Raw Flexible Magnets From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 9998-10003 [E8-3493]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9998-10003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3493]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-923]


Raw Flexible Magnets From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to 
producers and exporters of raw flexible magnets (RFM) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy 
rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: February 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Eric Greynolds, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793 and (202) 482-6071, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 9999]]

Case History

    On September 21, 2007, the Department received the petition filed 
in proper form by Magnum Magnetics Corporation (petitioner). This 
investigation was initiated on October 11, 2007. See Raw Flexible 
Magnets from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 72 FR 59076 (October 18, 2007) 
(Initiation Notice), and accompanying Initiation Checklist.\1\ On 
November 8, 2007, petitioner timely requested a 65-day extension of the 
preliminary determination in this investigation, pursuant to section 
703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 
351.205(e). On November 26, 2007, the Department postponed the deadline 
for the preliminary determination by 65 days to no later than February 
19, 2008. See Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty 
Investigation, 72 FR 67911 (December 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A public version of this and all public Departmental 
memoranda is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 in 
the main building of the Commerce Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the large number of producers and exporters of RFM in the 
PRC, we determined that it is not possible to investigate individually 
each producer or exporter and, therefore, selected three producers/
exporters of RFM to be mandatory respondents: China Ningbo Cixi Import 
Export Corporation (Cixi), Polyflex Magnets Ltd. (Polyflex), and 
Qualita Magnets Ltd. (Qualita) (collectively, respondents). See 
Memorandum from the Team, through Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, 
to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, regarding Respondent Selection (October 24, 2007).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A public version of this memorandum is available in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 25, 2007, we issued our initial countervailing duty 
(CVD) questionnaire to the Government of the People's Republic of China 
(the GOC) and the mandatory respondents. On October 25, 2007, we also 
issued directly to the three mandatory respondents an export shipment 
questionnaire. Polyflex and Qualita submitted their respective 
responses to the export shipment questionnaire on November 8, 2007. 
Polyflex reported that it exported subject merchandise that entered the 
United States during the period of investigation. Qualita reported that 
it did not export to the United States merchandise covered under the 
scope of the CVD investigation, which entered the United States during 
the period of investigation. Cixi did not submit a response to either 
the October 25, 2007, export shipment questionnaire or the initial CVD 
questionnaire.
    On December 14, 2007, the GOC and Polyflex submitted their 
respective responses to the initial CVD questionnaire. On January 11, 
2008, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Polyflex and the GOC. 
Polyflex submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on February 
1, 2008. On February 4, 2008, the GOC submitted its supplemental 
questionnaire response. On February 7, 2008, we issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire to Polyflex and the GOC, respectively. On 
February 12, 2008, Polyflex submitted a letter stating that it will no 
longer be participating in the CVD investigation on raw flexible 
magnets from the PRC.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes. Subject flexible magnet 
sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are bonded magnets composed (not 
necessarily exclusively) of (i) any one or combination of various 
flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and (ii) 
a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet 
material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of 
the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of 
the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other 
material capable of being permanently magnetized. Subject flexible 
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are capable of being 
permanently magnetized, but may be imported in either magnetized or 
unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition. Subject merchandise 
may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with 
paper, plastic or other material, which paper, plastic or other 
material may be of any composition and/or color. Subject merchandise 
may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating 
or combination of coatings. Subject merchandise is within the scope of 
this investigation whether it is in rolls, coils, sheets, or pieces, 
and regardless of physical dimensions or packaging, including specialty 
packaging such as digital printer cartridges.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is 
retail printed flexible magnet sheeting, defined as flexible magnet 
sheeting (including individual magnets) that is laminated with paper, 
plastic or other material, if such paper, plastic or other material 
bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business 
cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions, 
decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such 
printed flexible magnet sheeting if the printing concerned consists of 
only: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin; border, stripes, 
or lines; any printing that is removed in the course of cutting and/or 
printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition from the flexible 
magnet sheeting; manufacturing or use instructions (e.g., ``print this 
side up,'' ``this side up,'' ``laminate here''); printing on adhesive 
backing (that is, material to be removed in order to expose adhesive 
for use, such as application of laminate) or on any other covering that 
is removed from the flexible magnet sheeting prior or subsequent to 
final printing and before use; non-permanent printing (that is, 
printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal, permitting the 
flexible magnet sheeting to be re-printed); printing on the back 
(magnetic) side; or any combination of the above.
    All products meeting the physical description of the subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope. The products subject to the investigation are currently 
classifiable principally under subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes, 
however, and the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preamble to the Department's regulations 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997) (Preamble)), in our Initiation Notice, we set aside a period 
of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and 
encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of 
publication of the Initiation Notice. On November 7, 2007, SH 
Industries, an interested party, submitted timely scope comments.\3\ In 
its comments, SH Industries argues that magnetic photo pockets, which 
are flexible magnets with clear plastic laminations that form a pocket 
into

[[Page 10000]]

which photographs and other items may be inserted for display, should 
be excluded from the scope of the antidumping (AD) and CVD 
investigations on RFM from the PRC and Taiwan. On November 13, 2007, 
petitioner filed a response to SH Industries' comments arguing that 
magnetic photo pockets are properly within the scope of the 
investigations.\4\ The Department is evaluating the comments submitted 
by both parties and will issue its decision regarding the scope of the 
investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD 
investigations due on April 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This public document is available on the public record of 
each investigation (A-570-922, A-583-842, and C-570-923) in the 
Department's CRU.
    \4\ The public version of petitioner's submission is available 
on the public record of each investigation (A-570-922, A-583-842, 
and C-570-923) in the Department's CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade 
Commission (the ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the 
subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to a U.S. industry. On November 9, 2007, the ITC 
published its preliminary determination finding that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports from the PRC of subject 
merchandise. See Raw Flexible Magnets from China and Taiwan, 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-452 and 731-TA-1129 and 1130 (Preliminary), 
72 FR 63629 (November 9, 2007).

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination

    On October 11, 2007, the Department initiated AD and CVD 
investigations of RFM from the PRC and Taiwan. See Notice of Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw Flexible Magnets from the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan, 72 FR 59071 (October 18, 2007), 
and also Initiation Notice (for the PRC CVD investigation). The CVD 
investigation and the AD investigations have the same scope with regard 
to the merchandise covered.
    On February 12, 2008, the petitioner submitted a letter, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, requesting alignment of 
the final CVD determination with the final determination in the 
companion AD investigation of RFM from the PRC. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), 
we are aligning the final CVD determination with the final 
determination in the companion AD investigation of RFM from the PRC. 
The final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the 
final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on or 
about July 2, 2008.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (the POI) for which we are measuring 
subsidies is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(2).

Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC

    On October 25, 2007, the Department published the final 
determination of coated free sheet paper from the PRC. See Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) (CFS 
China Final), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (CFS 
Decision Memorandum). In that determination, the Department found, 
``given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies 
and the PRC's economy in recent years, the Department's previous 
decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies does 
not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation involving 
products from China.'' See CFS Decision Memorandum at Comment 6, 
``Comparison of the Department's Findings in the Georgetown Memo and 
the August 30 Market Economy Status Memo,'' see also Memorandum to 
David M. Spooner, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China--Whether the Analytical 
Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's 
Present-day Economy,'' (March 29, 2007) at 2.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This public document is available on the public record of 
the investigation of coated free sheet paper from the PRC (C-570-
907) in the Department's CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the Department has preliminarily determined that it is 
appropriate and administratively desirable to identify a uniform date 
from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in the 
PRC for purposes of the CVD law. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Alignment of Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination, 72 FR 63875 (November 13, 2007) (CWP from the PRC); see 
also Light-walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination, 72 FR 67703 (November 30, 2007); 
Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part; and Alignment of 
Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination, 72 FR 67893 (December 3, 2007); and Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 71360 
(December 17, 2007).
    In CWP from the PRC, we preliminarily determined that date to be 
December 11, 2001, the date on which the PRC became a member of the 
WTO. Therefore, for the reasons outlined in CWP from the PRC, we have 
limited our analysis to subsidies bestowed after December 11, 2001, for 
this preliminary determination.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet

[[Page 10001]]

all applicable requirements established by the administering 
authority'' if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so 
incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to 
the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of 
these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use 
the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.
    In this case, Cixi did not provide the requested information that 
is necessary to determine a CVD rate for this preliminary 
determination. Specifically, Cixi did not respond to either the 
Department's October 25, 2007, shipment data questionnaire or October 
25, 2007, initial CVD questionnaire. Thus, in reaching our preliminary 
determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we 
have based Cixi's CVD rate on facts otherwise available.
    On February 12, 2008, Polyflex, which was the only active mandatory 
respondent, withdrew from this investigation. Thus, in reaching our 
preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of 
the Act, we have based Polyflex's CVD rate on facts otherwise 
available.

Use of Adverse Inferences

    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Session (1994) at 870. The Department considers information 
to be corroborated if it has probative value. See SAA at 870. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not 
prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative 
information. See SAA at 869.
    In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has 
determined that, in the instant investigation, an adverse inference is 
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit 
a response to the Department's CVD questionnaire, Cixi did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. We also 
find that Polyflex, by withdrawing from the investigation, has failed 
to cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. 
Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure 
that Cixi and Polyflex will not obtain a more favorable result than had 
each company fully complied with our request for information. Thus, in 
those instances in which it determines to apply AFA, the Department, in 
order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information used. With regard to the reliability aspect of 
corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly 
available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or 
national average interest rates, there typically are no independent 
sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from 
countervailable subsidy programs.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting the AFA rate, it is the 
Department's practice to select, where possible, the highest calculated 
final net subsidy rate for the same type of program at issue. Where 
such information is not available, it is the Department's practice to 
apply the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed. See 
CFS Decision Memorandum at ``Use of Adverse Facts Available'' section 
and Comment 24.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse margin from 
among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 
23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior experience, selecting the highest prior margin 
``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is 
the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not 
so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current 
information showing the margin to be less.'' See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 
United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. 
See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant 
case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the 
relevance of the benefit data relied upon in a prior China CVD 
investigation. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the 
information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.
    Because Cixi and Polyflex failed to act to the best of their 
ability in this investigation, as discussed above, for each program 
examined, we made the adverse inference that each company benefitted 
from each program. To calculate the program rate for the nine alleged 
income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income 
tax or the payment of no tax, we have applied an adverse inference that 
Cixi and Polyflex paid no income tax during the POI. The standard 
income tax rate for corporations in China is 30 percent, plus a 3 
percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible 
benefit for these nine income tax programs is 33 percent. We are 
applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis (i.e., the nine 
programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33

[[Page 10002]]

percent AFA rate does not apply to tax credit and refund programs. For 
the remaining programs in this investigation (including the tax credit 
and refund programs), we used the approach from the CFS China Final, as 
discussed above. Specifically, we are applying, where available, the 
highest subsidy rate calculated for a similar program in the CFS China 
Final. Absent a subsidy rate calculated for a similar program, we are 
applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed in 
the CFS China Final. See CFS Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of 
Programs.'' On this basis, the AFA countervailable subsidy rate 
determined for Cixi and Polyflex is 70.41 percent ad valorem. See 
Memorandum to the File regarding Adverse Facts Available Rate for China 
Ningbo Cixi Import Export Corporation and Polyflex Magnets Ltd. 
(February 19, 2008).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A copy of this public memorandum in on the public file in 
the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the circumstances of this case, we are taking public 
information concerning subsidy programs from the record of the CFS 
China CVD investigation and placing it on the record of this case for 
use as AFA because we have no other information on the record of this 
case from which to select appropriate AFA rates for non-income tax 
programs, and because this is an investigation, we have no previous 
segments of the proceeding from which to draw potential AFA rates. See 
Memorandum to the File regarding Placing on the RFM Record the Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination of Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China (February 19, 2008). For the 
final determination, we invite parties to comment on the AFA rates 
applied to the programs alleged in this investigation.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of 
the subject merchandise individually investigated. With respect to the 
all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if 
the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are determined entirely under 
section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to 
establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not 
individually investigated. In this case, the rate calculated for the 
two investigated companies is based entirely on facts available under 
section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record 
upon which we could determine an all-others rate. As a result, we have 
used the AFA rate calculated for Cixi and Polyflex as the all-others 
rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past practice. 
See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 
(July 16, 2001); see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 
68356, 68357 (December 8, 2003).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Producer/Exporter                      Subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Ningbo Cixi Import Export   70.41 percent ad valorem.
 Corporation.
Polyflex Magnets Ltd............  70.41 percent ad valorem.
All-Others......................  70.41 percent ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC that 
are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and 
to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise 
in the amounts indicated above.
    This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination 
within five days of its announcement. Unless otherwise notified by the 
Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 50 days of 
the date of publication of the preliminary determination in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i). As part of the case brief, parties are 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must 
be filed within five days after the case briefs are filed. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c), we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 
Parties will be notified of the schedule for the hearing and parties 
should confirm the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) 
Party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).


[[Page 10003]]


    February 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-3493 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P