Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 17183-17184 [2013-06409]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection: Grey Towers Visitor Comment Card Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Forest Service’s intent to request: (1) An extension from the Office of Management and Budget; and (2) to merge the currently approved information collection 0596–0222, ‘‘Grey Towers Visitor Comment Card’’ with 0596–0226, ‘‘Forest Service Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.’’ DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before May 20, 2013 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Nicole Bernarsky, USDA Forest Service, Grey Towers National Historic Site, P.O. Box 188, Milford, PA 18337. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (570) 296–9675, or by email to: nbernarsky@fs.fed.us The public may inspect comments received at Grey Towers National Historic Site during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (570) 296–9630 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bernarsky, Grey Towers National Historic Site, (570) 296–9630. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Grey Towers Visitor Comment Card. OMB Number: 0596–0222. Expiration Date of Approval: 6/30/ 2013. Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection. Abstract: The collection of this information is necessary because it helps Grey Towers provide qualitybased programs and events. Participants’ input is vital, and this form allows participants to provide important feedback. The completion and subsequent evaluation of this form will ensure Grey Towers can continue to VerDate Mar<14>2013 18:04 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 serve their stakeholders and the public in a service-oriented manner. This information will be collected by administering a 8.5’’ x 11’’ form sheet to program or event participants at the conclusion of a program or event. The information will be used to further improve or otherwise change our programs and events, and track site attendance, site usage, and participant feedback. The Grey Towers Programs and Administrative Staff will analyze the collected information. Estimate of Burden per response: 5 minutes . Type of Respondents: Individuals. Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 750. Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 63 hours. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: March 14, 2013. Paul Ries, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry. [FR Doc. 2013–06367 Filed 3–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–P PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17183 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 6, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final results of second remand determination, which construed that the scope of the order 1 excludes Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc.’s (‘‘Legacy’’) Heritage Court Bench pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in Legacy Classic Furniture v. United States, Court No. 10–00352, Slip Op. 12–121 (September 19, 2012) (‘‘Legacy II’’).2 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s final scope ruling and is amending its final scope ruling on Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench.3 DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Apodaca, 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) 482–4551. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On June 16, 2010, Legacy requested a ruling by the Department to determine whether the Heritage Court Bench, an 1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (‘‘WBF Order’’). 2 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Court No. 10–00352, dated January 4, 2013 (‘‘Remand Results II’’). 3 See Memorandum regarding Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Scope Ruling on Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc.’s Heritage Court Bench, dated November 22, 2010 (‘‘Final Scope Ruling’’). E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM 20MRN1 17184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Notices item it imports and describes as a bench, is outside of the scope of the WBF Order. In the Final Scope Ruling, the Department stated that it was required to look beyond the factors provided under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) because the descriptions of the merchandise were not dispositive. Accordingly, the Department considered the five factors set out in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) (‘‘(k)(2) factors’’) and concluded that the Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope of the WBF Order. Legacy appealed the Final Scope Ruling. In Legacy I,4 the Court affirmed the Department’s determination that the factors at 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) were not dispositive, but held that the conclusion made by the Department regarding the five (k)(2) factors was not supported by substantial record evidence and, therefore, must be set aside and reconsidered. Thus, the Court ordered the Department to reconsider each of the five factors set out in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2). In response to the Court’s remand, the Department issued its Remand Results 5 determining that the Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope based on the (k)(2) factors. In Legacy II, upon review of the Remand Results, the Court revisited its conclusion regarding the 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) factors and ordered the Department to reconsider whether the 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) factors are dispositive in determining whether the Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope of the WBF Order.6 The Court also held that the Department’s determination regarding the (k)(2) factors was unsupported by substantial evidence.7 Pursuant to the Court’s order in Legacy II, in Remand Results II, we determined that the Heritage Court Bench is excluded from the scope of the WBF Order.8 The CIT sustained the Department’s Remand Results II on March 6, 2013.9 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a 4 Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) (‘‘Legacy I’’). 5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Court No. 10–00352, dated March 22, 2012 (‘‘Remand Results’’). 6 See Legacy II, Slip Op. 12–121 at 15–21. 7 Id. at 14–15. 8 The Department noted in Remand Results II that it was conducting the remand respectfully under protest. See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 9 See Legacy II. VerDate Mar<14>2013 18:04 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s March 6, 2013, judgment sustaining the Department’s Remand Results II construing the scope of the WBF Order as excluding Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench from the People’s Republic of China pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. The cash deposit rate on Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench will be zero percent. Amended Final Scope Ruling Because there is now a final court decision with respect to Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench, the Department amends its Final Scope Ruling and now finds that the scope of the WBF Order excludes Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) that the cash deposit rate on Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench will be zero percent. In the event the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench without regard to antidumping duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–06409 Filed 3–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION [OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1620] Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) announces its next meeting. DATES: Friday, April 12, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place in the third floor main conference room at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th St. NW., Washington, DC 20531. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit the Web site for the Coordinating Council at www.juvenilecouncil.gov or contact Kathi Grasso, Designated Federal Official, by telephone at 202– 616–7567 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by email at Kathi.Grasso@usdoj.gov. The meeting is open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and reports will be available on the Council’s Web page, www.juvenilecouncil.gov, where you may also obtain information on the meeting. Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Other federal agencies take part in Council activities including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and the Substance and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS. Meeting Agenda The preliminary agenda for this meeting includes: (a) Welcome and introductions; (b) discussion among the E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM 20MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17183-17184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06409]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2013, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``the Court'') sustained the Department of Commerce's 
(``the Department'') final results of second remand determination, 
which construed that the scope of the order \1\ excludes Legacy Classic 
Furniture, Inc.'s (``Legacy'') Heritage Court Bench pursuant to the 
CIT's remand order in Legacy Classic Furniture v. United States, Court 
No. 10-00352, Slip Op. 12-121 (September 19, 2012) (``Legacy II'').\2\ 
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 
337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades 
Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 
(``Diamond Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public that 
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's 
final scope ruling and is amending its final scope ruling on Legacy's 
Heritage Court Bench.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) 
(``WBF Order'').
    \2\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Court No. 10-00352, dated January 4, 2013 (``Remand Results II'').
    \3\ See Memorandum regarding Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Scope Ruling on Legacy Classic 
Furniture, Inc.'s Heritage Court Bench, dated November 22, 2010 
(``Final Scope Ruling'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Apodaca, 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) 482-4551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 16, 2010, Legacy requested a ruling by the Department to 
determine whether the Heritage Court Bench, an

[[Page 17184]]

item it imports and describes as a bench, is outside of the scope of 
the WBF Order. In the Final Scope Ruling, the Department stated that it 
was required to look beyond the factors provided under 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1) because the descriptions of the merchandise were not 
dispositive. Accordingly, the Department considered the five factors 
set out in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) (``(k)(2) factors'') and concluded that 
the Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope of the WBF Order. 
Legacy appealed the Final Scope Ruling. In Legacy I,\4\ the Court 
affirmed the Department's determination that the factors at 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1) were not dispositive, but held that the conclusion made 
by the Department regarding the five (k)(2) factors was not supported 
by substantial record evidence and, therefore, must be set aside and 
reconsidered. Thus, the Court ordered the Department to reconsider each 
of the five factors set out in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2). In response to the 
Court's remand, the Department issued its Remand Results \5\ 
determining that the Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope based 
on the (k)(2) factors. In Legacy II, upon review of the Remand Results, 
the Court revisited its conclusion regarding the 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) 
factors and ordered the Department to reconsider whether the 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1) factors are dispositive in determining whether the 
Heritage Court Bench is covered by the scope of the WBF Order.\6\ The 
Court also held that the Department's determination regarding the 
(k)(2) factors was unsupported by substantial evidence.\7\ Pursuant to 
the Court's order in Legacy II, in Remand Results II, we determined 
that the Heritage Court Bench is excluded from the scope of the WBF 
Order.\8\ The CIT sustained the Department's Remand Results II on March 
6, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 807 F. 
Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011) (``Legacy I'').
    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Court No. 10-00352, dated March 22, 2012 (``Remand Results'').
    \6\ See Legacy II, Slip Op. 12-121 at 15-21.
    \7\ Id. at 14-15.
    \8\ The Department noted in Remand Results II that it was 
conducting the remand respectfully under protest. See Viraj Group, 
Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    \9\ See Legacy II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act), the Department must publish 
a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's March 6, 2013, 
judgment sustaining the Department's Remand Results II construing the 
scope of the WBF Order as excluding Legacy's Heritage Court Bench, 
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with 
the Department's Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of Legacy's 
Heritage Court Bench from the People's Republic of China pending the 
expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and 
conclusive court decision. The cash deposit rate on Legacy's Heritage 
Court Bench will be zero percent.

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to 
Legacy's Heritage Court Bench, the Department amends its Final Scope 
Ruling and now finds that the scope of the WBF Order excludes Legacy's 
Heritage Court Bench. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') that the cash deposit rate on Legacy's 
Heritage Court Bench will be zero percent. In the event the CIT's 
ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the 
Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Legacy's Heritage 
Court Bench without regard to antidumping duties, and to lift 
suspension of liquidation of such entries.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.


    Dated: March 14, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-06409 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.