5606 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 22 / Thursday, February 3, 2005 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this antidumping duty 

investigation are the U.S. Magnesium LLC, United 

Steelworkers of America, Local 8319 and Glass, 

Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers 

International, Local 374 (‘‘petitioners’’).

2The company reported that ‘‘RSM’’ is the trade 

name of a group of companies, some of which 

produced and exported the subject merchandise 

during the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). RSM 

reported that the following companies are in the 

RSM group: Nanjing Yunhai Special Metals Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Yunhai Special’’), Nanjing Welbow Metals 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Welbow’’), Nanjing Yunhai Magnesium 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yunhai Magnesium’’), Shanxi Wenxi 

Yunhai Metals Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wenxi Yunhai’’), Shanxi 

Wenxi Bada Magnesium Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bada 

Magnesium’’), Yuncheng Wenxi Welfare 

Magnesium Plant (‘‘Welfare Magnesium), and 

Nanjing Yunhai Metals Plant (‘‘Yunhai Metals’’).

3See the memorandum to the file from Laurel 

LaCivita, Antidumping Investigation of Magnesium 

Metal from the People’s Republic of China: 

Shipment Data With Respect to the Critical 

Circumstances Allegation with Respect to Beijing 

Guangling Jinghua Science and Technology Co , 

Ltd., dated January 19, 2005.

4The meaning of this term is the same as that 

used by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. 5This material is already covered by existing 

antidumping orders. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic of 

China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 60 

FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); Antidumping Duty Order: 

Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the 

People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 57936 (Nov. 19, 

2001). 6This third exclusion for magnesium-based 

reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for 

reagent mixtures in the 2000–2001 investigations of 

magnesium from the PRC, Israel, and Russia. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the 

People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 

(September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From 

Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: 

Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 

FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are 

not magnesium alloys because they are not 

chemically combined in liquid form and cast into 

the same ingot.

Foreign-Trade Zones Board’s Executive 

Secretary at address Number 1 listed 

above, and at the Bakersfield U.S. 

Export Assistance Center, 2100 Chester 

Avenue, 1st Floor Suite 166, 

Bakersfield, California 93301.

Dated: January 24, 2005. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05–2087 Filed 2–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–570–896

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Magnesium 

Metal From the People’s Republic of 

China

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita or Robert Bolling, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243 or 

(202) 482–3434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances

Based on allegations contained in the 

petitioners’ 1 December 28, 2004, 

amendment to the February 27, 2004 

petition, we preliminarily find, 

pursuant to section 733(e) of the Tariff 

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

and section 351.206 of the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) 

regulations, that critical circumstances 

exist with regard to imports of 

magnesium metal from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the 

following entities: Tianjin Magnesium 

International Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin’’), 

mandatory respondent, Guangling 

Jinghua Science and Technology Co , 

Ltd. (‘‘Guangling’’), the sole Section A 

respondent, and the PRC-wide entity. 

Critical circumstances do not exist with 

regard to imports magnesium metal 

from the PRC for the RSM companies 

(‘‘RSM’’) 2.

Background

Petitioners filed a timely allegation of 

critical circumstances on December 28, 

2004, in accord and with section 

733(e)(1) of the Act and section 

351.206(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations. None of the parties to the 

proceeding submitted comments in 

response to this allegation in accord 

with section 351.301(c) of the 

Department’s regulations. On January 

11, 2005, the Department requested the 

RSM Companies, Tianjin, and 

Guangling to report their shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States on a monthly basis during the 

period January 2003 through December 

2004. On January 19, 2005, the RSM 

Companies and Tianjin provided the 

requested information. Guangling did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information.3

Period of Investigation

The POI is July 1, 2003, through 

December 31, 2003. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition (February 27, 

2003). See Section 351.204(b)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this 

investigation are primary and secondary 

alloy magnesium metal, regardless of 

chemistry, raw material source, form, 

shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or 

alloy containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium. Primary 

magnesium is produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Secondary 

magnesium is produced by recycling 

magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 

metal. The magnesium covered by this 

investigation includes blends of primary 

and secondary magnesium.

The subject merchandise includes the 

following alloy magnesium metal 

products made from primary and/or 

secondary magnesium including, 

without limitation, magnesium cast into 

ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other 

shapes, and magnesium ground, 

chipped, crushed, or machined into 

raspings, granules, turnings, chips, 

powder, briquettes, and other shapes; 

products that contain 50 percent or 

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, 

magnesium, by weight, and that have 

been entered into the United States as 

conforming to an ‘‘ASTM Specification 

for Magnesium Alloy’’ 4 and thus are 

outside the scope of the existing 

antidumping orders on magnesium from 

the PRC (generally referred to as ‘‘alloy’’

magnesium).

The scope of this investigation 

excludes the following merchandise: (1) 

All forms of pure magnesium, including 

chemical combinations of magnesium 

and other material(s) in which the pure 

magnesium content is 50 percent or 

greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by 

weight, that do not conform to an 

‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium 

Alloy’’ 5; (2) magnesium that is in liquid 

or molten form; and (3) mixtures 

containing 90 percent or less 

magnesium in granular or powder form, 

by weight, and one or more of certain 

non-magnesium granular materials to 

make magnesium-based reagent 

mixtures, including lime, calcium 

metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, 

calcium carbonate, carbon, slag 

coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, 

feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium 

aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, 

graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth 

metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly 

ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, 

ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and 

colemanite.6

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 22 / Thursday, February 3, 2005 / Notices 5607

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is classifiable under items 

8104.19.00 and 8104.30.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS items are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under investigation is dispositive.

Critical Circumstances

On December 28, 2004, petitioners 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigation of 

magnesium metal from the PRC. 

Because petitioners submitted critical 

circumstances allegations more than 30 

days before the scheduled date of the 

final determination but later than 20 

days before the preliminary 

determination, the Department must 

issue a preliminary determination of 

critical circumstances within 30 days 

after petitioners submitted the 

allegation. See Section 351.206(c)(2)(ii) 

of the Department’s regulations. Section 

733(e)(1) of the Act provides that, upon 

receipt of a timely allegation of critical 

circumstances, the Department will 

determine whether there is a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) 

There is a history of dumping and 

material injury by reason of dumped 

imports in the United States or 

elsewhere of the subject merchandise or 

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose 

account, the merchandise was imported 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling the subject 

merchandise at less than its fair value 

and that there was likely to be material 

injury by reason of such sales, and (B) 

there have been massive imports of the 

subject merchandise over a relatively 

short period.

Section 351.206(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that, 

in determining whether imports of the 

subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine (i) the volume and value 

of the imports, (ii) seasonal trends, and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

addition, Section 351.206(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that, 

‘‘In general, unless the imports during 

the ‘relatively short period’ * * * have 

increased by at least 15 percent over the 

imports during an immediately 

preceding period of comparable 

duration, the Secretary will not consider 

the imports massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ as generally the period 

beginning on the date the proceeding 

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 

and ending at least three months later. 

This section provides further that, if the 

Department ‘‘finds that importers, or 

exporters or producers, had reason to 

believe, at some time prior to the 

beginning of the proceeding, that a 

proceeding was likely,’’ then the 

Department may consider a period of 

not less than three months from that 

earlier time.

In determining whether the above 

statutory criteria have been satisfied, we 

examined the following information: (1) 

The evidence presented in the 

petitioners’ December 28, 2004, 

submission; (2) evidence obtained since 

the initiation of the less-than-fair-value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation (i.e., import 

statistics released by the U.S. Census 

Bureau); and (3) the International Trade 

Commission’s (‘‘ITC’’) preliminary 

material injury determination. See 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1071–1072 

(Preliminary), Magnesium from China 

and Russia, 69 FR 29329 (May 21, 2004) 

(‘‘ITC Preliminary Determination’’).

In determining whether a history of 

dumping and material injury exists, the 

Department generally considers current 

or previous antidumping duty orders on 

subject merchandise from the country in 

question in the United States and 

current orders in any other country with 

regard to imports of magnesium metal 

from the PRC. Petitioners made no 

statement concerning a history of 

dumping magnesium metal from the 

PRC. We are not aware of any other 

antidumping order in the United States 

or in any country on magnesium metal 

from the PRC. Therefore, the 

Department finds no history of injurious 

dumping of magnesium metal from the 

PRC pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) 

of the Act.

In determining whether an importer 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling subject 

merchandise at LTFV, the Department 

must rely on the facts before it at the 

time the determination is made. The 

Department generally bases its decision 

with respect to knowledge on the 

margins calculated in the preliminary 

antidumping duty determination.

The Department normally considers 

margins of 25 percent or more for export 

price (‘‘EP’’) sales and 15 percent or 

more for constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) sales sufficient to impute 

importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. 

See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 

(February 11, 2002). Our preliminary 

determination found margins of 117.41 

percent for the RSM companies, 117.41 

percent for China National Nonferrous 

Metals I/E Corp., Jiangsu Branch 

(‘‘Jiangsu’’), and 177.62 percent for 

Tianjin, the mandatory respondents in 

this investigation. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of the 

Final Determination: Magnesium Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 59187 (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’) (September 24, 2004). 

The sole Section A respondent, 

Guangling, preliminarily received a 

separate rate margin of 140.09 percent 

based on the weighted-average margins 

of the RSM companies and Tianjin. See 

Preliminary Determination. The PRCwide entity received a margin of 177.62 

percent. See Preliminary Determination. 

In addition, see the memorandum from 

Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, China/

NME Group, to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal 

from the People’s Republic of China (the 

‘‘PRC’’)—Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, dated January 28, 2005 

(‘‘Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Memorandum’’) at Attachment II.

In determining whether an importer 

knew or should have known that there 

was likely to be material injury caused 

by reason of such imports, the 

Department normally will look to the 

preliminary injury determination of the 

ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable 

indication of present material injury to 

the relevant U.S. industry, the 

Department will determine that a 

reasonable basis exists to impute 

importer knowledge that material injury 

is likely by reason of such imports. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 

(November 20, 1997). In the present 

case, the ITC preliminarily found a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by imports of magnesium metal 

from the PRC. See ITC Preliminary 

Determination.

Based on the ITC’s preliminary 

determination of material injury and the 

preliminary dumping margins for the 

RSM companies, Jiangsu, Tianjin, the 

Section A respondent, and the PRCwide entity, the Department 

preliminarily finds that there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that the importers knew or should have 

known that there was likely to be 

material injury by means of sales at 

LTFV of subject merchandise from the 

PRC from these respondents.

5608 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 22 / Thursday, February 3, 2005 / Notices 

Pursuant to Section 351.206(h) of the 

regulations, we will not consider 

imports to be massive unless imports in 

the comparison period have increased 

by at least 15 percent during a relatively 

‘‘short period’’ over imports in the base 

period. The Department normally 

considers a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as 

the period beginning on the date the 

proceeding begins and ending at least 

three months later. See section 

351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. According to the 

regulations, ‘‘if the Secretary finds that 

importers, or exporters or producers, 

had reason to believe, at some time prior 

to the beginning of the proceeding, that 

a proceeding was likely, then the 

Secretary may consider a time period of 

not less than three months from that 

earlier time.’’ The Department normally 

compares the import volumes of the 

subject merchandise for at least three 

months immediately preceding the 

filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base 

period’’) to a comparable period of at 

least three months following the filing 

of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison 

period’’). Imports normally will be 

considered massive when imports 

during the comparison period have 

increased by 15 percent or more 

compared to imports during the base 

period. See Section 351.206(c)(2) of the 

regulations.

Petitioners based their allegation of 

critical circumstances in this 

investigation on the increase in imports 

of magnesium metal that began with the 

filing of the antidumping duty petition 

on February 27, 2004, and continued 

through the preliminary determination 

on September 24, 2004. According to 

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations, the comparison period 

normally should be at least three 

months; the Department’s practice is to 

rely upon the longest period for which 

information is available from the month 

that the petition was filed through the 

date of the preliminary determination. 

See Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement 

of Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800 (November 28, 

2003). Therefore, we have chosen a 

period of six-months, as the comparison 

period in determining preliminarily 

whether imports of the subject 

merchandise have been massive. A sixmonth period reflects the ‘‘relatively 

short period’’ commanded by the statute 

for determining whether imports have 

been massive. See Section 733(e)(1)(B) 

of the Act. Therefore, in applying the 

six-month period, we used a base period 

of March 2004 through August 2004 and 

a comparison period of August 2003 

through January 2004. The Department 

requested that the respondents in this 

investigation provide monthly shipment 

data for 2003 and 2004. See Letter to 

parties dated January 11, 2005. In 

addition, the Department obtained U.S. 

import data for subject merchandise for 

2003 and 2004 as reported at the ITC’s 

Web site, http://dataweb.usitc.gov.

On January 19, 2004, the Department 

received company-specific data from 

Tianjin, the RSM companies, and 

Jinagsu. When we compared these 

companies’ import data during the base 

period with the comparison period, we 

found that the volume of imports of 

magnesium metal from Tianjin 

increased by more than 15 percent and 

the volume of imports from the RSM 

companies and Jiangsu decreased over 

the base period. See Preliminary Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum at 

Attachment I. Therefore, we find the 

imports for Tianjin, whose volume of 

exports increased over the base period 

by more 15 percent, to be massive.

Because the PRC NME entity did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, we were 

unable to obtain shipment data from the 

PRC NME entity for purposes of our 

critical circumstances analysis and there 

is therefore no verifiable information on 

the record with respect to its export 

volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party or 

any other person (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority or the 

Commission under this title, (B) fails to 

provide such information by the 

deadlines for submission of the 

information or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under this title, or 

(D) provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i), the 

administering authority and the 

Commission shall, subject to section 

782(d), use the facts otherwise available 

in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title. 

Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if a party has failed to act 

to the best of its ability, the Department 

may apply an adverse inference.

The PRC NME entity did not respond 

to the Department’s request for 

information, at all. Thus, we are using 

adverse facts available, in accordance 

with section 776(a) of the Act, in 

preliminarily determining whether there 

were massive imports of merchandise 

produced by the PRC NME entity. 

Accordingly, an adverse inference is 

warranted.

The only reliable source of publicly 

available data from which to measure 

whether imports from the PRC entity 

were massive is the aggregate import 

statistics from the PRC, as reported on 

the ITC DataWeb site (http://

dataweb.usitc.gov). Therefore, we have 

used these statistics to determine 

whether imports from the PRC entity 

were massive during the comparison 

period. Section 776(c) of the Act 

provides that, when the Department 

selects from among the facts otherwise 

available and relies on ‘‘secondary 

information,’’ the Department shall, to 

the extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

reasonably at the Department’s disposal. 

The Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’), accompanying the URAA, 

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 

(1994), states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

to determine that the information used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870. 

The aggregate import statistics from the 

ITC DataWeb are publicly available data 

by which the Department can determine 

import volumes of magnesium metal 

into the United States on a month-bymonth basis. Furthermore, this data is 

reported on a U.S. government Web site, 

enhancing its reliability.

Our analysis of the import statistics 

indicate that shipments in the 

comparison period increased by at least 

15 percent over those for the base 

period. In comparing import statistics 

from the base period to the comparison 

period, imports of magnesium metal 

have increased by 21.63 percent (from 

6,874,595 kgs. to 8,361,875 kgs.). See 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Memorandum at Attachment III. This 

comparison is based on one of the two 

HTSUS numbers identified in the scope 

of the investigation, HTS 8104.19.00. 

See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Magnesium Metal from 

the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 

15293 (March 25, 2004). We did not 

evaluate imports under HTS 8104.30.00, 

the only other HTS number containing 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation, because it includes 

imports of subject and non-subject 

merchandise and, thus, cannot indicate 

reliably whether imports of subject 

merchandise have increased during the 

comparison period. As a result of our 

analysis, we determine that there were 

massive imports from the PRC-wide 

entity during the applicable relatively 

short period of time.

The sole Section A Respondent in this 

investigation, Guangling, did not 

respond to our request for information 

concerning monthly shipment data for 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 22 / Thursday, February 3, 2005 / Notices 5609

the purposes of determining critical 

circumstances. Therefore, for the 

reasons expressed above with respect to 

the PRC-wide entity, we determine that 

the increase in imports from Guangling 

were massive during the applicable 

relatively short period of time.

We preliminarily determine for the 

RSM companies and Jiangsu that no 

critical circumstances exist because we 

do not find massive imports over a 

relatively short period.

We will issue a final determination 

concerning critical circumstances for all 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC when we 

issue our final determination in this 

investigation, which will be on February 

16, 2005.

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than three days after the 

publication of the preliminary 

determination of critical circumstances 

in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in the 

aforementioned case briefs will be due 

no later than two days after the deadline 

date for case briefs.

Suspension of Liquidation

With respect to Tianjin, Guangling 

and the PRC-wide entity for magnesium 

metal we will direct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend 

liquidation of all unliquidated entries of 

magnesium metal from the PRC that 

were entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

90 days prior to the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of our 

preliminary determination in these 

investigation. In accordance with 

section 733(d) of the Act, with respect 

to the RSM companies and Jiangsu, we 

will make no changes to our 

instructions to the CBP with respect to 

the suspension of liquidation of all 

entries of subject merchandise entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of our preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with Sections 

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

Dated: January 28, 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–2187 Filed 2–2–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–839] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Korea: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for 2003–2004 Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McAllister or Yasmin Bordas, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1174 or (202) 482–

3813, respectively. 

Statutory Time Limits 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) to issue the preliminary 

results of an administrative review 

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. If it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the time 

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

allows the Department to extend these 

deadlines to a maximum of 365 days 

and 180 days, respectively. 

Background 

On June 30, 2004, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from 

Korea, covering the period May 1, 2003, 

through April 30, 2004 (69 FR 39409). 

The preliminary results for the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of certain PSF from Korea are currently 

due no later than January 31, 2005. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Because the Department requires 

additional time to review and analyze 

the supplemental questionnaire 

response, it is not practicable to 

complete this review within the 

originally anticipated time limit (i.e., 

January 31, 2005). Therefore, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the preliminary 

results to not later than May 31, 2005, 

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–2085 Filed 2–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–421–811] 

Notice of Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the 

Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelica Mendoza or John Drury, Office 

7, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3019 or (202) 482–

0195, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 16, 2004, the 

Department determined that purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (‘‘CMC’’) from 

the Netherlands is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in 

section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the 

Netherlands, 69 FR 77205 (December 

27, 2004). The Department released 

disclosure materials to interested parties 

on December 21, 2004. 

On December 27, 2004, respondent 

Noviant BV (‘‘Noviant’’) submitted a 

letter to the Department alleging 

significant ministerial errors as defined 

by 19 CFR 351.224(g). On December 30, 

2004, Aqualon Company (‘‘petitioner’’) 

also submitted a letter to the 

Department alleging an additional 

ministerial error.