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

45742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1Section A of the antidumping duty 

questionnaire requests general information 

concerning a company’s corporate structure and 

business practices, the merchandise under 

investigation, and the manner in which it sells that 

merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 

a complete listing of all of the company’s homemarket sales of the foreign like product or, if the 

home market is not viable, of sales of the foreign 

like product in the most appropriate third-country 

market. Section C requests a complete listing of the 

company’s U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 

Section D requests information of the cost of 

production of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value of the merchandise under 

investigation. Section E requests information on 

further-manufacturing activities. 

2 In our letter, we reiterated that BCM’s refusal to 

cooperate in this investigation would require the 

use of facts available, which may include an 

adverse inference, in accordance with sections 

776(a) and 776(b) of the Act, when determining the 

company’s antidumping duty margin. BCM’s 

responses to sections B and C of the antidumping 

questionnaire remained due on April 10, 2008. 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0665 

and (202) 482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 28, 2008, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

initiation of an antidumping 

investigation on uncovered innerspring 

units from South Africa. 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. 

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 uncovered innerspring units from 

South Africa. See Uncovered 

Innerspring Units From China, South 

Africa, and Vietnam Investigation Nos. 

731 TA 1140 1142 (Preliminary),, 73 FR 

13567 (March 13, 2008). 

On May 28, 2008, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this investigation 

from June 9, 2008, to July 30, 2008. See 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations; Uncovered Innerspring 

Units from the People’s Republic of 

China, South Africa, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, 73 FR 30604 (May 

28, 2008). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

October 1, 2006, through September 30, 

2007. 

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 investigation is dispositive. 

Issuance of Questionnaire 

On February 26, 2008, we identified 

Bedding Component Manufacturers 

(Pty) Ltd. (BCM) as the sole exporter of 

subject merchandise during the POI. See 

the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys 

entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring 

Units from South Africa - Respondent 

Identification,’’ dated February 26, 

2008. 

On March 4, 2008, we issued sections 

A, B, C, D, and E1 of the antidumping 

questionnaire to BCM. In the cover letter 

to the antidumping questionnaire, we 

informed BCM that, if we did not 

receive its questionnaire response by 5 

p.m. on the due date or a written request 

for an extension of the due date and if 

we have information demonstrating that 

BCM either received the questionnaire 

or refused delivery of the questionnaire, 

we would conclude that BCM had 

decided not to cooperate in this 

investigation. We also informed BCM 

that its refusal to cooperate in an 

investigation requires application of 

facts available, which may include an 

adverse inference, in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act, 

when determining the company’s 

antidumping duty margin. 

On March 25, 2008, we received a 

facsimile communication from BCM 

requesting an extension of time to 

submit a response to Section A of the 

antidumping questionnaire.2 On March 

25, 2008, we granted BCM’s request for 

an extension in full with the new due 

date of April 2, 2008, for its response to 

Section A of our questionnaire. On 

April 4, 2008, we received an 

electronic–mail communication, 

containing an attachment in the form of 

a dated letter in PDF format, from BCM 

notifying us that BCM would not ‘‘be 

able to’’ file its response (see letter on 

file in Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230). In addition, we 

did not receive a response from BCM to 

sections B and C by the close of 

business on April 10, 2008, the 

established deadline. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of facts available 

with an adverse inference (AFA) is 

appropriate for the preliminary 

determination with respect to BCM. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

requested information or fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall use, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45743 

subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Section 

782(d) of the Act provides that, if the 

administering authority determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act states further that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

In this case, BCM did not provide 

pertinent information we requested that 

is necessary to calculate an antidumping 

margin for the preliminary 

determination. Specifically, BCM failed 

to respond to our questionnaire, thereby 

withholding, among other things, 

home–market and U.S. sales data that 

are necessary for preliminarily 

determining whether BCM is selling 

subject merchandise into the United 

States at less than fair value, pursuant 

to section 733 of the Act. BCM’s failure 

to provide this necessary information 

has significantly impeded this 

proceeding pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Furthermore, 

because BCM did not submit any 

response to our requests for information 

and did not suggest alternative forms in 

which it could submit such responses, 

sections 782(c)(1), (d), and (e) of the Act 

do not apply. Thus, in reaching our 

preliminary determination, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 

Act, we have based the dumping margin 

on facts otherwise available for BCM. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In applying the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the administering 

authority finds that an interested party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information from the 

administering authority, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, the administering authority may 

use an inference adverse to the interests 

of that party in selecting from among the 

facts otherwise available. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Circular 

Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 

Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985, 

42986 (July 12, 2000) (Steel Hollow 

Products from Japan). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Glycine from Japan, 72 FR 

52349, 52352 (September 13, 2007) 

(Glycine from Japan) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 

FR 67271 (November 28, 2007)); see also 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

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

vol.1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). Further, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). 

Although the Department provided 

BCM with notice informing it of the 

consequences of its failure to respond 

adequately to the questionnaire in this 

case, BCM did not respond to the 

questionnaire. This constitutes a failure 

on the part of BCM to cooperate to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information by the 

Department within the meaning of 

section 776(b) of the Act. Based on the 

above, the Department has preliminarily 

determined that BCM failed to cooperate 

to the best of its ability and, therefore, 

in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted. See, e.g., Steel 

Hollow Products from Japan (the 

Department applied total AFA where 

the respondent failed to respond to the 

antidumping questionnaire). 

C. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

Where the Department applies AFA 

because a respondent failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from the petition, a final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

829–831. It is the Department’s practice 

to use the highest rate from the petition 

in an investigation when a respondent 

fails to act to the best of its ability to 

provide the necessary information and 

there are no other respondents. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 

2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 

70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, 

because an adverse inference is 

warranted, we have assigned to BCM the 

single margin alleged in the petition, as 

recalculated in the Initiation Notice, of 

121.39 percent (see Petitions on 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from 

China, South Africa, and Vietnam, 

dated December 31, 2007 (Petition), and 

January 11, 2008, supplement to the 

Petition filed on behalf of Leggett and 

Platt, Incorporated, Inc. (the petitioner)), 

as recalculated in the January 22, 2008, 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Uncovered Innerspring Units 

from South Africa (Initiation Checklist) 

on file in Import Administration’s CRU. 

See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4822. 

When using facts otherwise available, 

section 776(c) of the Act provides that, 

when the Department relies on 

secondary information (such as the 

petition) rather than on information 

obtained in the course of an 

investigation, it must corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, information from 

independent sources that are reasonably 

available at its disposal. 

‘‘Corroborate’’ means the Department 

will satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. See, e.g., Glycine from Japan; see 

also SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 

11843 (March 13, 1997)), to corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will examine, to the extent practicable, 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used. The Department’s 

regulations state that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45744 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

3See The Memorandum to File from Case Analyst 

entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation on 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from South Africa - 

Placement of Certain Import Statistics Data from the 

USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb on the 

Record of This Investigation,’’ dated July 30, 2008. 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) 

and SAA at 870. 

For the purposes of this investigation, 

to the extent appropriate information 

was available, we reviewed the 

adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the Petition during our 

pre–initiation analysis and for purposes 

of this preliminary determination. See 

Initiation Checklist. We examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the Petition to determine the probative 

value of the margins alleged in the 

Petition for use as AFA for purposes of 

this preliminary determination. During 

our pre–initiation analysis, we 

examined the key elements of the 

export–price and normal–value 

calculations used in the Petition to 

derive an estimated margin. During our 

pre–initiation analysis, we also 

examined information from various 

independent sources provided either in 

the Petition or, on our request, in the 

supplement to the Petition, that 

corroborates key elements of the export–

price and normal–value calculations 

used in the Petition to derive an 

estimated margin. 

Specifically, the petitioner calculated 

an export price using pricing 

information during the POI obtained 

from its U.S. customer of South 

African–produced uncovered 

innerspring units sold, or offered for 

sale, by U.S. importers of the subject 

merchandise. The pricing information 

identified specific terms of sale and 

payment terms. We obtained affidavits 

from persons who obtained the U.S. 

price quote. See Initiation Checklist at 

6–8. The petitioner made adjustments to 

the starting price, where applicable, for 

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 

marine insurance, and U.S. customs and 

port fees to arrive at net export price. To 

examine further the reliability of the 

U.S. price information in the Petition for 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination we obtained the average 

monthly Average Unit Values (AUVs) 

(Landed, Duty Paid) of imports of 

uncovered innerspring units from South 

Africa for consumption in the United 

States, classified under HTSUS number 

9404299010 for the POI gathered from 

the Bureau of the Census IM145 import 

statistics.3 We confirmed, by examining 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States Annotated, that this 

HTSUS number is not a ‘‘basket 

category’’ such that it only includes 

entries of subject merchandise. U.S. 

official import statistics are sources that 

we consider reliable. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy 

Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 

48538 (August 18, 2005), and applicable 

Memorandum to the File from Dmitry 

Vladimirov entitled ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Superalloy Degassed 

Chromium from Japan: Corroboration of 

Total Adverse Facts Available Rate,’’

dated August 11, 2005 (Chromium from 

Japan) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed 

Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 65886 

(November 1, 2005)). We then compared 

the U.S. price quote in the Petition to 

the AUVs for the POI and confirmed 

that the value of the U.S. price quote 

was consistent with average U.S. import 

values. Further, we obtained no other 

information that would make us 

question the reliability of the pricing 

information provided in the Petition. 

The petitioner made adjustments to 

the starting U.S. price for foreign inland 

freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, 

and U.S. customs and port fees to arrive 

at the net export price. The petitioner 

calculated foreign inland–freight costs 

based on the petitioner’s South African 

subsidiary’s transportation experience 

and the related shipping costs it incurs. 

See Initiation Checklist at 7–8. The 

petitioner provided an affidavit from an 

individual attesting to the source and 

validity of the inland–freight costs it 

used in the calculation of net U.S. price. 

Id. The petitioner calculated 

international–freight costs and marine–

insurance charges based on price quotes 

it obtained from respective service 

providers. Id. The petitioner provided 

an affidavit from an individual attesting 

to the source and validity of the 

international–freight and marineinsurance charges it used in the 

calculation of net U.S. price. Id. The 

petitioner estimated harbor–

maintenance and merchandise–

processing fees using standard U.S. 

government percentage rates. Id. Such 

publically available data are sources of 

information we consider reliable. See, 

e.g., Glycine from Japan, 72 FR at 52353. 

The petitioner calculated U.S. credit 

expense using the Federal Reserve’s 

reported average prime rate charged by 

banks on commercial and industrial 

loans with duration of less than a year 

and an estimated credit period 

consisting of ocean transit time and 

customary payment terms of 30 days 

commencing with the arrival of product 

at the U.S. port of entry. See Initiation 

Checklist at 7–8. The petitioner 

calculated the U.S. short–term interest 

rate and the time period in ocean transit 

using publically available information. 

Id. Such publically available data are 

sources of information we consider 

reliable. See, e.g., Glycine from Japan, 

72 FR at 52353. The petitioner provided 

an affidavit from an individual attesting 

to the validity of customary payment 

terms associated with sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States. See 

Initiation Checklist at 7–8. Because we 

obtained no other information that 

would make us question the reliability 

of the adjustments to the U.S. price 

provided in the Petition, based on our 

examination of the aforementioned 

information, we preliminarily consider 

the petitioner’s calculation of net U.S. 

price to be reliable. See, e.g., Glycine 

from Japan, 72 FR at 52353. 

To calculate normal value, the 

petitioner relied on its South African 

subsidiary’s actual price to an 

unaffiliated customer in South Africa 

for uncovered innerspring units it sold 

during the POI. The pricing information 

identified specific terms of sale and 

payment terms. See Initiation Checklist 

at 7–8. The petitioner provided an 

affidavit from an individual attesting to 

the validity of the South African price 

and associated sale and payment terms 

that the petitioner used in the 

calculation of net foreign price. Id. The 

petitioner converted the starting price 

from Rand to U.S. dollars using the 

POI–average exchange rate of 0.1388 

dollars per Rand. The petitioner 

calculated the POI–average exchange 

rate using the daily exchange rates listed 

on Import Administration’s website. Id. 

The petitioner made adjustments to the 

starting home–market price by 

deducting home–market credit expense 

and adding U.S. credit expenses and 

packing costs. To calculate home–

market credit expenses, the petitioner 

used the payment terms its South 

African subsidiary extends to its 

customer, which the petitioner claims 

are typical payment terms in South 

Africa. Id. The petitioner calculated 

home–market credit expenses using a 

payment period typical in South Africa 

and the average three-month trade–

financing interest rate as reported by the 

South African Reserve Bank for the 

period of investigation. Id. The 

petitioner provided information 

indicating that its South African 

subsidiary ships the foreign like product 

unpacked and ships subject 

merchandise roll–packed. The 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45745 

petitioner calculated U.S. packing costs 

based on the experience of its South 

African subsidiary. Id. 

The petitioner demonstrated the 

validity of the various assumptions it 

employed in its calculation of normal 

value and it used public sources of 

information such as official home–

market and U.S. short–term interest 

rates and currency exchange rates that 

we confirmed were accurate. See, e.g., 

Chromium from Japan (where we stated 

that publicly available information or 

import statistics do not require further 

corroboration). Therefore, absent other 

information on the record disputing the 

validity of the sources of information or 

the validity of information supporting 

the underlying price (and applicable 

price adjustments) used in the Petition, 

we consider the petitioner’s calculation 

of normal value to be reliable. 

Accordingly, because we confirmed the 

accuracy and validity of the information 

underlying the derivation of the margin 

in the Petition by examining source 

documents and affidavits, as well as 

publically available information, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

margins in the Petition are reliable for 

the purposes of this investigation. See, 

e.g., Glycine from Japan, 72 FR at 52353. 

In making a determination as to the 

relevance aspect of corroboration, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

render a margin not relevant. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best 

information available’’ (the predecessor 

to ‘‘facts available’’) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense that 

resulted in an unusually high dumping 

margin. 

In Am. Silicon Techs. v. United 

States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 

2003), the court found that the AFA rate 

bore a ‘‘rational relationship’’ to the 

respondent’s ‘‘commercial practices’’

and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre–

initiation stage of this investigation, we 

confirmed that the calculation of the 

margin in the Petition reflects 

commercial practices of the particular 

industry during the POI. Further, no 

information has been presented in the 

investigation that calls into question the 

relevance of this information. As such, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

margin in the Petition, which we 

determined during our pre–initiation 

analysis was based on adequate and 

accurate information and which we 

have corroborated for purposes of this 

preliminary determination, is relevant 

as the AFA rate for BCM. See, e.g., 

Glycine from Japan. 

As described above, the Department 

attempted to corroborate all of the 

secondary information from which the 

margin in the Petition was calculated by 

reviewing all of the data presented and 

by requesting clarification, attestation, 

and confirmation from the petitioner 

and its sources, as needed. Moreover, 

during the investigation, the Department 

was provided no other information from 

any other interested party. The 

Department also is aware of no other 

independent sources of information that 

would enable it to corroborate further 

the U.S. and home–market prices (and 

their respective adjustments), as 

furnished by the petitioner, for this 

preliminary determination. Similar to 

our position in Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405, 

53407 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged 

in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 

(January 17, 2007)), because this is the 

first proceeding involving BCM, there 

are no probative alternatives. 

Accordingly, by using information that 

was corroborated in the pre–initiation 

stage of this investigation and 

preliminarily determined to be reliable 

and relevant to BCM in this 

investigation, we have corroborated the 

AFA rate ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’

See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 

351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. United 

States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 

2004) (stating, ‘‘pursuant to the to the 

extent practicable’ language...the 

corroboration requirement itself is not 

mandatory when not feasible’’). See also 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Canada, 63 FR 

59527, 59529 (November 4, 1998) 

(unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 

1999)). 

Therefore, based on our efforts 

described above to corroborate the 

margin in the Petition, we find that the 

estimated margin of 121.39 percent in 

the Initiation Notice has probative value 

within the meaning of section 776(c) of 

the Act. Consequently, in selecting AFA 

with respect to BCM, we have applied 

the margin rate of 121.39 percent, the 

estimated dumping margin set forth in 

the notice of initiation. See Initiation 

Notice. 

All–Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that ‘‘the estimated all–others 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776.’’ Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the 

Act provides that, where the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for all exporters and 

producers individually investigated are 

zero or de minimis margins or are 

determined entirely under section 776 

of the Act, the Department may use any 

reasonable method to establish the 

estimated all–others rate for exporters 

and producers not individually 

investigated. This provision 

contemplates that, if the data do not 

permit weight–averaging margins other 

than the zero, de minimis, or total facts–

available margins, the Department may 

use any other reasonable methods. See 

also SAA at 873. Because the petition 

contained only one estimated dumping 

margin and because there are no other 

respondents in this investigation, there 

are no additional estimated margins 

available with which to establish the 

all–others rate. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Ferrovandium from the 

Republic of South Africa, 67 FR 71136 

(November 29, 2002). Therefore, we are 

using the preliminary determination 

margin of 121.39 percent as the all–

others rate. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period October 1, 2006, through 

September 30, 2007: 

Manufacturer or Exporter Margin (percent) 

Bedding Component 

Manufacturers (Pty) 

Ltd. ............................ 121.39 

All Others ...................... 121.39 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of uncovered 

innerspring units from South Africa 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45746 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the margins, 

as indicated above, as follows: (1) the 

rate for BCM will be 121.39 percent; (2) 

if the exporter is not a firm identified in 

this investigation but the producer is, 

the rate will be the rate established for 

the producer of the subject 

merchandise; (3) the rate for all other 

producers or exporters will be 121.39 

percent. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value. If our final 

antidumping determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will determine 

whether the imports covered by that 

determination are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, the U.S. 

industry. The deadline for the ITC’s 

determination would be the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after the date 

of our final determination, pursuant to 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs for this investigation must 

be submitted no later than 50 days after 

the publication of this notice, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal 

briefs must be filed within five days 

after the deadline for submission of case 

briefs consistent with 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used, 

a table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a hearing to 

afford interested parties an opportunity 

to comment on arguments raised in case 

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a request for a hearing is made 

in an investigation, the hearing 

normally will be held two days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). Parties 

should confirm by telephone the time, 

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours 

before the scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should specify the 

number of participants and provide a 

list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

We will not be conducting a 

verification of BCM because it failed to 

respond to our questionnaire, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available’’ section in this 

notice. Therefore, the deadline for 

submission of factual information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) is not 

applicable. Thus, the deadline for 

submission of factual information in 

this investigation will be seven days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. We intend to make our final 

determination within 75 days after the 

date of publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(1) of the Act. 

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. E8–18033 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Request for Public Comment on a 

Commercial Availability Request under 

the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 

Agreement (USAFTA) 

July 30, 2008. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Request for Public Comments 

concerning a request to expand the 

scope of a modification of the U.S.- 

Australia Free Trade Agreement 

(USAFTA) rules of origin for a viscose/ 

polyester blended yarn. 

SUMMARY: On February 26, 2008, CITA 

published in the Federal Register a 

request for public comment on a 

commercial availability petition from 

Gentry Mills that there be a 

modification to the rules of origin for a 

certain viscose/polyester blended yarn 

(73 FR 10227). No public comments 

were received alleging that viscose 

rayon fiber could be supplied in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner. Subsequently, the United 

States requested consultations with the 

Government of Australia on its proposal 

to modify the rule of origin for 

5510.90.2000 to allow the use of nonU.S. and non-Australian viscose rayon 

fiber. In those consultations, the 

Government of Australia proposed 

expanding the scope of the U.S. 

proposal for a modification to the rule 

of origin. The Government of Australia 

proposes that the modification to the 

rule of origin be applied to all yarns of 

subheading 5510.90 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). 

The President may proclaim a 

modification to the USAFTA rules of 

origin for textile and apparel products 

after reaching an agreement with the 

Government of Australia on the 

modification. CITA hereby solicits 

public comments on this proposal to 

expand the scope of the rule of origin 

modification to all yarns in HTSUS 

subheading 5510.90 to allow the use of 

non-U.S. and non-Australian viscose 

rayon fiber. Comments must be 

submitted by September 5, 2008 to the 

Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements, 

Room 3001, United States Department 

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anna Flaaten, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-4058. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural 

Act of 1956, as amended (7 USC 1854); 

Section 203 (o)(2)(B)(i) of the United States 

- Australia Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3805 note) 

(USAFTA Implementation Act); Executive 

Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. 

Background: 

Under the USAFTA, the parties are 

required to progressively eliminate 

customs duties on originating goods. 

See Article 2.3.1. The USAFTA provides 

that, after consultations, the parties may 

agree to revise the rules of origin for 

textile and apparel products to address 

issues of availability of supply of fibers, 

yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area. 

See Article 4.2.5 of the USAFTA. In the 

consultations, each party must consider 

data presented by the other party 

showing substantial production of the 

good. Substantial production has been 

shown if domestic producers are 

capable of supplying commercial 

quantities of the good in a timely 

manner. See Article 4.2.4 of the 

USAFTA. 

The USAFTA Implementation Act 

provides the President with the 

authority to proclaim modifications to 

the USAFTA rules of origin as are 

necessary to implement the agreement 

after complying with the consultation 

and layover requirements of Section 104 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES