45738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. 

from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from Foshan Jingxin, 

Senbao, Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East 

Grace, Meihua, and Sanmen, and the 

PRC–wide entity on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Section 

735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of innersprings, or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation, of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the final verification report is issued in 

this proceeding and rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in case briefs no 

later than five days after the deadline 

date for case briefs (see 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of 

authorities used and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if requested, we will hold a 

public hearing, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing shortly 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, 

the Department will make its final 

determination within 75 days after the 

date of this preliminary determination, 

pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18031 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–522–803] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that uncovered innerspring units 

(‘‘innersprings’’) from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

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

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. We intend to make our 

final determination within 75 days after 

the date of this preliminary 

determination pursuant to section 735 

of the Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0414 or 482–3434, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On December 31, 2007, Leggett and 

Platt, Incorporated (‘‘Petitioner’’), filed 

petitions in proper form on behalf of the 

domestic industry, concerning imports 

of innersprings from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’), South 

Africa, and Vietnam (collectively, the 

Petitions). On January 28, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the initiation of a antidumping 

investigations on innersprings from the 

PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam. See 

Uncovered Innerspring Units From the 

People’s Republic of China, South 

Africa, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 4817 (January 

28, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

Department set aside a period for all 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4818. We did 

not receive comments regarding product 

coverage from any interested party. 

Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, 

the Department applied a process by 

which exporters and producers may 

obtain separate–rate status in non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate–rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’),1 rather than a full response to 

Section A of the Department’s 

Questionnaire. The standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate (which is 

whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities), however, has not changed. 

The SRA for this investigation was 

posted on the Department’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and–

news.html on January 28, 2008. The due 

date for filing an SRA was March 28, 

2008. No party filed an SRA in this 

investigation. 

In our Initiation Notice, we requested 

parties to provide comments regarding 

the physical characteristics of subject 

merchandise by February 11, 2008, and 

rebuttal comments by February 21, 

2008. On February 8, 2008, we extended 

the deadline for submission of 

comments regarding physical 

characteristics to February 15, 2008, and 

the deadline for rebuttal comments to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45739 

February 25, 2008. On February 15, 

2008, Petitioner submitted comments. 

No other party submitted comments, 

and no party submitted rebuttal 

comments. 

On February 14, 2008, the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

notified the Department of its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of innersprings from the PRC, South 

Africa, and Vietnam. See Uncovered 

Innerspring Units From China, South 

Africa, and Vietnam, USITC Pub. 3983, 

Inv. Nos. 731–TA–1140–1142 

(Preliminary) (February 2008). 

On February 21, 2008, the Department 

issued its Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaire to eleven potential 

exporters of innersprings from Vietnam 

identified in the petition. We received a 

response to our Q&V questionnaire from 

only three of the potential respondents 

(i.e., Yang Ching Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yang Ching’’), Uu Viet Co., Ltd. (‘‘Uu 

Viet’’), and Dong Bang Stainless Steel 

Co. Ltd (‘‘Dong Bang’’)). Each potential 

respondent stated that they did not 

export innersprings to the United States 

during the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’). See Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Yang Ching, March 

13, 2008; Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Uu Viet, March 20, 

2008; and Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Dong Bang, March 

25, 2008. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is April 1, 2007, through 

September 30, 2007. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition, which was 

December 2007. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is uncovered innerspring 

units composed of a series of individual 

metal springs joined together in sizes 

corresponding to the sizes of adult 

mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, 

full long, queen, California king, and 

king) and units used in smaller 

constructions, such as crib and youth 

mattresses. All uncovered innerspring 

units are included in this scope 

regardless of width and length. Included 

within this definition are innersprings 

typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 

inches in width and 68 inches to 84 

inches in length. Innersprings for crib 

mattresses typically range from 25 

inches to 27 inches in width and 50 

inches to 52 inches in length. 

Uncovered innerspring units are 

suitable for use as the innerspring 

component in the manufacture of 

innerspring mattresses, including 

mattresses that incorporate a foam 

encasement around the innerspring. 

Pocketed and non–pocketed 

innerspring units are included in this 

definition. Non–pocketed innersprings 

are typically joined together with helical 

wire and border rods. Non–pocketed 

innersprings are included in this 

definition regardless of whether they 

have border rods attached to the 

perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed 

innersprings are individual coils 

covered by a ‘‘pocket’’ or ‘‘sock’’ of a 

nonwoven synthetic material or woven 

material and then glued together in a 

linear fashion. 

Uncovered innersprings are classified 

under subheading 9404.29.9010 and 

have also been classified under 

subheadings 9404.10.0000, 

7326.20.00.70, 7320.20.5010, or 

7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes only; the written 

description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Non–Market-Economy (‘‘NME’’) 

Treatment 

The Department considers Vietnam to 

be an NME country. In accordance with 

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

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005, 71007 (December 8, 2004). The 

Department has not revoked Vietnam’s 

status as an NME country. Therefore, in 

this preliminary determination, we have 

treated Vietnam as an NME country and 

applied our NME methodology. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to an investigation involving an 

NME country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Exporters 

must demonstrate the absence of both 

de jure and de facto government control 

over export activities, under a test 

developed by the Department and 

described in the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994). 

No party filed separate rate 

information in this investigation. Absent 

separate rate information, the 

Department has presumed that all 

companies within Vietnam exporting 

the subject merchandise are subject to 

government control and are part of the 

Vietnam–wide entity and should be 

assessed a single, Vietnam–wide, 

antidumping duty rate. 

Application of Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, 

inter alia, necessary information is not 

on the record or an interested party or 

any other person: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested; (B) 

fails to provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

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

impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides 

information that cannot be verified as 

provided by section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘[i]nformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. See id. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

Application of Total Adverse Facts 

Available 

The Vietnam–Wide Entity 

The Department issued a Q&V 

questionnaire to all exporters identified 

in the petition. Out of the eleven 

exporters to whom the Department 

issued its Q&V questionnaire, only three 

responded. Each of the responding 

exporters stated that they did not export 

innersprings to the United States during 

the POI. See Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Yang Ching, March 

13, 2008; Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Uu Viet, March 20, 

2008, and Memorandum to the File, 

Response to the Department of 

Commerce’s Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from Dong Bang, March 

25, 2008. However, the remaining eight 

companies did not respond to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire. The 

Department issued and tracked its Q&V 

questionnaire via DHL. According to 

DHL’s tracking system the remaining 

eight exporters received the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire. 

Record evidence indicates there were 

imports into the United States of 

innersprings from Vietnam. Based on 

the above facts, the Department 

preliminarily determines that there were 

exports of the subject merchandise 

under investigation from Vietnam 

producers/exporters that did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, and we are treating these 

Vietnam producers/exporters as part of 

the countrywide entity. Additionally, 

because we have determined that the 

companies named above are part of the 

Vietnam–wide entity, the Vietnam–wide 

entity is now under investigation. 

Further, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 

of the Act, we find that because the 

Vietnam–wide entity (including the 

eight companies discussed above) failed 

to respond to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire, withheld or failed to 

provide information in a timely manner 

or in the form or manner requested by 

the Department, and otherwise impeded 

the proceeding, it is appropriate to 

apply a dumping margin to the 

Vietnam–wide entity using the facts 

otherwise available on the record 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act. Additionally, because these parties 

failed to respond to our requests for 

information, we find an adverse 

inference is appropriate. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In sum, because the Vietnam–wide 

entity failed to respond to our request 

for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act for the Vietnam–wide entity. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), section 

776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department 

to rely on information derived from: (1) 

the petition; (2) a final determination in 

the investigation; (3) any previous 

review or determination; or (4) any 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for AFA, the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Static Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

SAA at 870. See also Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final 

Results of the Eleventh New Shipper 

Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 

18, 2005). 

Generally, it is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the highest 

rate in any segment of the proceeding. 

See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005) (unchanged in the 

final results, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 

2006)). 

The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Fed. Cir.’’) have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (upholding the Department’s 

presumption that the highest margin 

was the best information of current 

margins) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. 

v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in an LTFV 

investigation); Kompass Food Trading 

International v. United States, 24 CIT 

678, 683–84 (CIT 2000) (upholding a 

51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); 

and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 

F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) 

(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

In choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondents’ prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 

1190 (emphasis removed). In this case, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45741 

as AFA, the Department has selected 

116.31 percent, the highest margin 

alleged in the petition, as revised in the 

Petitioner’s supplemental responses, 

and the margin the Department used in 

the Initiation Notice. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information submitted. 

See, e.g. Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

From Brazil: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 

4, 2000). Because there are no 

mandatory respondents, to corroborate 

the 116.31 percent margin used as AFA 

for the Vietnam–wide entity, to the 

extent appropriate information was 

available, we revisited our pre–

initiation analysis of the adequacy and 

accuracy of the information in the 

petition. See Antidumping Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Uncovered 

Innersprings from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) 

(January 22, 2008). We examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the petition and the supplemental 

information provided by Petitioner prior 

to initiation to determine the probative 

value of the margins alleged in the 

petition. During our pre–initiation 

analysis, we examined the information 

used as the basis of export price and 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, 

and the calculations used to derive the 

alleged 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 key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations. See id. We 

received no comments as to the 

relevance or probative value of this 

information. Therefore, the Department 

finds that the rates derived from the 

petition and used for purposes of 

initiation have probative value for the 

purpose of being selected as the AFA 

rate assigned to the Vietnam–wide 

entity. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margin is as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) 

Vietnam–Wide Rate ...... 116.31 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

innersprings from Vietnam, as described 

in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’

section of this notice, that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice 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 indicated in the chart 

above. The suspension of liquidation 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. Under section 735(b)(2) 

of the Act, if the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

the subject merchandise, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation of 

the subject merchandise within 45 days 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

on the preliminary determination may 

be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration no later than 

50 days after the date of publication of 

this preliminary determination. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the 

content of which is limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

the submission of case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 

used, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. See 19 CFR 351.309. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

See id. Further, we request that parties 

submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs 

provide the Department with an 

electronic copy of the public version of 

such briefs. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if requested, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case and rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made 

in this investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

deadline for submitting rebuttal briefs at 

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in 

a room to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310(d)(1). Parties should confirm by 

telephone, the date, time, and location 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled date. Interested parties who 

wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate in a hearing if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain: (1) the party’s name, address, 

and telephone number; (2) the number 

of participants; and (3) a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

oral presentations will be limited to 

issues raised in the briefs. See id. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18032 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–791–821] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from 

South Africa 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that imports of uncovered innerspring 

units from South Africa are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value, as provided in 

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. We intend to make our 

final determination within 75 days of 

the date of publication of this 

preliminary determination pursuant to 

section 735 of the Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES