56550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

1We extended the end of the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) from April 30, 2007 to May 17, 2007, to 

capture entries for two respondents. See the 

‘‘Expansion of the POR’’ section in the Preliminary 

Results. 

thereafter. Persons interested in 

attending a hearing should contact the 

Department for the date and time of the 

hearing. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 35l.216(e), the 

Department will issue the final results 

of this changed circumstances review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written comments, 

no later than 270 days after the date on 

which this review was initiated, or 

within 45 days if all parties agree to our 

preliminary finding. If final partial 

revocation occurs, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

for the merchandise covered by the 

revocation on the effective date of the 

notice of revocation and to release any 

cash deposit or bond. See 19 CFR 

35l.222(g)(4). The current requirement 

for a cash deposit of estimated AD 

duties on all subject merchandise will 

continue unless and until it is modified 

pursuant to the final results of this 

changed circumstances review. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 

351.221, and 351.222. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22458 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–942] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks from the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Postponement of 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Holland or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1279 and (202) 482–3813, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 20, 2008, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

initiated the countervailing duty 

investigation of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from the 

People’s Republic of China. See Notice 

of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 50304 

(August 26, 2008). Currently, the 

preliminary determination is due no 

later than October 24, 2008. 

Postponement of Due Date for 

Preliminary Determination 

On September 17, 2008, the 

Department received a request from 

Nashville Wire Products Inc., SSW 

Holding Company, Inc., United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied– 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 

6 (Clinton, IA) (collectively, ‘‘the 

petitioners’’) to postpone the 

preliminary determination of the 

countervailing duty investigation of 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks from the PRC. Under section 

703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department may 

extend the period for reaching a 

preliminary determination in a 

countervailing duty investigation until 

no later than the 130th day after the date 

on which the administering authority 

initiates an investigation if the 

petitioner makes a timely request for an 

extension of the period within which 

the determination must be made under 

section 703(b) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 351.205(e) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

petitioners’ request for postponement of 

the preliminary determination was 

made 25 days or more before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination. Accordingly, we are 

extending the due date for the 

preliminary determination by 59 days to 

no later than December 22, 2008. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22886 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Rescission, In Part, of Twelfth New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On May 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of these new shipper 

reviews, covering the period November 

1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.1 See 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 

12th New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 24042 

(May 1, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

to our calculations. The final dumping 

margins for these reviews are listed in 

the ‘‘Final Results of the Reviews’’ 

section below. Finally, after 

reexamining the bona fides of Shandong 

Chenhe International Trading Co., Ltd.’s 

(‘‘Chenhe’’) single sale, the Department 

finds that that sale is not a bona fide 

transaction; therefore, for these final 

results, the Department has rescinded 

the review with respect to Chenhe. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker and Blaine Wiltse, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482– 

6345, respectively. 

Case History 

Background 

The Department conducted a 

verification of Chenhe from May 12–14, 

2008. The Department conducted a 

verification of Jining Yongjia Trade Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Yongjia’’) and its supplier 

Jinxiang County Shanfu Frozen Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Shanfu’’) from May 15–18, 2008. 

On July 7, 2008, we extended the time 

limit for the completion of the final 

results of these reviews. See Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for the Final Results of the 

Twelfth New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 

38396 (July 7, 2008). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56551 

2The Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its 

individual members: Christopher Ranch LLC, the 

Garlic Company, Valley Garlic and Vessey and 

Company, (collectively known as the ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

3 Yongjia, Chenhe, Golden Bird, QTF and 

Shenzhen Greening Trading Co., Ltd. 

4See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/ 

05wages-051608.html; see also Corrected 2007 

Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008) (‘‘Corrected 

2007 Wages’’). 5Corrected 2007 Wages, 73 FR at 27795 

(correcting a ministerial error in the wage rate 

calculation). 

On July 8, 2008, we received case 

briefs from Yongjia, Chenhe, Hebei 

Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golden 

Bird’’), Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘QTF’’) and the Petitioners.2 On 

July 16, 2008 we received timely 

rebuttal briefs from Chenhe. On August 

29, 2008, we reopened the record and 

provided parties an opportunity to 

comment on certain U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data. On 

September 3, 2008, we received a 

supplemental brief from Chenhe with 

regard to the CBP data, in which Chenhe 

corrected the entered value of its single 

POR sale. On September 4, 2008, we 

received a supplemental brief from the 

Petitioners with regard to the CBP data. 

On September 8, 2008, we received 

rebuttals to the supplemental briefs 

from Chenhe and the Petitioners with 

regard to the CBP data. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case, rebuttal, 

and supplemental briefs by parties to 

these reviews are addressed in the ‘‘New 

Shipper Reviews of Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: Issues 

and Decision Memorandum,’’ dated 

September 19, 2008, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memo’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Issues and Decision 

Memo is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. The Issues and Decision 

Memo is a public document and is on 

file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce Building, 

Room 1117, and is accessible on the 

Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of these reviews, and 

comments received from the interested 

parties, we have made changes to the 

margin calculations for all 

Respondents.3 For the final results, we 

will continue to use regression–based 

wage data, but will use US $1.04 as the 

revised wage for the PRC in the final 

results, which continues to be based on 

the reported experience of several 

countries, but applies the more recent 

2007 calculations, which are based on 

2005 wage rate data.4 The Department 

published the 2007 Wage Rates, 

notifying parties of the finalized NME 

wage rates and informing parties that 

those wage rates would be ‘‘in effect for 

all antidumping proceedings for which 

the Department’s final decision is due 

after the publication of this notice.’’5

In addition, we have incorporated a 

post–preliminary results clarification/ 

correction to the margin calculations, 

with respect to mesh bags, for Yongjia, 

Golden Bird, QTF and Greening. For 

further details on this company–specific 

change, see Issues and Decision Memo 

at Comment 5 and the company– 

specific analysis memoranda. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that Chenhe’s single 

POR sale was made on a bona fide basis. 

However, in light of the correction to 

Chenhe’s entered value and the 

resulting reanalysis of Chenhe’s third– 

country sales, the additional CBP data 

placed on the record of this review, and 

the comments from the Petitioners and 

Chenhe, the Department has reevaluated 

the circumstances surrounding 

Chenhe’s POR transaction and finds that 

the sale in question is not a bona fide 

transaction. In the Preliminary Results, 

the Department relied on an 

inappropriate HTSUS subcategory, 

0703.20.0020: FRESH PEELED GARLIC, 

to perform its analysis of Chenhe’s 

single POR sale. For the final results, the 

Department finds that the CBP quantity 

and value data for imports of garlic 

under the HTSUS subcategory 

0703.20.0010, ‘‘GARLIC, FRESH 

WHOLE BULBS’’ provides an 

appropriate comparison to Chenhe’s 

sale because the data is more specific to 

the subject merchandise sold by 

Chenhe, and thus, the Department has 

analyzed the CBP data accordingly. As 

a result of our analysis of the additional 

CBP data and third–country sales in 

comparison to Chenhe’s corrected 

entered value, we have concluded that 

the single sale made by Chenhe during 

the POR is not a bona fide commercial 

transaction based on the totality of 

circumstances: (a) the high price and 

low quantity of Chenhe’s single POR 

sale; and, (b) other indicia of a non– 

bona fide transaction. In sum, the 

totality of circumstances leads the 

Department to find that Chenhe’s single 

POR sale is a non–bona fide commercial 

transaction. Therefore, this sale does not 

provide a reasonable or reliable basis for 

calculating a dumping margin. As 

Chenhe had no other sales of subject 

merchandise during the instant POR, 

the Department is rescinding the new 

shipper review with respect to Chenhe. 

For further discussion of this issue, see 

Comment 1 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum; see also Memorandum to 

James Doyle, Director, Office 9, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Blaine Wiltse, Analyst, 

Regarding; Final BPI Evidence of 

Shandong Chenhe International Trading 

Co., Ltd.: New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated September 19, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this 

antidumping duty order are all grades of 

garlic, whole or separated into 

constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. The scope of this order 

does not include the following: (a) 

Garlic that has been mechanically 

harvested and that is primarily, but not 

exclusively, destined for non–fresh use; 

or (b) garlic that has been specially 

prepared and cultivated prior to 

planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000 and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

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

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the antidumping duty 

order, garlic entered under the HTSUS 

subheadings listed above that is (1) 

mechanically harvested and primarily, 

but not exclusively, destined for non– 

fresh use or (2) specially prepared and 

cultivated prior to planting and then 

harvested and otherwise prepared for 

use as seed must be accompanied by 

declarations to CBP to that effect. 

Normal Value Methodology 

The Department’s general policy, 

consistent with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), is to calculate normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) for non–market economy 

companies using the factors of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

production (‘‘FOP’’) that a respondent 

consumes in order to produce a unit of 

the subject merchandise. There are 

circumstances, however, in which the 

Department will modify its standard 

FOP methodology, choosing to apply a 

surrogate value to an intermediate input 

instead of the individual FOPs used to 

produce that intermediate input. First, 

in some cases, a respondent may report 

factors used to produce an intermediate 

input that account for an insignificant 

share of total output. When the potential 

increase in accuracy to the overall 

calculation that results from valuing 

each of the FOPs is outweighed by the 

resources, time, and burden such an 

analysis would place on all parties to 

the proceeding, the Department will 

value the intermediate input directly 

using a surrogate value. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) 

(‘‘Fish Fillets’’) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

Also, there are circumstances in 

which valuing the FOPs used to yield an 

intermediate product would lead to an 

inaccurate result because the 

Department would not be able to 

account for a significant element of cost 

adequately in the overall factors 

buildup. In this situation, the 

Department would also value the 

intermediate input directly. See, e.g., 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 

26329 (May 4, 2006) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

In the Preliminary Results, we found 

that Yongjia was unable to accurately 

record and substantiate the complete 

costs of growing garlic based on our 

analysis of the information on the 

record. See Preliminary Results; see also 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 

Director, Office 9, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9 

from Paul Walker, Analyst, ‘‘12th New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Intermediate Input Methodology,’’ dated 

April 22, 2008 (‘‘Intermediate Product 

Memo’’). In order to eliminate the 

distortions in our calculation of NV for 

all of the reasons identified in the 

Intermediate Product Memo, we have 

applied an intermediate–product 

valuation methodology to Yongjia for 

these final results of review. Using this 

methodology, we calculated NV by 

starting with a surrogate value for the 

garlic bulb (i.e., the ‘‘intermediate 

product’’), adjusted for yield losses 

during the processing stages, and added 

Yongjia’s processing costs, which were 

calculated using their reported usage 

rates for processing fresh garlic. In 

future reviews, should a respondent be 

able to provide sufficient factual 

evidence that it maintains the necessary 

information in its internal books and 

records that would allow us to establish 

the completeness and accuracy of the 

reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue 

and consider whether to use its reported 

FOPs in the calculation of NV. For 

further details, see Intermediate Product 

Memo. 

We note that for the other respondents 

(Golden Bird, Greening, and QTF) the 

Department did not apply the 

intermediate product methodology 

because these respondents only 

processed purchased garlic and did not 

grow their own garlic. For a complete 

explanation of the Department’s 

analysis, and for a more detailed 

analysis of these issues with respect to 

Yongjia, see Intermediate Product Memo 

and Issues and Decision Memo at 

Comment 2. 

Final Results of the New Shipper 

Reviews 

The Department has determined that 

the following final dumping margins 

exist for the period November 1, 2006, 

through April 30, 2007: 

FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Exported and Produced by 

Shenzhen Greening Trading 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 2.12 

Exported and Produced by 

Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 32.78 

Exported by Hebei Golden Bird 

Trading Co., Ltd. and Produced by Cangshan County 

Hongyang Vegetables & 

Foods Co., Ltd. ....................... 13.83 

Exported by Jining Yongjia 

Trade Co., Ltd. and Produced 

by Jinxiang County Shanfu 

Frozen Co., Ltd. ...................... 18.88 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these final 

results to the parties within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Consistent with the final results of 

review on the antidumping duty order 

of fresh garlic from the PRC for the 

period November 1, 2002, through 

October 31, 2003, we will direct CBP to 

assess importer–specific assessment 

rates based on the resulting per–unit 

(i.e., per kilogram) amount on each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR. See Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 

(June 13, 2005) (‘‘Garlic 10th AR Final’’). 

Therefore, the Department will 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

fresh garlic from the PRC. Specifically, 

we divided the total dumping margins 

for each importer by the total quantity 

of subject merchandise sold to that 

importer during the POR to calculate a 

per–unit assessment amount. We will 

direct CBP to assess importer–specific 

assessment rates based on the resulting 

per–unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on 

each entry of the subject merchandise 

during the POR if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with Garlic 10th AR Final 

we will establish and collect a per– 

kilogram cash- deposit amount which 

will be equivalent to the company– 

specific dumping margin published in 

those future reviews. Specifically, the 

following deposit requirement will be 

effective upon completion of subsequent 

review segments of this proceeding for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the final 

results, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

QTF, produced and exported by 

Greening, produced by Hongyang and 

exported by Golden Bird, or produced 

by Shanfu and exported by Yongjia, the 

cash deposit rate will be the company– 

specific rate shown above (except that if 

the rate for a particular company is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required for that 

company); (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by QTF or Greening but not 

manufactured by QTF or Greening, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56553 

respectively, for subject merchandise 

exported by Golden Bird but not 

manufactured by Hongyang, and for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Yongjia but not manufactured by 

Shanfu, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 

376.67 percent); and (3) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by QTF or 

Greening, but exported by any other 

party, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate applicable to the exporter. These 

cash deposit requirements will remain 

in effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during the review period. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply 

with this requirement could result in 

the Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the administrative protective order 

itself. Timely written notification of the 

return/destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice of final results and 

rescission, in part, of these new shipper 

reviews are issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(C) 

and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Bona Fide Analysis of 

Chenhe’s Sale 

Comment 2: Intermediate Input 

Methodology 

Comment 3: Surrogate Financial 

Ratios 

Comment 4: Garlic Bulb Surrogate 

Value 

Comment 5: Mesh Bags 

Comment 6: Containerization 

[FR Doc. E8–22885 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–832] 

Pure Magnesium From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita, 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) 

482–6478. 

Background 

On June 9, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published the preliminary results of 

review for the period May 1, 2006, 

through April 30, 2007. See Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 32549 (June 9, 2008). The 

final results of review are currently due 

no later than October 7, 2008. 

Extension of Time Limits for the Final 

Results of Review 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time period to 

a maximum of 180 days. Completion of 

the final results of the administrative 

review within the 120-day period is not 

practicable because the Department 

requires additional time to analyze new 

surrogate value information, to analyze 

case and rebuttal briefs, and to hold a 

public hearing. 

Because it is not practicable to 

complete this review within the time 

specified under the Act, we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the final results of the administrative 

review to 180 days, until December 6, 

2008, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Because 

December 6, 2008 falls on a Saturday, 

the new deadline for the final results 

will be the next business day, Monday, 

December 8, 2008. We are publishing 

this notice pursuant to sections 751(a) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22883 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–401–808] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Sweden: Notice of Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 11, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

in the Federal Register the notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on purified carboxymethylcellulose 

(CMC) from Sweden for the period July 

1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39948 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES