modules that perform sweeping, 

aerating, dethatching, or spreading 

operations to be interchanged. Modular 

units–when imported with one or more 

lawn grooming modules–with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 200 pounds or less when 

including a single module, are included 

in the scope of the investigation. 

Modular unit chasses, imported without 

a lawn grooming module and with a 

fully assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are 

also covered by the scope of the 

investigation. When imported 

separately, modules that are designed to 

perform subject lawn grooming 

functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, 

dethatching, or spreading), with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and 

that are imported with or without a 

hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or 

unassembled, are covered by this 

investigation. For purposes of this 

investigation, ‘‘unassembled lawn 

groomers’’ consist of either 1) all parts 

necessary to make a fully assembled 

lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of 

parts, constituting a less than complete, 

unassembled lawn groomer, with a 

minimum of two of the following 

‘‘major components’’: 

1) an assembled or unassembled 

brush housing designed to be used 

in a lawn sweeper, where a brush 

housing is defined as a component 

housing the brush assembly, and 

consisting of a wrapper which 

covers the brush assembly and two 

end plates attached to the wrapper; 

2) a sweeper brush; 

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight 

tray, or similar component designed 

to allow weights of any sort to be 

added to the unit; 

4) a spreader hopper; 

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, 

or other component designed for 

distributing media in a lawn 

spreader; 

6) dethatcher tines; 

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other 

aerating component; or 

8) a hitch, defined as a complete hitch 

assembly comprising of at least the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29169 

following two major hitch 

components, tubing and a hitch 

plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. Individual hitch 

component parts, such as tubing, 

hitch plates, pins or fasteners are 

not covered by the scope. 

The major components or parts of 

lawn groomers that are individually 

covered by this investigation under the 

term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are: (1) 

brush housings, where the wrapper and 

end plates incorporating the brush 

assembly may be individual pieces or a 

single piece; and (2) weight trays, or 

similar components designed to allow 

weights of any sort to be added to a 

dethatcher or an aerator unit. 

The products for which relief is 

sought specifically exclude the 

following: 1) agricultural implements 

designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow, 

till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, 

harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm 

carts and wagons that do not groom 

lawns; 3) grooming products 

incorporating a motor or an engine for 

the purpose of operating and/or 

propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn 

groomers that are designed to be hand 

held or are designed to be attached 

directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather 

than towed; 5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming 

products that incorporate a push handle 

rather than a hitch, and which are 

designed solely to be manually 

operated; 6) dethatchers with a net 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

more than 100 pounds, or lawn 

groomers–sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders–with a net fully assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of more than 

200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers 

designed to flatten grass and turf, 

including lawn rollers which 

incorporate an aerator component (e.g., 

‘‘drum-style’’ spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the 

subject of this investigation are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 

8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030, 

8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896, 

8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 

9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions 

are given for reference and customs 

purposes only, and the description of 

merchandise is dispositive for 

determining the scope of the product 

included in this investigation. 

Scope Comments 

On December 30, 2008, and on 

January 7, 2009, Brinly–Hardy Company 

(‘‘Brinly–Hardy’’), a domestic producer 

of the merchandise under consideration, 

submitted comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Specifically, Brinly– 

Hardy requested that the scope be 

revised to define one of the eight listed 

‘‘major components,’’ specifically a 

hitch, as a complete hitch assembly, 

with all necessary components. Brinly– 

Hardy requested that individual 

components such as tubing, hitch plates 

or pins, not be covered by the scope. 

On January 12, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments in response to 

Brinly–Hardy’s request. Petitioner 

agreed that a hitch should be defined, 

but stated that a hitch should be defined 

as consisting of its own major 

components, i.e., tubing and a hitch 

plate, rather than all necessary 

components. Petitioner stated that the 

absence of minor components such as a 

hitch pin or fasteners is not intended to 

remove a hitch assembly from the 

definition of a hitch. 

We have received no further 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Thus, we are making a 

final determination that hitches are 

defined as a complete hitch assembly 

comprising of at least the following two 

major hitch components, tubing and a 

hitch plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. The revised scope language is 

included in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section, above. See also 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’) at 

Comment 4. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues that were raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs that were 

submitted in this investigation, and to 

which we have responded, are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. Appendix I to this notice 

contains a list of the issues that are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is a public 

document, is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, at the main Commerce 

Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

We have made the following changes 

to our calculations in the Preliminary 

Determination: 

1. We considered Princeway and 

Superpower to be part of the PRC– 

wide entity because, as a result of 

their withdrawal from the 

investigation and refusal to allow 

the Department to verify their 

respective submitted information, 

both entities failed to demonstrate 

their qualification for a separate 

rate. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

2. For the final determination we 

continue to assign an AFA rate to 

the PRC–wide entity, which now 

includes Princeway and 

Superpower. As AFA, we have 

assigned the PRC–wide entity a 

CONNUM–specific dumping 

margin, i.e., 386.28 percent, 

calculated for Superpower in the 

Preliminary Determination. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 2. 

3. We have assigned the separate rate 

companies a dumping margin equal 

to the initiation margin. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

4. We made a clarification to the 

scope language concerning the 

definition of hitch. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4. 

Adverse Facts Available 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Superpower and Princeway 

withdrew from the investigation and 

refused to allow the Department to 

verify the information they had 

submitted in this proceeding. As a result 

both entities failed to demonstrate 

eligibility for a separate rate and thus 

are considered part of the PRC–wide 

entity. 

Section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use an adverse 

inference with respect to an interested 

party if the Department finds that the 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. As the PRC– 

wide entity, which includes both 

Superpower and Princeway, failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

information an adverse inference is 

warranted under section 776(b) of the 

Act. 

In our Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated antidumping duty margins 

for both Princeway and Superpower 

based on their submitted information. 

See Preliminary Determination. On 

February 19, 2009, Superpower 

withdrew from the investigation. Also, 

on March 2, 2009, Princeway withdrew 

from the investigation. Thus, both 

Princeway and Superpower withdrew 

from the investigation before the 

Department had an opportunity to verify 

their respective submitted information. 

Therefore, because both Princeway and 

Superpower withdrew from the 

investigation and failed to allow the 

Department to verify their information, 

we find that neither has demonstrated 

their eligibility for separate–rate status 

in this investigation and, thus, both are 

considered part of the PRC–wide entity. 

See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Additionally, we find that due to their 

failure to act to the best of their ability 

in responding to the Department’s 

requests for information, Princeway and 

Superpower, as part of the PRC–wide 

entity, significantly impeded the 

Department’s proceeding. See Section 

776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act. Further, 

we have determined that when selecting 

from among facts available, an adverse 

inference is warranted for the PRC–wide 

entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a non–market economy (‘‘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 rate) to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

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

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide rate 

applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

companies eligible for separate rate 

status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

4932. 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. Id. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Moreover, for the 

reasons noted above, we also consider 

Superpower and Princeway to be part of 

the PRC–wide entity. 

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, if an interested 

party or any other person withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the administering authority 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Because the PRC–wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information 

and because companies within the PRC– 

wide entity withheld information 

requested by the Department, and 

Superpower and Princeway, which are 

part of the PRC–wide entity, did not 

allow their information to be verified, 

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

and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in 

the Preliminary Determination, that the 

use of facts otherwise available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. 

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 Cold– 

Rolled 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 Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

103–316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. We 

determine that, because the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information, and Superpower and 

Princeway, which are part of that entity, 

prevented the Department from 

verifying its information, the PRC–wide 

entity has failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability. Therefore, we have 

determined that, in selecting a dumping 

margin from among the facts otherwise 

available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate for the PRC–wide entity. 

With respect to adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’), for the final determination, we 

have assigned the PRC–wide entity a 

CONNUM–specific dumping margin, 

i.e., 386.28 percent, calculated for 

Superpower in the Preliminary 

Determination. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. No 

corroboration of this rate is necessary 

because we are relying on information 

obtained in the course of this 

investigation, rather than secondary 

information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 

section 776(b) of the Act; see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 1. In selecting a facts– 

available margin, we sought a margin 

that is sufficiently adverse so as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts–available rule, which is to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner. We also 

sought a margin that is indicative of the 

respondents’ customary selling practices 

and is rationally related to the 

transactions to which the adverse facts 

available are being applied. To that end, 

we selected the highest margin on an 

individual model which fell within the 

mainstream of Superpower’s 

transactions (i.e., a model that reflects 

sales of products that are representative 

of the broader range of sales used to 

determine U.S. price). 

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 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 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department granted separate–rate status 

to Superpower, Princeway, Qingdao 

Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huatian’’), 

and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Nantong’’). As discussed above, the 

Department has determined to treat 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29171 

Superpower and Princeway as part of 

the PRC–wide entity. We note that the 

information that Superpower and 

Princeway provided to the Department 

to demonstrate the absence of de facto 

and de jure control could not be verified 

due to their failure to cooperate. 

Consequently we have not granted 

Superpower and Princeway separate 

rates. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Huatian and Nantong 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. See Preliminary 

Determination, 74 FR at 4931. Since the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, no parties commented 

on the separate rate determinations. We 

continue to find that the evidence 

placed on the record of this 

investigation by Huatian and Nantong 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that Huatian and 

Nantong are eligible for separate–rate 

status. 

Normally the dumping margin for 

separate rate companies 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. In the 

Preliminary Determination, we assigned 

Huatian and Nantong the dumping 

margin established equal to a simple 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the two mandatory 

respondents, i.e., Superpower and 

Princeway. See Preliminary 

Determination, 74 FR at 4931 and 4935. 

Since both Superpower and Princeway 

are no longer receiving a separate rate, 

this methodology is not appropriate. In 

cases where the estimated weighted– 

average dumping margins for all 

individually investigated respondents 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA, the Department may use any 

reasonable method to assign a rate to the 

separate rate companies. 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 rate alleged in the petition, 

incorporating revisions made in 

Petitioner’s supplemental responses, to 

Huatian and Nantong is both reasonable 

and reliable for purposes of establishing 

a separate rate. See 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 the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore, 

the Department will assign a separate 

rate to Huatian and Nantong using the 

initiation rate of 154.72 percent, 

pursuant to its practice. 

The initiation margin assigned to 

Huatian and Nantong is based on 

secondary information. According to 

section 776 (c) of the Act, when the 

Department relies on secondary 

information, it shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that 

information. During our pre–initiation 

analysis of the petition, we examined 

the information used in the petition as 

the basis of export price and normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) and, where appropriate, 

revised the calculations used to derive 

the petition dumping margins in 

determining the initiation dumping 

margins. Also, during our pre–initiation 

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 various elements of 

the export price and NV information. 

For the final determination, we 

compared the average of the initiation 

margins to Superpower’s CONNUM– 

specific margins and found that the 

initiation margin falls within these 

margins. No other information was 

available for corroboration purposes. 

Based on the foregoing, we have 

concluded that the initiation dumping 

margin is reliable and has probative 

value and, therefore, we consider this 

average dumping margin to be 

corroborated, to the extent practicable. 

While Agri–Fab,Inc. argued in its case 

brief that Huatian and Nantong should 

receive the PRC–wide rate based on the 

actual rate calculated for Superpower, 

we have assigned the separate–rate 

companies the dumping margin of 

154.72 percent alleged and revised in 

the petition. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

42315 (July 21, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

This practice is described in Policy 

Bulletin 05.1: 

{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’’ available on the 

Import Administration’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

For the final determination, we continue 

to apply this practice. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the period October 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008: 

LAWN GROOMERS FROM THE PRC 

Exporter and Producer 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Nantong D & B Machinery Co., 

Ltd.1 ......................................... 154.72 

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., 

a.k.a. Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd.2 ....................... 154.72 

PRC–wide Entity (including Superpower and Princeway) ....... 386.28 

1 Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject merchandise. 2Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. exports 

and manufactures subject merchandise. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). For merchandise 

under consideration from the exporter 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

1Sunlake is a company located in Thailand. 

producer combinations listed in the 

table above that have been granted 

separate rates, we have assigned the 

initiation rate. Therefore, for 

merchandise under consideration from 

these exporter producer combinations, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this final 

determination, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for each entry 

equal to 154.72 percent, as indicated 

above. The cash deposit rate for 

Superpower, Princeway, and other 

exporter–producer combinations is 

386.28 percent, as indicated above. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ section, that are 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 28, 

2009, which is the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

the rate for the exporter/producer 

combination listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

entity rate; and (3) 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 exporter/producer 

combination that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation 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, 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 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. 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 and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Parties’ Comments 

Comment 1: Whether to retain 

Superpower’s Business Proprietary 

Information (‘‘BPI’’) data 

Comment 2: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate as total adverse facts available 

to both mandatory respondents 

Comment 3: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate to the separate rate 

respondents 

Comment 4: Whether to clarify the 

scope language for hitches 

Comment 5: Whether to amend the 

preliminary determination for 

Princeway 

[FR Doc. E9–14470 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–894 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FINAL DETERMINATION We determine that 

certain tissue paper products exported 

to the United States from Thailand by 

Sunlake De ́cor Co., Ltd. (Sunlake)1 are 

made from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets 

of tissue paper produced in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), and are 

circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 

30, 2005) (Order). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3773 or (202) 482– 

1776, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 30, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) issued its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that certain tissue paper products 

produced in, and exported from, 

Thailand by Sunlake using PRC–origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper are circumventing the 

antidumping duty order on tissue paper 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Act. See Certain Tissue 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China: Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 20915 

(May 6, 2009) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

On May 1, 2009, the Department 

notified the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) of its affirmative 

preliminary determination of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES