6136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 

item subject to the Regulations and 

listed on the Commerce Control List that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

Regulations and listed on the Commerce 

Control List with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations and 

listed on the Commerce Control List that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations and listed on 

the Commerce Control List that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to Chang by 

affiliation, ownership, control, or 

position of responsibility in the conduct 

of trade or related services may also be 

made subject to the provisions of the 

Order. 

Fourth, that the proposed charging 

letter, the Settlement Agreement, and 

this Order shall be made available to the 

public. 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective immediately. 

Entered this 28th day of January 2009. 

Kevin Delli-Colli, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–2319 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–817] 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Correction to 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review and Intent To 

Reinstate Sahaviriya Steel Industries 

Public Company Limited in the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

On December 30, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

preliminary results of the changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain hot– 

rolled carbon steel flat products from 

Thailand. See Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Intent To Reinstate Sahaviriya Steel 

Industries Public Company Limited in 

the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 

79809 (December 30, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). Subsequent to 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Results in the Federal Register, we 

identified an inadvertent error. 

The Preliminary Results notice is 

internally inconsistent. The Preliminary 

Results correctly state that the 

Department preliminarily determined a 

weighted–average dumping margin of 

9.05 percent covering Sahaviriya Steel 

Industries Public Company Limited 

(‘‘SSI’’) during the period July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007, but then 

incorrectly state that a cash–deposit 

requirement of 6.42 percent will be in 

effect for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by SSI entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the 

Preliminary Results. See Preliminary 

Results, 73 FR at 79814. To resolve this 

discrepancy and prevent confusion, the 

Preliminary Results notice is hereby 

corrected to read that a cash–deposit 

requirement of 9.05 percent will be in 

effect for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by SSI entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the 

Preliminary Results. Accordingly, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by SSI entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Results at a rate of 9.05 

percent. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: January 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–2477 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–833] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review. 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain polyester staple fiber from 

Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is 

May 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008. 

This review covers imports of certain 

polyester staple fiber from one 

producer/exporter. We have 

preliminarily found that sales of the 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties who submit 

comments in this review are requested 

to submit with each argument (1) a 

statement of the issue and (2) a brief 

summary of the argument. We will issue 

the final results not later than 120 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 6137 

*We also disregarded below-cost sales by FET in 

the most recently completed administrative review 

of the order. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 62477, 62478 

(October 21, 2008). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0410 and (202) 

482–4477, respectively. 

Background 

On July 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice initiating an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan 

covering the respondents Far Eastern 

Textiles Ltd. (FET) and Nan Ya Plastics 

Corporation (Nan Ya). See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 

(July 1, 2008). We have rescinded the 

review with respect to Nan Ya. See 

Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: 

Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 51274 (September 2, 

2008). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple 

fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise 

processed for spinning, of polyesters 

measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, 

inclusive) or more in diameter. This 

merchandise is cut to lengths varying 

from one inch (25 mm) to five inches 

(127 mm). The merchandise subject to 

the order may be coated, usually with a 

silicon or other finish, or not coated. 

PSF is generally used as stuffing in 

sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, 

comforters, cushions, pillows, and 

furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 

decitex (less than 3 denier) currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is 

specifically excluded from the order. 

Also specifically excluded from the 

order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 

18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 

8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture 

of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF 

is excluded from this order. Low-melt 

PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber 

with an outer sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner core. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 

5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

subject to the order is dispositive. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

To determine whether FET’s sales of 

PSF to the United States were made at 

less than normal value (NV), we 

compared export price (EP) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

we compared the EP of individual U.S. 

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production’’ section below. 

Product Comparisons 

We compared U.S. sales to monthly 

weighted-average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

home market. We found 

contemporaneous sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market for all 

U.S. sales in accordance with section 

771(16) of the Act. 

Date of Sale 

We normally use the invoice date as 

the date of sale except in situations in 

which we find that a different date 

better reflects the date on which the 

producer or exporter establishes the 

material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). 

In its questionnaire responses, FET 

reported date of shipment as the date of 

sale for its home-market and U.S. sales. 

FET stated that it permits home-market 

and U.S. customers to make order 

changes up to the date of shipment. 

According to FET’s descriptions, the 

sales processes in the home market and 

the United States are identical. See 

FET’s August 6, 2008, response at pages 

A–14 through A–17. Thus, record 

evidence demonstrates that the material 

terms of sale are not set before the date 

of invoice, which would normally result 

in use of the date of invoice as the date 

of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). 

Because the merchandise is always 

shipped on or before the date of invoice, 

we have used the date of shipment as 

the date of sale. See, e.g., Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

31283 (June 6, 2007) (unchanged in 

final, 72 FR 69193, December 7, 2007), 

and Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172–73 (March 

18, 1998). 

Export Price 

For sales to the United States, we 

calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act because the 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States and because constructed exportprice methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. Where appropriate, we 

made deductions, consistent with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the 

following movement expenses: Inland 

freight from the plant to the port of 

exportation, brokerage and handling, 

harbor service fees, trade promotion 

fees, containerization expenses, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. No other adjustments were 

claimed or allowed. 

Normal Value 

Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of the respondent’s homemarket sales of the foreign like product 

to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the 

respondent’s aggregate volume of homemarket sales of the foreign like product 

was greater than five percent of its 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that the home market was viable for 

comparison purposes. 

Cost of Production 

We disregarded below-cost sales by 

FET in the last administrative review of 

the order completed prior to the 

initiation of this review. See Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 69193, 

69194 (December 7, 2007). Therefore, 

pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, there were reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that the respondent 

made sales of the foreign like product in 

its comparison market at prices below 

the cost of production (COP) within the 

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.*


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
6138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 

We calculated the COP on a productspecific basis, based on the sum of the 

respondent’s costs of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative (G&A) expenses, interest 

expenses, and the costs of all expenses 

incidental to preparing the foreign like 

product for shipment in accordance 

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. 

We relied on COP information FET 

submitted in its response to our cost 

questionnaire except we adjusted FET’s 

reported cost of manufacturing to 

account for purchases of purified 

terephthalic acid and monoethylene 

glycol from affiliated parties at nonarm’s-length prices in accordance with 

the major-input rule pursuant to section 

773(f)(3) of the Act. 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP figures for the POR to the 

home-market sales of the foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

these sales were made at prices below 

the COP. The prices were exclusive of 

any applicable movement charges, 

packing expenses, warranties, and 

indirect selling expenses. In 

determining whether to disregard homemarket sales made at prices below their 

COP, we examined, in accordance with 

sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the 

Act, whether such sales were made 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities and at prices 

which permitted the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home-market sales were at 

prices below the COP and, in addition, 

the below-cost sales were made within 

an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities. In addition, these 

sales were made at prices that did not 

permit the recovery of costs within a 

reasonable period of time. Therefore, we 

disregarded these sales and used the 

remaining sales of the same product as 

the basis for determining NV in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. 

Calculation of Normal Value 

We calculated NV based on the price 

FET reported for home-market sales to 

unaffiliated customers which we 

determined were within the ordinary 

course of trade. We made adjustments 

for differences in domestic and export 

packing expenses in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) 

of the Act. We also made adjustments, 

consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act, for inland-freight expenses 

from the plant to the customer and 

expenses associated with loading the 

merchandise onto the truck to be 

shipped. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (COS) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We 

made COS adjustments, where 

appropriate, by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred on home-market sales 

(i.e., imputed credit expenses and 

warranties) and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit 

expenses and bank charges). 

In addition, FET reported two 

transactions in its home-market sales 

database which it acknowledged it had 

reason to know would be exported to 

the People’s Republic of China. See 

FET’s November 13, 2008, response to 

our supplemental questionnaire at SE– 

8. Because FET knew or had reason to 

know at the time of sale that these 

transactions were destined for export, 

we removed them from our calculations 

of NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade as the EP. 

Sales are made at different levels of 

trade if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997). 

In order to determine whether a 

respondent made comparison-market 

sales at stages in the marketing process 

which differ from those of the U.S. 

sales, we review the distribution system 

in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses incurred for each type of sale. 

The marketing process in the U.S. and 

comparison markets begins with the 

producer and extends to the sale to the 

final user or customer. The chain of 

distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondent’s 

sales occur somewhere along this chain. 

In performing this evaluation, we 

consider the narrative responses of the 

respondent to determine where in the 

chain of distribution the sale appears to 

occur. Selling functions associated with 

a particular chain of distribution help us 

to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 

particular market. Pursuant to section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 

levels of trade for EP and comparisonmarket sales (i.e., NV based on either 

home-market or third-country prices), 

we consider the starting prices before 

any adjustments. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, et al., 

243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming this methodology). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same level of trade as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different level of trade in 

the comparison market. In comparing 

EP sales at a different level of trade in 

the comparison market, where available 

data show that the difference in level of 

trade affects price comparability, we 

make a level-of-trade adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

FET reported that it sold to a single 

customer in the United States. Because 

there was only one U.S. customer, the 

necessary condition for finding that 

different levels of trade exist was not 

met. Accordingly, we determined that 

all of FET’s U.S. sales constituted a 

single level of trade. 

FET reported a single channel of 

distribution (i.e., direct sales to endusers) and a single level of trade in the 

home market. Because the sales process 

and selling functions FET performed for 

selling to home-market customers did 

not vary by individual customers, we 

determined that all of FET’s homemarket sales constituted a single level of 

trade. 

Finally, because there is only one 

home-market level of trade, it is not 

possible to calculate a level-of-trade 

adjustment. In addition, because all U.S. 

sales were EP sales, no offset 

contemplated for constructed EP sales is 

appropriate. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that a dumping 

margin of 1.97 percent exists for FET for 

the period May 1, 2007, through April 

30, 2008. 

Public Comment 

We will disclose the documents 

resulting from our analysis to parties in 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a 

hearing is requested, the Department 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 6139 

will notify interested parties of the 

hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than 35 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. Parties 

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 

in this review are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this review, including the results of our 

analysis of issues raised in any 

submitted written comments, within 

120 days after publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Although FET 

indicated that it was not the importer of 

record for any of its sales to the United 

States during the POR, it reported the 

name of the importer of record for all of 

its U.S. sales. Because FET reported the 

entered value for all of its U.S. sales, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we have calculated an importer-specific 

assessment rate for the merchandise in 

question by aggregating the dumping 

margins we calculated for all U.S. sales 

to the importer and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of 

those sales. We intend to issue 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Clarification). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by FET for 

which it did not know its merchandise 

was destined for the United States. In 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Assessment 

Clarification. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PSF from 

Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication as provided by 

section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The 

cash-deposit rate for FET will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

administrative review; (2) for 

merchandise exported by manufacturers 

or exporters not covered in this review 

but covered in a prior segment of the 

proceeding, the cash-deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, a prior review, or the 

original investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this review, the cash-deposit 

rate will be 7.31 percent, the all-others 

rate established in Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea 

and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the 

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 

33807 (May 25, 2000). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 28, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–2398 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–855] 

Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 

Concentrate From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of 

the Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3927. 

Background 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of certain nonfrozen apple juice concentrate from the 

People’s Republic of China covering the 

period June 1, 2007 through May 31, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). The 

preliminary results are currently due no 

later than March 2, 2009. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to make a 

preliminary determination within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested and a final determination 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within these time 

periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 

time limit for the preliminary 

determination to a maximum of 365 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month. 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review within the original time 

limit because the Department requires 

additional time to analyze the 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

possibly issue additional supplemental 

questionnaires, and evaluate the most 

appropriate surrogate values on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES