3560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 

1See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Revoke in Part, 73 FR 40285 (July 14, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

circular welded carbon steel pipes and 

tubes from Taiwan, pursuant to section 

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 

(July 1, 2008). 

On August 18, 2008, Yieh Hsing 

submitted a letter to the Department 

certifying that it had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. On August 20, 

2008, Allied Tube & Conduit 

Corporation submitted a letter 

requesting that the review be extended 

to cover Yieh Phui Enterprise Company, 

Ltd. (Yieh Phui), noting that Yieh Phui 

had been found to be the successor–ininterest to Yieh Hsing in a prior 

proceeding. On August 25, 2008, Yieh 

Hsing and another interested party, 

SeAH Steel America (SeAH), each 

submitted letters objecting to the 

extension of the review to cover Yieh 

Phui. On August 27, 2008, Allied Tube 

& Conduit Corporation filed a response 

to SeAH’s comments, reiterating its 

request that the review be extended to 

cover Yieh Phui. On November 14, 

2008, the Department determined that 

the review should not be extended to 

Yieh Phui. See the November 14, 2008 

memorandum to the file entitled 

‘‘Treatment of Yieh Hsing Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing) and Yieh Phui 

Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Yieh Phui): 2007/ 

2008 Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 

from Taiwan.’’ 

On November 18, 2008, the 

Department conducted a data query of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) import entry information, and 

found no evidence of entries during the 

POR involving subject merchandise 

manufactured or shipped by Yieh Hsing. 

See the December 23, 2008, 

memorandum from Steve Bezirganian to 

the File. The Department issued a ‘‘No 

Shipment Inquiry’’ to CBP, to confirm 

that there were no POR exports of 

subject merchandise manufactured and/ 

or exported by Yieh Hsing. See CBP 

message number 8357202, dated 

December 22, 2008. CBP only responds 

to the Department’s inquiry when CBP 

finds that there have been shipments. 

CBP did not respond to our inquiry. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

there were no Yieh Hsing shipments or 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by Yieh Hsing to the United States 

during the POR. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is certain circular welded carbon steel 

pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are 

defined as: welded carbon steel pipes 

and tubes, of circular cross section, with 

walls not thinner than 0.065 inch, and 

0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 

inches in outside diameter, currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

item numbers 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 

7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Intent To Rescind Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review if it concludes 

that during the POR there were no 

entries, exports, or sales of the subject 

merchandise. The Department’s 

practice, supported by precedent, 

requires that there be entries during the 

POR upon which to assess antidumping 

duties. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from 

Italy: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Rescission of 

Review, 70 FR 17656 (April 7, 2005) 

unchanged in Stainless Steel Bar from 

Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Review, 70 FR 46480 (August 10, 

2005). 

Yieh Hsing certified that it had no 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the 2007–2008 POR, and the 

Department’s review of official data 

from CBP did not indicate otherwise. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

determined that Yieh Hsing had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR, and we intend to 

rescind the 2007–2008 administrative 

review. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to issues raised in such 

briefs, must be filed not later than five 

days after the time limit for filing casing 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with the argument (1) a 

statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. An 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held 37 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, or the first 

working day thereafter. See 19 CFR 

351.310. We will issue our final 

decision concerning the conduct of the 

review no later than 120 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–1115 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–868] 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on folding metal tables and chairs 

(‘‘FMTCs’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) on July 14, 2008.1 The 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 

2006, through May 31, 2007. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

preliminary results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes to our margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the preliminary results. The 

final dumping margins for this review 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, 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) 482–6412 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 3561 

2See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Feili in the Antidumping Review of 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the Peoples 

Republic of China,’’ (September 5, 2008). 

3See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit 

for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 

2008). 

4See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit 

for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 76615 (December 17, 

2008). 

Background 

On July 14, 2008, the Department 

published its preliminary results. On 

August 4, 2008, Meco Corporation 

(‘‘Meco’’), the petitioner in the 

underlying investigation, and Cosco 

Home and Office Products (‘‘Cosco’’), a 

U.S. importer of subject merchandise, 

provided additional comments on the 

appropriate surrogate values to use as a 

means of valuing the factors of 

production, including financial 

statements from Zuari Industries 

Limited (2006–2007) (‘‘Zuari’’) and 

Maximaa Systems Limited (2006–2007) 

(‘‘Maximaa’’), Indian producers of 

merchandise that is identical or 

comparable to the subject merchandise. 

On August 13, 2008, the Department 

received a request for a hearing from 

Meco. On August 14, 2008, Cosco and 

Feili Furniture Development Limited 

Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture 

Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group 

(Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., 

Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Feili’’), a respondent, 

submitted rebuttals to the surrogate 

value information. On August 19, 2008, 

Meco provided a rebutting exhibit to 

Cosco’s August 14, 2008, rebuttal 

submission. As provided in section 

782(i) of the Act, we verified the 

information submitted by Feili for use 

in our final results.2 On October 1 and 

3, 2008, the Department received case 

briefs from Meco and New–Tec 

Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. and New– 

Tec Integration Co., Ltd. (collectively 

‘‘New–Tec’’), a respondent, respectively. 

On October 6, 8, and 20, 2008, New– 

Tec, Cosco, Meco, and Feili submitted 

rebuttal briefs, respectively. On 

November 6, 2008, the Department held 

a public hearing. On November 10, 

2008, the Department extended the time 

period for completion of the final results 

until December 11, 2008.3 On December 

17, 2008, the Department fully extended 

the time period of the final results until 

January 12, 2009.4

We have conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by this order 

consist of assembled and unassembled 

folding tables and folding chairs made 

primarily or exclusively from steel or 

other metal, as described below: 

1) Assembled and unassembled 

folding tables made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal tables). Folding metal 

tables include square, round, 

rectangular, and any other shapes with 

legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any 

other type of fastener, and which are 

made most commonly, but not 

exclusively, with a hardboard top 

covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding 

metal tables have legs that mechanically 

fold independently of one another, and 

not as a set. The subject merchandise is 

commonly, but not exclusively, packed 

singly, in multiple packs of the same 

item, or in five piece sets consisting of 

four chairs and one table. Specifically 

excluded from the scope of the order 

regarding folding metal tables are the 

following: 

Lawn furniture; 

Trays commonly referred to as ‘‘TV 

trays;’’ 

Side tables; 

Child–sized tables; 

Portable counter sets consisting of 

rectangular tables 36’’ high and 

matching stools; and, Banquet 

tables. A banquet table is a 

rectangular table with a plastic or 

laminated wood table top 

approximately 28’’ to 36’’ wide by 

48’’ to 96’’ long and with a set of 

folding legs at each end of the table. 

One set of legs is composed of two 

individual legs that are affixed 

together by one or more cross– 

braces using welds or fastening 

hardware. In contrast, folding metal 

tables have legs that mechanically 

fold independently of one another, 

and not as a set. 

2) Assembled and unassembled 

folding chairs made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal chairs). Folding metal 

chairs include chairs with one or more 

cross–braces, regardless of shape or size, 

affixed to the front and/or rear legs with 

rivets, welds or any other type of 

fastener. Folding metal chairs include: 

those that are made solely of steel or 

other metal; those that have a back pad, 

a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat 

pad; and those that have seats or backs 

made of plastic or other materials. The 

subject merchandise is commonly, but 

not exclusively, packed singly, in 

multiple packs of the same item, or in 

five piece sets consisting of four chairs 

and one table. Specifically excluded 

from the scope of the order regarding 

folding metal chairs are the following: 

Folding metal chairs with a wooden 

back or seat, or both; 

Lawn furniture; 

Stools; 

Chairs with arms; and 

Child–sized chairs. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 

9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 

9403.20.015, 9403.20.0030, 

9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 

9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Based on a request by RPA 

International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘RPA’’), the Department 

ruled on January 13, 2003, that RPA’s 

poly–fold metal folding chairs are 

within the scope of the order because 

they are identical in all material 

respects to the merchandise described 

in the petition, the initial investigation, 

and the determinations of the Secretary. 

On May 5, 2003, in response to a 

request by Staples, the Office Superstore 

Inc. (‘‘Staples’’), the Department issued 

a scope ruling that the chair component 

of Staples’ ‘‘Complete Office–To-Go,’’ a 

folding chair with a tubular steel frame 

and a seat and back of plastic, with 

measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; 

width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5 

inches, is covered by the scope of the 

order because it is identical in all 

material respects to the scope 

description in the order, but that the 

table component, with measurements of: 

width (table top): 43 inches; depth (table 

top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875 

inches, has legs that fold as a unit and 

meets the requirements for an 

exemption from the scope of the order. 

On September 7, 2004, the 

Department found that table styles 4600 

and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic 

Products Ltd. are within the scope of the 

order because these products have all of 

the components that constitute a folding 

metal table as described in the scope. 

On July 13, 2005, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

‘‘butterfly’’ chairs are not within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because they do not meet the physical 

description of merchandise covered by 

the scope of the order as they do not 

have cross braces affixed to the front 

and/or rear legs, and the seat and back 

is one piece of cloth that is not affixed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

3562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 

5See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Final Results of 

the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic 

of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ at 2 

(January 12, 2009) (‘‘Final Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’), and attachment to Letter to All 

Interested Parties, titled ‘‘Source for Electricity 

Valuation and Final Briefing Schedule,’’ September 

15, 2008. 

6See Final Surrogate Value Memorandum, at 2 

and Attachment III, and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 1. 

to the frame with screws, rivets, welds, 

or any other type of fastener. 

On July 13, 2005, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

folding metal chairs imported by 

Korhani of America Inc. are within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because the imported chair has a 

wooden seat, which is padded with 

foam and covered with fabric or 

polyvinyl chloride, attached to the 

tubular steel seat frame with screws, 

and has cross braces affixed to its legs. 

On May 1, 2006, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

‘‘moon chairs’’ are not included within 

the scope of the antidumping duty order 

because moon chairs have different 

physical characteristics, different uses, 

and are advertised differently than 

chairs covered by the scope of the order. 

On October 4, 2007, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

International E–Z Up Inc.’s (‘‘E–Z Up’’) 

Instant Work Bench is not included 

within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order because its legs and weight 

do not match the description of the 

folding metal tables in the scope of the 

order. 

On April 18, 2008, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

the VIKA Twofold 2–in–1 Workbench/ 

Scaffold (‘‘Twofold Workbench/ 

Scaffold’’) imported by Ignite USA, LLC 

from the PRC is not included within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because its rotating leg mechanism 

differs from the folding metal tables 

subject to the order, and its weight is 

twice as much as the expected 

maximum weight for folding metal 

tables within the scope of the order. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the post– 

preliminary comments by parties in this 

review are addressed in the 

memorandum from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the 2006– 

2007 Administrative Review of Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (January 

12, 2009) (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an appendix. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 in 

the main Department building, and is 

also accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for Feili, Dongguan 

Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shichang’’), a respondent, and New– 

Tec. 

General Issues 

We have revised the surrogate value 

for electricity. For the final results, we 

find that the best available information 

with which to value electricity is the 

electricity price data for small, medium, 

and large industries, as published by the 

Central Electricity Authority of the 

Government of India in its publication 

titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, dated July 2006.5 These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly–available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are contemporaneous 

with the POR, we have not inflated the 

values. 

We excluded the financial statement 

of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. 

Ltd. for the year ending March 31, 2007, 

and used the 2007 financial statement of 

Maximaa Systems Limited for the 

calculation of surrogate financial ratios.6

Feili 

In light of the Department’s pending 

anti–circumvention investigation, we 

find that Feili has not satisfied all three 

requirements for revocation under 19 

CFR 351.222. Accordingly, we are not 

revoking the antidumping order with 

respect to Feili. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

dumping margins exist for the POR: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin Percentage 

Feili* .............................. 0.02 

New–Tec* ..................... 0.06 

Shichang* ..................... 0.00 

* This rate is de minimis. 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries of 

subject merchandise in accordance with 

the final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

exporter/importer- (or customer) 

-specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

Where appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For duty– 

assessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per–unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty–assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer) -specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent), the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 

customer’s) entries of subject 

merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. We intend to 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC–wide entity at the 

PRC–wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

merchandise exported by Feili, New– 

Tec, and Shichang, the final weighted– 

average margins are below de minimis; 

therefore, no cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping duties will be required; (2) 

for previously reviewed or investigated 

exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash–deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter–specific rate 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 3563 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the PRC– 

wide rate of 70.71 percent; and (4) for 

all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not received 

their own rate, the cash–deposit rate 

will be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non–PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to 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 the final results of this 

administrative review is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Use of the Appropriate 

Financial Statements for Calculation of 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 2: Use of Market Economy 

Purchase Prices for Certain New–Tec 

Factors of Production 

Comment 3A: Likelihood of Future 

Dumping as a Result of Raw Material 

Price Increases if the Order is Revoked, 

in Part 

Comment 3B: Whether to Revoke Order 

in Part While the Circumvention Inquiry 

is Pending 

[FR Doc. E9–1106 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon at (202) 

482–1168 and (202) 482–1167, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

Background 

On July 1, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) initiated 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils from Belgium with 

respect to Ugine & ALZ Belgium (‘‘U&A 

Belgium’’). See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 37409 

(July 1, 2008). The period of review 

(POR) is May 1, 2007 through April 30, 

2008. The preliminary results of this 

review are currently due no later than 

January 31, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order or finding for which a review is 

requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act further states that if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period specified, the 

administering authority may extend the 

245–day period to issue its preliminary 

results by up to 120 days. 

We determine that completion of the 

preliminary results of this review within 

the 245-day period is not practicable for 

the following reasons. This review 

requires the Department to gather and 

analyze a significant amount of 

information pertaining to the company’s 

sales practices, manufacturing costs and 

corporate relationships, which is 

complicated due to recent changes in its 

corporate structure. Furthermore, the 

company subject to this review recently 

converted its accounting system, which 

resulted in a request for additional time 

to submit its questionnaire response to 

the Department. Given the number and 

complexity of issues in this case, and in 

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

the Act, we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of review by 120 days. Therefore, 

the preliminary results are now due no 

later than June 1, 2009. The final results 

continue to be due 120 days after 

publication of the preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–1114 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Imports of Certain Apparel Articles: 

Interim Procedures for the 

Implementation of the Earned Import 

Allowance Program Established Under 

the Andean Trade Preference Act of 

2008 

AGENCY: Department of Commerce, 

International Trade Administration. 

ACTION: Interim Procedures, Request for 

Comments 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is issuing interim procedures 

implementing provisions under the 

Andean Trade Preference Act of 2008 

(‘‘the Act’’), enacted in its entirety by 

Congress on October 3, 2008. Section 2 

of the Act contains amendments to Title 

IV of the Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act (Public 

Law 109-53; 119 Stat. 495). Under 

Section 2 of the Act, Title IV of the 

Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act is amended by 

adding Section 404 of the Act creating 

a benefit for eligible apparel articles 

wholly assembled in the Dominican 

Republic that meet the requirements for 

a ‘‘2 for 1’’ earned import allowance. 

The amendment requires the Secretary 

of Commerce to establish a program to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES