Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 68154-68159 [2011-28555]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68154-68159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-848]


Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic 
OBAs) from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margin of 
sales at LTFV is listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this 
preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Stewart or Hermes Pinilla, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0768 
and (202) 482-3477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 31, 2011, Clariant Corporation (the petitioner) filed an 
antidumping petition against imports of stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan. See 
``Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's 
Republic of China and Taiwan; Petitions Requesting the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties,'' dated March 31, 2011 (the petition).
    On April 27, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation on stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan. See Certain Stilbenic 
Optical Brightening Agents From the People's Republic of China and 
Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23554 
(April 27, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
    The Department 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 the date of publication of the 
Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23555. The 
Department

[[Page 68155]]

also set aside a period of time for parties to comment on product 
characteristics for use in the antidumping duty questionnaire. Id. We 
received comments from the respondent on May 10, 2011, and comments 
from the petitioner on May 10, 17, and 26, 2011, concerning product 
characteristics.\1\ After reviewing the comments received, we have 
adopted the characteristics and hierarchy as explained in the ``Product 
Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner's May 26, 2011, comments were submitted in 
response to the product-matching characteristics identified by the 
Department in its May 26, 2011, antidumping-duty questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained for 
U.S imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation 
(POI), on May 24, 2011, we selected Teh Fong Min International Co., 
Ltd. (TFM) and Sun Rise Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sun Rise) as mandatory 
respondents in this investigation. On June 10, 2011, Sun Rise provided 
documentation supporting its claim that it did not have any shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. See the 
``Selection of Respondents'' section of this notice, below.
    On May 26, 2011, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to TFM and 
Sun Rise. We received TFM's responses on July 1 and July 20, 2011. 
Because Sun Rise properly filed a statement of no shipments and 
provided supporting documentation, it did not respond to our 
questionnaire.
    On May 27, 2011, the International Trade Commission (ITC) published 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan are materially 
injuring the U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its 
finding. See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From China 
and Taiwan, 76 FR 30967 (May 27, 2011).
    On June 9, 2011, we sent a letter to all interested parties 
inviting comments regarding the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) subheadings included in the description of the 
subject merchandise. On June 16, 2011, we received comments from the 
petitioner. After reviewing the comments received we established the 
appropriate description of the subject merchandise. See the ``Scope of 
the Investigation'' and the ``Changes to Scope of Investigation'' 
sections of this notice below.
    On July 29, 2011, the petitioner requested that the Department 
postpone its preliminary determination by 50 days. Because the 
petitioner made this timely request, in accordance with section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed our preliminary determination by 
50 days. See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 49443 (August 
10, 2011).
    On September 12, 2011, the petitioner filed allegations of targeted 
dumping by TFM. See the ``Allegations of Targeted Dumping'' section 
below.
    On October 17, 2011, TFM requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by no more than 135 days in 
accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(b)(2)(ii) and extend the application of the provisional 
measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month to a 
six-month period.
    On October 11, 2011, the petitioner submitted comments for 
consideration in the preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition, March 2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The certain stilbenic OBAs covered by this investigation are all 
forms (whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as 
triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all derivatives of 4,4'-bis [1,3,5-
triazin-2-yl] \2\ amino-2,2'-stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for 
compounds listed in the following paragraph. The certain stilbenic OBAs 
covered by these investigations include final stilbenic OBA products, 
as well as intermediate products that are themselves 
triazinylaminostilbenes produced during the synthesis of final 
stilbenic OBA products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The brackets above denote the chemical formula of the 
subject merchandise. This is not business-proprietary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from this investigation are all forms of 4,4'-bis[4-
anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] \3\ amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid, C40H40N12O8S2 (``Fluorescent Brightener 71''). 
This investigation covers the above-described compounds in any state 
(including but not limited to powder, slurry, or solution), of any 
concentrations of active certain stilbenic OBA ingredient, as well as 
any compositions regardless of additives (i.e., mixtures or blends, 
whether of certain stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of certain 
stilbenic OBAs with additives that are not certain stilbenic OBAs), and 
in any type of packaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 
of the HTSUS, but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 
2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise is dispositive.

Changes to Scope of Investigation

    The Department identified the scope of the investigation in its 
Initiation Notice and set aside a period of time for interested parties 
to raise issues regarding product coverage. On June 9, 2011, the 
Department issued a letter to all interested parties inviting comments 
regarding whether HTSUS subheadings 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 are 
appropriate for inclusion in the scope of the investigation. The 
petitioner submitted comments on June 16, 2011. No other party 
submitted comments. On July 11, 2011, the Department issued a 
memorandum detailing its decision to continue to include HTSUS 
subheadings 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 in the scope of the 
investigation.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters or producers, 
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it 
is not practicable to examine all companies. In the Initiation Notice 
we stated that we intended to select respondents based on CBP data for 
U.S. imports under HTSUS number 3204.20.80 during the POI and we 
invited comments on CBP data and selection of respondents for 
individual examination. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR 23554 (April 27, 
2011).
    On May 2, 2011, we released the CBP data to all parties with access 
to information protected by administrative protective order. Based on 
our review of the CBP data and our consideration of the comments we 
received from the petitioner on May 9, 2011, and the Department's 
current workload, we determined that we had the resources to examine 
two companies. Accordingly, we selected TFM and Sun Rise as

[[Page 68156]]

mandatory respondents. These companies also are the publicly identified 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise. See Memorandum to Christian 
Marsh entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Stilbenic 
Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan--Identification of 
Respondents,'' dated May 24, 2011.
    On June 10, 2011, Sun Rise provided documentation that it did not 
have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI, and a review of entry documents provided by CBP substantiated 
this claim. See Memorandum from Tom Futtner to Laurie Parkhill, 
entitled ``Request for U.S. Entry Documents--Certain Stilbenic Optical 
Brightening Agents from Taiwan (A-583-848),'' dated August 3, 2011. 
Therefore, TFM is the only remaining mandatory respondent in this 
investigation.

Allegations of Targeted Dumping

    The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin-calculation methodology under the following 
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ 
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; (2) the 
Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account 
using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. 
See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    On September 12, 2011, the petitioner submitted an allegation of 
targeted dumping with respect to TFM asserting that the Department 
should apply the average-to-transaction methodology in calculating 
TFM's margin. In its allegation, the petitioner asserts that there are 
patterns of export prices (EPs) for comparable merchandise that differ 
significantly among customers and regions. The petitioner relied on the 
Department's targeted-dumping test first introduced in Certain Steel 
Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (Nails), 
and used more recently in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances 
and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 
2010) (OCTG).
    Because our analysis includes business-proprietary information, for 
a full discussion see Memorandum to Christian Marsh, entitled ``Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigation on Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 
Agents from Taiwan: Targeted Dumping--Teh Fong Min International Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Targeted-Dumping Memo).

A. Targeted-Dumping Test

    We conducted customer and regional analyses of targeted dumping for 
TFM using the methodology we adopted in Nails as modified in 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 55183 (October 27, 2009) (test unchanged in final; 
75 FR 14569 (March 26, 2010)), to correct a ministerial error, and as 
further modified in Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 76 FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4,\4\ to correct for additional 
ministerial errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also Targeted-Dumping Memo for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first 
stage addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses 
the significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and Nails. In this test we made all price comparisons on the 
basis of identical merchandise (i.e., by control number or CONNUM). The 
test procedures are the same for the customer and regional allegations 
of targeted dumping. We based all of our targeted-dumping calculations 
on the U.S. net price which we determined for U.S. sales by TFM in our 
standard margin calculations. For further discussion of the test and 
the results, see the Targeted-Dumping Memo.
    As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine that the 
overall proportion of TFM's U.S. sales during the POI that satisfy the 
criteria of section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our practice as 
discussed in Nails is insufficient to establish a pattern of EPs for 
comparable merchandise that differ significantly among certain 
customers or regions. Accordingly, the Department has determined that 
criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act have not been met.
    Therefore, we have applied the average-to-average methodology to 
all sales. See Targeted-Dumping Memo for further discussion.

Date of Sale

    Section 19 CFR 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states 
that the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded 
in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the 
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the 
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has 
a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes 
invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the 
material terms of sale are established. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    TFM reported its sales using shipment date as the date of sale, 
because its shipments occurred prior to invoicing. On July 14, August 
11, September 12, October 11, and October 12, 2011, the petitioner 
commented on the use of the date of TFM's long-term contracts as the 
date of sale for U.S. sales made pursuant to these contracts. Based on 
information on the record concerning these long-term contracts, we have 
determined that the evidence does not establish that the material terms 
of sale are set on contract date. TFM has demonstrated that either 
party has the right to renegotiate the prices during the pendency of 
the contract, that such renegotiations have occurred, that the 
quantities established in the contracts are merely estimates and that 
that there are no firm minimum quantity requirements.
    See TFM's August 26, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response at 
pages 6-7, and exhibit SE-13. Therefore, because date of shipment 
precedes invoice date and the record evidence otherwise demonstrates 
that shipment date is when final price and quantity are determined, we 
have used shipment date as the date of sale. For one customer, multiple 
sales were included in one invoice, and we calculated a ``weighted 
average ship date'' to use as the date of sale. See the TFM Analysis 
Memorandum to the file dated concurrently with this notice for 
additional information (Preliminary Analysis Memo).
    Recently the U.S. Court of International Trade upheld the 
Department's decision to use invoice

[[Page 68157]]

date for U.S. sales governed by long-term contracts because the 
evidence on the record did not demonstrate that the respondent's U.S. 
customers were contractually bound such that their material terms of 
sale were finally and firmly established on the contract date. See Yieh 
Phui Enterprise Co. v. United States (Slip Op. 11-107) (August 24, 
2011). Similarly, the long-term contracts here do not set the material 
terms of sale; the terms are set at date of shipment, which occurs 
before date of invoice. Therefore, in accordance with our practice and 
judicial precedent we have selected the date of shipment as the date of 
sale.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stilbenic OBAs to the United States 
by TFM were made at LTFV during the POI, we compared normal value to 
constructed export price, as described in the ``Normal Value'' and 
``Constructed Export Price'' sections of this notice in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. We made average-to-average 
comparisons for all sales to the United States and provided offsets for 
non-dumped comparisons.

Product Comparisons

    We received comments from the respondent on May 10, 2011, and 
comments from the petitioner on May 10, 17, and 26, 2011, concerning 
product characteristics. After reviewing the comments received, we have 
adopted the characteristics and hierarchy identified by the petitioner, 
with one exception. Instead of matching on the basis of the exact 
concentration of active brightening agents, we specified a range of 
active ingredients in the hierarchy. See our May 26, 2011, antidumping-
duty questionnaire for TFM. We have relied on four criteria for 
matching U.S. sales of subject merchandise to normal value: category, 
stage, state, and range of concentration of active ingredients.

U.S. Price

    We based the United States price on constructed export price (CEP), 
as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated party was made by TFM's U.S. affiliate, TFM North America, 
Inc.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed Free on Board, Cost, 
Insurance and Freight, or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts. 
We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d) of the Act. See the Preliminary 
Analysis Memo for additional information.

Normal Value

    After testing comparison-market viability, we calculated normal 
value as stated in the ``Constructed Value'' section of this notice.

A. Comparison-Market Viability

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that normal value be based on 
the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the comparison 
market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities 
(or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no 
particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the 
export price. Section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act contemplates that 
quantities (or values) will normally be considered insufficient if they 
are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market or third country to serve as a viable basis 
for calculating normal value, we compared the respondent's volumes of 
home-market and third-country sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act. The aggregate volume of TFM's 
sales of foreign like product in the home market was not greater than 
five percent of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States. 
Therefore, TFM's sales in the home market are not viable as a 
comparison market. Similarly, TFM's sales of foreign like product to 
third-country markets were not greater than five percent of its sales 
of subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, none of these 
markets are viable as a comparison market.

B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value (CV) based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication, selling, general and administrative expenses, interest 
expenses, U.S packing expenses, and profit. We relied on information 
submitted by the respondent for materials and fabrication costs, 
general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, and U.S. 
packing costs. Based on the review of record evidence, TFM did not 
appear to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing 
during the period of investigation. Therefore, we followed our normal 
methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
    Because the Department has determined for purposes of this 
preliminary determination that TFM does not have a viable comparison 
market, we could not determine selling expenses and profit under 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we relied on section 
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act to determine these amounts.
    The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting among the 
alternative methodologies provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act 
for determining selling expenses and profit. See Statement of 
Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
Vol. 1, at 840 (1994). Alternative (iii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the 
Act specifies that selling and profit may be calculated based on any 
other reasonable method in connection with the home-market sale of 
merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the 
subject merchandise as long as the result is not greater than the 
amount realized by exporters or producers ``in connection with the 
sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in 
the same general category of products as the subject merchandise'' 
(i.e., the ``profit cap'').
    Because TFM did not produce and sell any other merchandise in the 
same general category as stilbenic OBAs and because no other producers/
exporters are being individually examined in this investigation, we 
calculated TFM's selling expenses and profit under section 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. We used the selling expenses and profit 
from the publicly available financial statements for the fiscal year 
most contemporaneous with the POI of a company in Taiwan, Everlight 
Chemical Industrial Corporation (Everlight). In addition to producing 
subject merchandise, Everlight also produces other chemicals, including 
OBAs that are used in other applications. For a more detailed 
discussion see Memorandum to Neal Halper from Gina Lee, regarding 
``Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Cost 
Memo).
    As explained above, TFM does not produce other merchandise in the 
same general category of products as the subject merchandise. Thus, a 
profit cap cannot be calculated as there is no information regarding 
profit that is normally realized in connection with the sale of 
merchandise in the same general category for consumption in the home 
market. See Preliminary Cost

[[Page 68158]]

Memo. Therefore because there is no information available on the profit 
cap on the record, as facts available, we are applying option (iii), 
without quantifying a profit cap.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information relied upon in making our final determination for TFM.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan 
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 margins, as indicated below, as follows: 
(1) The rate for TFM will be the rate we have determined in this 
preliminary determination; (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 12.03 percent, as 
discussed in the ``All-Others Rate'' section, below. These suspension-
of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teh Fong Min International Co., Ltd.....................           12.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 or de 
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. TFM is the only respondent in this investigation for which 
the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for 
purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping 
margin calculated for TFM, 12.03 percent. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 
Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 60636 (October 25, 2007)).

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed in our preliminary 
determination to interested parties in this proceeding in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination whether imports of stilbenic OBAs 
from Taiwan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, 
the U.S. industry (see section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are 
postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from 
the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as 
discussed below, the ITC will make its final determination no later 
than 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the last verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the 
content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
must be filed within five days from the deadline date 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(c)(2). Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting 
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the 
public version of such briefs on CD-ROM.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold 
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on issues raised in case briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR 
351.310. If a timely request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the 
deadline for filing a rebuttal brief 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. 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. 
Requests should contain the following: (1) The party's name, address, 
and telephone number; (2) a list of participants; (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing, oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations 
requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On October 17, 2011, TFM requested that in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by no more than 135 days 
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
At the same time, TFM requested that the Department extend the 
application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month to

[[Page 68159]]

a six-month period. In accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) Our preliminary determination is 
affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we are granting this request and are 
postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of 
liquidation will be extended accordingly.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-28555 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P