[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29167-29172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14470]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29168]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 29170]]

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

[[Page 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{time} 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Exporter and Producer                    Average Margin
                                                            (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd.\1\...................         154.72
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Qingdao Huatian         154.72
 Hand Truck Co., Ltd.\2\...............................
PRC-wide Entity (including Superpower and Princeway)...         386.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject
  merchandise.
\2\ Qingdao 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

[[Page 29172]]

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-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, 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