Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4929 

1The petitioner provided contact information for 

the twelve Chinese producers/exporters of lawn 

groomers named in the Petition. See Petition at 

Exhibit I-19. However, upon noticing that several of 

the addresses provided were incomplete, the 

Department asked the petitioner to update the 

aforementioned contact information to account for 

full addresses, e.g., contact name, postal code, street 

names and numbers, etc. See the Department’s July 

3, 2008, supplemental questionnaire at 3. In 

response, the petitioner provided updated contact 

information, but noted that this information 

represented its ‘‘best attempt using reasonably 

available information to update the Chinese 

manufacturer and exporter contact information.’’ 

See Supplement to the Petition at 2 and Exhibit 2, 

dated July 8, 2008. 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1711 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

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: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that certain tow behind lawn 

groomers and certain parts thereof 

(‘‘lawn groomers’’) 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 733(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The estimated dumping margins are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan or Thomas Martin, 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) 482–4081or (202) 482– 

3936, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of certain non–motorized tow behind 

lawn groomers and certain parts thereof 

from the PRC filed in proper form by 

Agri–Fab Inc. (‘‘Agri–Fab’’, hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties: Certain Tow Behind Lawn 

Groomers and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 

24, 2008 (‘‘Petition’’). The Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

investigation of lawn groomers from the 

PRC on July 21, 2008. 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’’). 

On July 14, 2008, the Department 

requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information from the twelve companies 

that were identified in the Petition as 

potential producers or exporters of lawn 

groomers from the PRC. See Exhibit I– 

19 of the Petition. The Department 

received timely responses to its Q&V 

questionnaire from the following 

companies: Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd., Jiashan Superpower 

Tools Co., Ltd., T.N. International, Inc., 

Nantong Duobang Machinery Co., Ltd., 

and Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) 

Co., Ltd. Five companies to which the 

Department sent the Q&V questionnaire 

received the questionnaire but did not 

respond. These non–responsive 

companies were: Hangzhou Geesun 

International Co., Ltd., Qingdao 

Huandai Tools Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa 

Group Co., Ltd., Maxchief Investments 

Ltd., and Qingdao EA Huabang 

Instrument Co., Ltd. 

With regard to two additional 

companies, World Factory, Inc., and 

Sidepin, Ltd., on July 21, 2008, we 

spoke with Federal Express, via 

telephone, and were informed that, 

although World Factory, Inc., originally 

accepted delivery of the Q&V 

questionnaire, it ultimately rejected our 

mailing and returned the package to 

Federal Express. In addition, on July 21, 

2008, we spoke via telephone with DHL 

and were informed that DHL was unable 

to deliver our mailing to Sidepin, Ltd., 

due to a ‘‘bad address.’’1 See 

Memorandum to The File, from Maisha 

Cryor, Senior Import Compliance 

Specialist, Regarding ‘‘Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Summary of Issuance 

of Quantity and Value Questionnaires,’’ 

dated July 21, 2008. 

On August 21, 2008, the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports of lawn 

groomers from the PRC. See 

CertainTow–Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from China 

Determinations Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–457 and 731–TA–1153 

(Preliminary), 73 FR 49489 (August 21, 

2008). 

On August 18, 2008, the Department 

selected Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Superpower’’), and Princeway 

Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Princeway’’), as mandatory 

respondents and issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to the companies. 

See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Selection 

of Respondents for the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated August 18, 2008 

(‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’). 

Superpower and Princeway submitted 

timely responses to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire on 

September 24, 2008, and October 14, 

2008, respectively. On July 23, 2008, 

and July 30, 2008, the Department 

received separate–rate applications from 

Nantong D&B Machinery Co., Ltd., and 

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., 

respectively. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to, and received 

responses from, Superpower and 

Princeway from September through 

December 2008. Petitioner submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

Princeway’s and Superpower’s 

responses to sections C and D of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire on 

October 24, 2008 and additional 

comments on Princeway’s submissions 

on December 2, 2008. 

On September 30, 2008, the 

Department released a memorandum to 

interested parties which listed potential 

surrogate countries and invited 

interested parties to comment on 

surrogate country and surrogate value 

selection. See Memorandum to All 

Interested Parties Regarding 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

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

October 17, 2008, and October 28, 2008, 

Petitioner and Princeway submitted 

comments and rebuttal comments, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

respectively, on the appropriate 

surrogate country and surrogate values. 

On November 5, 2008, the Petitioner 

made a request for a 50–day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. On November 17, 2008, 

the Department extended this 

preliminary determination by fifty days. 

See Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 67836 (November 

17, 2008). 

Period of Investigation 

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

October 1, 2007, through March 31, 

2008. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

i.e., June 2008. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain non–motorized tow behind lawn 

groomers (‘‘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 these 

investigations, 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 these investigations. 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 

investigations. 

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 investigations. 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 

investigations. 

Also included in the scope of the 

investigations 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 investigations. 

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 

investigations. 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 these 

investigations. For purposes of these 

investigations, ‘‘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. 

The major components or parts of 

lawn groomers that are individually 

covered by these investigations 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4931 

incorporate an aerator component (e.g., 

‘‘drum–style’’ spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the 

subject of these investigations 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 these investigations. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 21 calendar days of 

issuance of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997) and Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 

42316. On December 30, 2008, Brinly– 

Hardy Company (‘‘Brinly–Hardy’’), a 

domestic producer of the subject 

merchandise, submitted comments on 

the scope of the investigation. We have 

given all interested parties an 

opportunity to submit comments. See 

Memorandum from Thomas Martin, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to file, ‘‘Deadline for 

Comments on Brinly–Hardy Company’s 

December 30, 2008 Submission: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated January 5, 2009. We will evaluate 

the comments for the final results. 

Non–Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 2001– 

2002 Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). The Department has not revoked 

the PRC’s status as an NME country. 

Therefore, in this preliminary 

determination, we have treated the PRC 

as an NME country and applied our 

current NME methodology. 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, where the available 

information does not allow the 

Department to determine normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) pursuant to section 773(a) of the 

Act, the Department will base NV on the 

value of the NME producer’s factors of 

production. See section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

factors of production, the Department 

shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 

prices or costs of factors of production 

in one or more market economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. The 

Department has determined that India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, 

and Thailand are countries that are at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC. See 

Memorandum regarding Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Tow–Behind Lawn Groomers (‘‘TBLG’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’)’’ dated September 30, 2008 

(‘‘Policy Memorandum’’). 

As noted above, in October 2008, 

Petitioner and Princeway submitted 

comments on the appropriate surrogate 

country. In their comments, each party 

stated that India satisfies the statutory 

criteria for surrogate country selection 

because it is at a comparable level of 

economic development with the PRC 

and it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise that is 

sufficiently similar to the subject 

merchandise. However, since India does 

not produce or export lawn groomers, 

Petitioner and Princeway disagreed on 

the definition of what constitutes 

comparable merchandise. In its 

comments, Petitioner claimed that hand 

trucks represent the most comparable 

merchandise to lawn groomers. 

Princeway, in its comments, argued that 

agricultural implements should be used 

as comparable merchandise. 

After evaluating interested parties’ 

comments, the Department selected 

India as the surrogate country for this 

investigation and decided that because 

the lawn groomers and hand trucks 

industries use many of the same raw 

material inputs and similar production 

processes, hand trucks constitute 

comparable merchandise. For further 

discussion, see Memorandum from 

Zhulieta Willbrand, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, to Abdelali 

Elouaradia, Office Director, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

a Surrogate Country,’’ dated January 21, 

2009. In sum, the Department 

determined that: 1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; and 2) India is a 

significant producer of merchandise 

comparable to the subject merchandise. 

Upon the publication of the preliminary 

results, the Department notes that 

interested parties may submit additional 

information on comparable merchandise 

within the confines of the new factual 

information submission deadlines. See 

19 CFR 351.301(b)(1). 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 42318–19. 

The process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate–rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate–Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non–Market Economy Countries, (April 

5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), 

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

bull05–1.pdf. However, the standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate, which is 

whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over its export 

activities, has not changed. 

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 assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s practice 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to 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. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in Notice of Final 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4932 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

2The Department received only five timely 

responses to the requests for Q&V information that 

it sent to twelve potential exporters identified in the 

Petition. 3See Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In 

accordance with the separate–rate 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

Two separate rate applicants, Qingdao 

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

and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Nantong’’), and one mandatory 

respondent, Superpower, stated that 

they are partially Chinese–owned 

companies. Therefore, the Department 

must analyze whether the mandatory 

respondent and separate rate applicants 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. Each company 

provided company–specific information 

to demonstrate that it operates free from 

de jure and de facto government control, 

and therefore, is entitled to a separate 

rate. 

An additional mandatory respondent, 

Princeway, provided company–specific 

separate–rate information and stated 

that the standards for the assignment of 

separate rates have been met because it 

is a privately–owned company 

incorporated in the British Virgin 

Islands and based in Hong Kong. See 

Princeway’s ‘‘Separate Rate 

Application,’’ dated September 19, 

2008, and ‘‘Separate Rate Application 

Supplemental Response Questionnaire,’’ 

dated October 21, 2008. Because 

Princeway is foreign owned, it is not 

necessary to undertake additional 

separate–rates analysis for the 

Department to determine that the export 

activities of Princeway are independent 

from the PRC government’s control. 

Accordingly, Princeway is eligible for a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Brake Rotors 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of the Tenth New Shipper 

Review, 69 FR 52228 (August 25, 2004). 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Huatian, 

Nantong and Superpower indicates that 

there are no restrictive stipulations 

associated with their export and/or 

business licenses and that there are 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies. The 

Department’s analysis of the record 

evidence supports a preliminary finding 

of absence of de jure control. See 

‘‘Response to the Separate Rate 

Application’’, dated September 4, 2008, 

‘‘Response to the Separate Rate 

Application Supplemental 

Questionnaire,’’ dated September 27, 

2008, and ‘‘Response to the Separate 

Rate Application Supplemental 

Questionnaire dated October 7, 2008,’’ 

dated October 15, 2008, from Nantong 

(‘‘Nantong’s SRA’’). See also ‘‘Huatian’s 

Separate Rate Application,’’ dated 

September 29, 2008, ‘‘Response to the 

Separate Rate Application 

Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated 

October 9, 2008, and ‘‘Response to the 

Separate Rate Application 

Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated 

November 4, 2008 (‘‘Huatian’s SRA’’). 

For Superpower, see ‘‘Response to the 

Separate Rate Application,’’ dated 

September 24, 2008, and ‘‘Response to 

the Separate Rate Application 

Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated 

October 23, 2008 (‘‘Superpower’s 

SRA’’). 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

In this case, we determine that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of governmental control with respect to 

Huatian, Nantong and Superpower 

based on record statements and 

supporting documentation showing that 

the companies: (1) set their own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) retain their 

proceeds from sales and make 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) have the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) have autonomy 

from the government regarding the 

selection of management. See Nantong’s 

SRA, Huatian’s SRA and Superpower’s 

SRA. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Huatian, Nantong 

and Superpower demonstrates an 

absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to 

these exporters’ sales of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

granted a separate rate to all three 

exporters. The Department has 

calculated company–specific dumping 

margins for the two mandatory 

respondents, Superpower and 

Princeway, and assigned to Huation and 

Nantong, a dumping margin equal to a 

simple average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the two mandatory 

respondents. 

Additionally, we note that while we 

received the Q&V information from T.N. 

International, Inc., one of the five 

companies which responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire, the company was not 

selected by the Department as a 

mandatory respondent. As indicated in 

the Initiation Notice, where T.N. 

International, Inc., had an opportunity 

to request a separate rate, it failed to do 

so. Consequently and according to our 

practice, we assigned to T.N. 

International, Inc., preliminarily the 

PRC–wide rate. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

Although PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

given an opportunity to provide Q&V 

information to the Department, not all 

exporters responded to the Department’s 

request for Q&V information.2 Based 

upon our knowledge of the volume of 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC, we have concluded that the 

companies that responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire do not account for all U.S. 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC made during the POI.3 We have 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4933 

4Because the Department based the PRC-wide 

dumping margin on Superpower’s dumping rate, 

both rates are equal. However, Superpower has its 

own separate rate and is not part of the PRC-wide 

entity. 

5Superpower reported that it purchased no 

factors of production from market economy 

suppliers during the POI. See Superpower’s October 

14, 2008, Section D Response at D-5. Princeway 

purchased certain factors of production from market 

economy suppliers. See Princeway’s October 10, 

2008, Section D Response at 8 

treated the non–responsive PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRC– 

wide entity because they have not 

demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate. 

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

that the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination if an 

interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified. 

As noted above, the PRC–wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department. As a result, pursuant to 

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

it appropriate to base the PRC–wide 

dumping margin on facts available. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 4986, 4991–92 (January 

31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003). 

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, e.g., 

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. Rep. No. 

103–316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), 

reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 

870. Because the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information, the Department has 

concluded that the PRC–wide entity has 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily finds that, in selecting 

from among the facts available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use, as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’): (1) information 

derived from the petition; (2) the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation; (3) a previous 

administrative review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for AFA, the Department 

selects one that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes 

of the adverse facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors From 

Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 

1998). It is the Department’s practice to 

select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) the 

highest margin alleged in the petition, 

or (b) the highest calculated rate for any 

respondent in the investigation. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products From the People’s Republic of 

China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 

Here, we assigned the PRC–wide entity 

the dumping margin calculated for 

Superpower, which exceeds the highest 

margin alleged in the petition and is the 

highest rate calculated in this 

investigation. Pursuant to section 776(c) 

of the Act, we do not need to 

corroborate this rate because it is based 

on information obtained during the 

course of this investigation rather than 

secondary information. See also SAA at 

870. The PRC–wide dumping margin 

applies to all entries of the merchandise 

under investigation except for entries of 

subject merchandise from Superpower,4

Princeway, Nandong and Huatian. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Princeway and 

Superpower sold lawn groomers to the 

United States at LTFV, we compared the 

weighted–average export price (‘‘EP’’) of 

the lawn groomers to the NV of the lawn 

groomers, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, for both Superpower and 

Princeway, we based the U.S. price of 

sales on EP because the first sale to 

unaffiliated purchasers was made prior 

to importation and the use of 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise warranted. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP for Superpower and 

Princeway by deducting the following 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price) charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States: foreign movement expenses and 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses. 

We based these movement expenses 

on surrogate values where the service 

was purchased from a PRC company. 

For details regarding our EP calculation, 

see Analysis Memoranda for 

Superpower and Princeway, dated 

January 21, 2009. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we constructed NV from the 

factors of production employed by 

Princeway and Superpower to 

manufacture subject merchandise 

during the POI. Specifically, we 

calculated NV by adding together the 

value of the factors of production, 

general expenses, profit, and packing 

costs, as well as an adjustment for the 

byproduct. We valued the factors of 

production using prices and financial 

statements from India, the surrogate 

country selected for this investigation or 

where appropriate, the prices paid for 

the input, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1).5 In selecting surrogate 

values, we followed, to the extent 

practicable, the Department’s practice of 

choosing values which are non–export 

average values, product–specific, tax– 

exclusive, and contemporaneous with, 

or closest in time to, the POI. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. 

We valued material inputs and 

packing materials by multiplying the 

amount of the factor consumed in 

producing subject merchandise by the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4934 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

6 In addition, as explained in the legislative 

history, it is the Department’s practice not to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to 

Accompanying H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). As 

such, it is the Department’s practice to base its 

decision on information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. 

7Website available at http://www.midcindia.org. 

8Use of these averages is consistent with the 

Department’s normal practice to calculate brokerage 

and handling expenses. Absent product-specific 

data, the Department’s preference is to average 

these data sources because they represent values for 

numerous transactions that are available for a range 

of products and minimize the potential distortions 

that might arise from a single price source. One 

value, taken in isolation, could differ significantly 

when compared across a range of products, values, 

and special circumstances of a single transaction. 

See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

19690 (April 19, 2007), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

average unit value of the factor. In 

addition, we added freight costs to the 

surrogate costs that we calculated for 

material inputs. We calculated freight 

costs by multiplying surrogate freight 

rates by the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise, as 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 

1401, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we 

could only obtain surrogate values that 

were not contemporaneous with the 

POI, we inflated (or deflated) the 

surrogate values using the Wholesale 

Price Index (‘‘WPI’’). 

Further, in calculating surrogate 

values from Indian imports, we 

disregarded imports from Indonesia, 

South Korea and Thailand because in 

other proceedings the Department found 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

infer that all exports to all markets from 

these countries may be subsidized. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7.6 Thus, we 

have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

We valued raw materials and packing 

materials obtained from non–market 

economy suppliers using Indian import 

statistics. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. We valued water using 

data from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation 7 because that 

data include a wide range of industrial 

water tariffs. This source provides 344 

industrial water rates within the 

Maharashtra province from June 2003: 

172 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ 

usage category, and 172 for the ‘‘outside 

industrial areas’’ usage category. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly–available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POI, we inflated the values 

using the WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently 

calculated regression–based wage rate, 

which relies on 2005 data. This wage 

rate can be found on the Import 

Administration’s home page. See 

‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries,’’ available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html (revised 

May 2008). The source of these wage 

rate data on the Import Administration’s 

web site is the International Labour 

Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics 

Database Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Since this regression– 

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by Princeway and 

Superpower. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

As noted above, we valued inland 

truck freight expenses using a deflated 

per–unit average rate calculated from 

data on the following web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. The logistics section of 

this website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

deflated the rate using WPI data. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by: (1) Agro Dutch Industries 

Ltd. in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of certain 

preserved mushrooms from India, (2) 

Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the less than fair 

value investigation of certain lined 

paper products from India, and (3) Essar 

Steel in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from 

India.8 See Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products 

From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 

2006), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Negative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006); and Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 

2006), unchanged in Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006). We inflated the 

brokerage and handling rate using the 

appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

We valued factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, using the financial 

ratios calculated from the 2006–2007 

audited financial statement of one 

Indian producer of hand trucks: Godrej 

& Boyce Manufacturing Company 

Limited. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information 

with which to value factors of 

production in the final determination 

within 40 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4935 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 42319. This 

change in practice is described in Policy 

Bulletin 05.1, which 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 at 6. 

Preliminary Determination Margins 

The Department has determined that 

the following weighted–average 

dumping margins exist for the POI: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., 

Ltd.9 ......................................... 324.43 

Princeway Furniture (Dong 

Guan) Co., Ltd.10 .................... 12.07 

Nantong D & B Machinery Co., 

Ltd.11 ....................................... 168.25 

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., 

Ltd.12 ....................................... 168.25 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

PRC–wide Entity ......................... 324.43 

9 Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 10Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., 

Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 11 Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 12Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise. 

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). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

lawn groomers from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

The Department has determined in its 

Certain Tow–Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

73 FR 70971 (November 24, 2008) 

(‘‘CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim’’), that 

the product under investigation, 

exported and produced by Superpower, 

benefitted from an export subsidy. 

Normally, where the product under 

investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

an antidumping cash deposit or posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

EP, as indicated above, minus the 

amount determined to constitute an 

export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 

(November 17, 2007). Therefore, for 

merchandise under consideration 

exported and produced by Superpower 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after publication 

date of this preliminary determination, 

we will instruct CBP to require an 

antidumping cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond for each entry equal to the 

weighted–average margin indicated 

above, adjusted for the export subsidy 

rate determined in CVD Lawn Groomers 

Prelim (i.e., Income Tax Reduction for 

Export–Oriented Enterprises 

countervailable subsidy of 0.15 percent 

ad valorem). The adjusted cash deposit 

rate is 324.28 percent. Furthermore, 

CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim indicates 

preliminarily that Superpower received 

a countervailable subsidy of 0.64 

percent ad valorem under the ‘‘Refund 

of Enterprise Income Taxes on FIE 

Profits Reinvested in an EOE’’ program. 

See CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim at 

70978. This subsidy contains both 

domestic and export subsidy 

components. However, for the 

preliminary results of this investigation, 

the Department will not be able to apply 

the export subsidy component to 

Superpower’s antidumping margin. For 

the final results, if applicable, the 

Department will calculate the subsidy 

rates for each component and apply the 

export subsidy portion to Superpower’s 

antidumping margin. 

Regarding all separate–rate recipients 

that were not selected as mandatory 

respondents, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for each entry 

equal to the average of the margins 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, adjusted for their 

respective export subsidy rates, if 

applicable, from CVD Lawn Groomers 

Prelim. 

For the remaining exporters, pursuant 

to section 733(d)(1)(B), we will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weighted– 

average amount by which the normal 

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

the rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this preliminary 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 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–of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

lawn groomers, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the subject merchandise within 45 days 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in case briefs, no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of 

authorities used and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2). 

In accordance with section 774(a)(1) 

of the Act, we will hold a public 

hearing, if requested, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing three days 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties that wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on December 18, 2008, and 

December 23, 2008, Princeway and 

Superpower, respectively, requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Princeway and 

Superpower agreed that the Department 

may extend the application of the 

provisional measures prescribed under 

19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4–month 

period to a 6–month period. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are 

granting the request and are postponing 

the final determination until no later 

than 135 days after the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register 

because: (1) our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, (2) the 

requesting exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise (see Respondent 

Selection Memorandum), and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist. 

Suspension of liquidation will be 

extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–1721 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–931) 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has made a final 

determination that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of circular 

welded austenitic stainless pressure 

pipe (CWASPP) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, IA Operations, Office 3, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 

482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioner 

The petitioners in this investigation 

are Bristol Metals LLP, Felker Brothers 

Corp., Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc., 

Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., and the 

United Steelworkers (petitioners). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

On July 10, 2008, we published in the 

Federal Register the preliminary 

determination that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of CWASPP 

from the PRC, as provided under section 

703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 73 FR 39657 (July 

10, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). 

On July 15, 2008, the Winner 

Companies filed timely allegations of 

significant ministerial errors contained 

in the Department’s Preliminary 

Determination. After reviewing the 

allegations, we determined that the 

Preliminary Determination included 

significant ministerial errors as 

described under 19 CFR 351.224(g). 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), we made changes to the 

Preliminary Determination. On August 

7, 2008, we published in the Federal 

Register the amended preliminary 

determination. See Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Amended Preliminary Countervailing 

Duty Determination 73 FR 45954 

(August 7, 2008) (Amended Preliminary 

Determination). 

On August 8, 2008, the GOC 

requested a hearing. On August 11, 

2008, petitioners requested a hearing. 

On December 16, 2008, we received 

case briefs regarding the Preliminary 

Determination from the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China (GOC), 

petitioners, and Winner Stainless Tube 

Co., Ltd. (Winner), Winner Steel 

Products (Guangzhou)(WSP), and 

Winner Machinery Enterprise Company 

Limited (Winner HK) (collectively the 

Winner Companies). On December 17, 

2008, the GOC filed a letter correcting 

inadvertent errors its case brief. On 

December, 22, 2008, the GOC, 

petitioners, and the Winner Companies 

submitted rebuttal briefs. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES