10 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

This initiation, preliminary results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(b) of the Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)), and 19

CFR 353.22(f)(4).

Dated: March 18,1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7588 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–433–807]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn

From Austria

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATES: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak or Russell Morris, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’) are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

open-end spun rayon singles yarn from

Austria is being, or is likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section

733 of the Act. The estimated margins

of sales at LTFV are shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn

from Austria (61 FR 48472, September

13, 1996)), the following events have

occurred. On October 4, 1996, the

United States International Trade

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued an

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case (see ITC

Investigation No. 731–TA–751; 61 FR

53760, October 15, 1996).

On October 4, 1996, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to the following

companies identified by petitioners as

possible exporters of the subject

merchandise: Linz Textil GmbH (Linz)

and G. Borckenstein und Sohn A.G.

(Borckenstein). The questionnaire is

divided into four sections. Section A

requests general information concerning

a company’s corporate structure and

business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the

sales of the merchandise in all of its

markets. Sections B and C request home

market sales listings and U.S. sales

listings, respectively. Section D requests

information on the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like product and

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the subject

merchandise.

Borckenstein submitted its response

to section A of the questionnaire on

November 8, 1996 and to sections B and

C on December 3, 1996. As a result of

our analysis of Borckenstein’s

submissions to our original

questionnaire, we determined that we

required additional information as well

as clarification of the information

submitted in the responses, and thus we

issued a supplemental request for

information on December 19, 1996, and

requests for additional supplemental

information on January 29, 1997. We

received the responses to these requests

on January 9, 1997, and February 6,

1997 respectively.

Linz submitted its questionnaire

response to section A on October 25,

1996 and sections B and C on November

26, 1996. As a result of our analysis of

Linz’s response to our original

questionnaire, we determined that we

required additional information as well

as clarification of the information

submitted in the responses. We issued

a supplemental request for information

on December 12, 1996 and requests for

additional supplemental information on

January 29, 1997 and February 10, 1997.

We received responses to these requests

on January 6, 1997, and February 6 and

24, 1997, respectively.

Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the

Act, as amended, we postponed the date

of the preliminary determination of

whether sales of open-end spun rayon

singles yarn from Austria have been

made at less than fair value until not

later than March 18, 1997 (see 62 FR

3003, January 21, 1997). We postponed

the preliminary determination because

this investigation is extraordinarily

complicated, and because of the novel

legal and methodological issues in this

investigation.

In their questionnaire responses to

Section A, both respondents argued that

particular market conditions of this case

render the home market non-viable as a

comparison market. Borckenstein

argued that because there is no demand

in the home market for all the same yarn

counts which it sells in the United

States, a third country market, Italy, is

a more appropriate comparison market.

Borckenstein also argued that a majority

of its sales in the home market were of

black rayon yarn which is generally a

higher-cost, higher-priced product

compared to the raw white product sold

in the United States. Linz also argued

that because there is no demand in the

home market for the same yarn counts

that Linz sells in the United States, a

third country market, France, is the

more appropriate comparison market.

Linz also noted that French sales are

more appropriate as the comparison

market for U.S. sales because the

customers are similar, the yarns are

used in a similar fashion, there are

similar quantities of sales, and similar

channels and methods of distribution.

On November 14, 1996, we

determined that the home market was

viable for each of the respondents.

Under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the

Department normally considers sales in

the home market to be of sufficient

quantity if they represent five percent of

the aggregate quantity of sales of the

subject merchandise in the United

States. Both the home market sales of

Borckenstein and Linz met that

requirement. If the sales in the home

market met the five percent

requirement, the Department will only

resort to a third country market when

unusual situations renders the home

market inappropriate. The fact that the

home market may not have identical

sales to compare to the sales of the

subject merchandise in the United

States is not an unusual situation and

thus does not render the home market

inappropriate. (For further explanation,

see the memoranda from Barbara E.

Tillman, Director, Office of CVD/AD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration

dated November 14, 1996, (public

version) on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce.)

On December 10, 1996, petitioner

objected to the use of date of invoice as

the date of sale. Petitioner argued that

given the actual sales processes of both

respondents, the appropriate date of sale

is the date of contract and not the date

on which the sale is invoiced. Petitioner

noted that there are no changes in the

basic terms of each sale after the

negotiation of the sales contract, and

there is a significant lag time between

the date of the sales contract and the

date of the invoice. After a careful

review of the petitioner’s comments and

the method by which sales are made in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 11

both the home market and U.S. market

by both Borckenstein and Linz, we

determined that the date of invoice is

the appropriate date of sale in this

investigation.

In the proposed regulations (61 FR

7308), section 351.401(i) states that the

Department will normally use the date

of invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s

or producer’s records kept in the

ordinary course of business, as the date

of sale. On March 29, 1996, the change

in the date of sale methodology

specified in the proposed regulations

was implemented as policy by the

Department for all investigations

initiated after February 1, 1996, and for

all reviews initiated after April 1, 1996.

Therefore, for purposes of deciding the

appropriate date of sale for this

investigation, the new date of invoice

policy is to be used.

This new policy still provides the

Department with flexibility in situations

involving certain long-term contracts or

situations in which there is an

exceptionally long lag time between

date of invoice and date of shipment.

Our review of the sales processes of

both Borckenstein and Linz indicate

that sales are made using short-term

contracts. We also found that there is

little lag time between the date of

shipment and the date of invoice. Also,

there is no other circumstance present

to warrant making an exception to the

general rule of using date of invoice as

the date of sale for both companies for

purposes of this investigation.

Therefore, we determined that the date

of invoice used by both Borckenstein

and Linz is the appropriate date of sale

for both companies. (For further

information, see the memoranda from

Barbara E. Tillman dated February 24,

1996, (public versions) on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Department of Commerce.)

On December 12, 1996, the petitioner

alleged that both Borckenstein and Linz

had made sales in the home market at

prices that were below the cost of

production, pursuant to section 773(b)

of the Act. After analyzing the

petitioner’s allegation, the Department

determined that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that home

market sales had been made by Linz at

prices below Linz’s cost of production.

Therefore, on January 17, 1997, the

Department initiated a cost of

production (COP) investigation of Linz

for sales-below-cost. (See, memorandum

from Barbara E. Tillman dated January

17, 1997, (public version) on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Department of Commerce.) The

Department declined to initiate a cost of

production investigation of

Borckenstein. See, Id.

On January 23, 1997, petitioner

submitted comments stating that the

Department made clerical errors in its

determination that there was no reason

to believe or suspect that Borckenstein

made sales in the home market below

COP. We reviewed petitioner’s

comments and determined that

additional adjustments were warranted.

Based on these additional adjustments,

we determined that there were

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that home market sales had been made

by Borckenstein at prices below

Borckenstein’s COP. Therefore, on

March 12, 1997, we initiated a COP

investigation of Borckenstein. (See,

memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman

dated March 12, 1997, (public version)

on file in the Central Records Unit,

Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce.) Our final determination

will include a COP analysis of

Borckenstein’s home market sales.

As a result of the Department’s cost of

production investigation, the

Department requested that Linz answer

Section D of the original questionnaire;

Linz submitted its response to section D

of the questionnaire on February 18,

1997. We determined that we required

additional information as well as

clarification of the information provided

in this response, and thus we issued a

supplemental questionnaire on February

24, 1997. We received a response to this

request on March 3, 1997. This

preliminary determination includes a

COP analysis of Linz’s home market

sales.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the

Act, on March 14 and 17, 1997, Linz

and Borckenstein requested that in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the publication of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in the Federal Register. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.20(b) (1995), inasmuch

as our preliminary determination is

affirmative, Borckenstein and Linz

account for a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise, and

we are not aware of the existence of any

compelling reasons for denying this

request, we are granting the request and

postponing the final determination.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly. See, Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Large Newspaper Printing

Presses and Components Thereof,

Whether Assembled or Unassembled

from Japan, 61 FR 8029 (March 1, 1996).

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is open-end spun singles

yarn containing 85% or more rayon

staple fiber. Such yarn is classified

under subheading 5510.11.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and for Customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by respondents to

the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the Export

Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV),

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of notice. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we compared the

weighted average EPs to weightedaverage NVs during the POI. In

determining averaging groups for

comparison purposes, we considered

the appropriateness of such factors as

physical characteristics and level of

trade.

(i) Physical Characteristics

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

covered by the description in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of this

notice, produced in Austria by the

respondents and sold in the home

market during the POI, to be foreign like

products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the most similar

foreign like product on the basis of the

characteristics listed in the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. In making the product

comparisons, we relied on the following

criteria (listed in order of preference):

weight, percentage of rayon fiber, color,

denier, finish, and luster. All

comparisons were based on the same

grade of yarn. (For further explanation,

see the memorandum from Barbara E.

Tillman dated September 23, 1996, on

file in the Central Records Unit, Room

B–099 of the Department of Commerce.)
12 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

(ii) Level of Trade

Neither Borckenstein nor Linz

claimed a difference in level of trade.

Based upon our review of the responses

submitted by each of the companies, we

determine that each company performed

essentially the same selling activities for

all reported home market and U.S. sales.

Accordingly, we find that no level of

trade differences exist between any sales

in either the home market or U.S.

market for either company. Therefore,

all price comparisons are at the same

level of trade and an adjustment

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is

unwarranted.

Export Price

We calculated EP, in accordance with

subsections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, for

each of the respondents, where the

subject merchandise was sold directly to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

use of constructed export price (CEP)

was not otherwise warranted based on

the facts of record.

We made company-specific

adjustments as follows:

1. Borckenstein

For Borckenstein, we calculated EP

based on packed, CIF, U.S. port prices

to an unaffiliated customer in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for international

freight (which included freight from the

plant to port of export and ocean freight)

and marine insurance, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A). We also made

a deduction, where appropriate, for

rebates that had been reported as

commissions by the respondent. We

reclassified the commissions as rebates

because the commission agent is

affiliated with the U.S. customer.

We have preliminarily rejected

petitioner’s request to use CEP because

we do not find the record to indicate

that the sole U.S. importer and

Borckenstein are affiliated parties. The

petitioner alleged Borckenstein and its

U.S. importer were related because both

parties had entered into a joint venture

to establish a production facility in the

United States and because of a close

supplier relationship. Pursuant to

section 771(33) of the Act, we reviewed

Borckenstein’s relationship with its U.S.

importer and have determined, subject

to verification, that petitioner’s claim is

unwarranted. There is no joint venture

between Borckenstein and its U.S.

importer. In addition, the evidence

indicates that there is no affiliation

between the two companies.

With respect to petitioner’s claim of a

close supplier relationship, section

771(33)(G) of the Act provides, inter

alia, that parties will be considered

affiliated when one controls the other. A

person controls another person ‘‘if the

person is legally or operationally in a

position to exercise restraint or

direction over the other person.’’ The

SAA further states that a company may

be in a position to exercise restraint or

direction through, among other things,

‘‘close supplier relationships in which

the supplier or buyer becomes reliant

upon the other.’’ SAA at 838. However,

we find no close supplier relationship to

exist between Borckenstein and its U.S.

importer. Borckenstein reported in its

supplemental response that it negotiated

prices with the importer, that the

importer is free to purchase rayon yarn

from sources other than Borckenstein,

that Borckenstein is free to sell to any

customer in the United States, and that

Borckenstein’s sales to its U.S. importer

constitute a small percentage of its

overall sales. Borckenstein has also

stated that there is no exclusive longterm sales contract between itself and its

U.S. importer.

In sum, Borckenstein and the U.S.

importer have not entered into a joint

venture nor does a close supplier

relationship exist between the two

parties. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine the companies are not

affiliated. (For further explanation, see

the memorandum from Barbara E.

Tillman dated March 17, 1997, (public

version) on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce.)

2. Linz

We calculated EP based on packed,

delivered/duty paid and f.o.b. prices to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for the following charges:

Austrian inland freight (which included

brokerage), insurance (which included

inland and marine insurance), ocean

freight, U.S. duty, clearing charges,

bond expenses, and U.S. freight, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2).

Linz reported that it did not borrow

in U.S. dollars during the POI. In

accordance with the Department’s

policy (see, e.g., Notice of Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from Sweden, (61 FR 15780,

April 9, 1996)), we recalculated the U.S.

imputed credit expense using the

average short-term lending rates

published by the Federal Reserve as

surrogate U.S. interest rates, for

purposes of making the circumstance of

sale adjustment for this expense.

Normal Value

1. Borckenstein

We calculated NV based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for foreign inland freight in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii)

of the Act and early payment discounts.

We also adjusted for differences in

circumstances of sale for credit

expenses and export credit insurance

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act. We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In no

cases did the difference in merchandise

adjustment for the comparison product

exceed 20 percent of the U.S. product’s

cost of manufacturing. In addition, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.

Borckenstein also reported an amount

upon which to base an adjustment for

differences in quantities sold in the U.S.

and Austrian markets, pursuant to 19

CFR 353.55(a). Although Borckenstein

claimed that it incurred differing

manufacturing costs based on quantities

produced, it was unable to demonstrate,

based on information on the record, that

pricing differences were related to

quantity. Our review of the submitted

prices indicated that prices did not vary

based upon the quantity sold.

Accordingly, we have not made the

requested adjustment.

As noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section of this notice, we initiated a

COP investigation of Borckenstein on

March 12, 1997. Because the COP

investigation was just recently initiated,

we are unable to include a COP analysis

of Borckenstein’s home market sales in

this preliminary determination,

however, the final determination will

include a COP analysis of

Borckenstein’s home market sales.

2. Linz

a. Cost of Production Analysis

As noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section above, based on the petitioner’s

allegations, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Linz made sales in the home market

at prices below the cost of producing the

merchandise. As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether Linz made home

market sales during the POI at prices

below the COP in accordance with

section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 13

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Linz’s reported cost of materials

and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market

general and administrative expenses

(‘‘G&A’’) and packing costs in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. Indirect selling expenses are

included in the reported G&A expenses.

Test of Home Market Prices

We used the respondent’s adjusted

weighted-average COP for the POI. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at below-cost prices within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and whether the below-cost

prices would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges and direct selling expenses.

Results of COP Test

In determining whether to disregard

home-market sales made at prices below

COP, we examine: (1) Whether, within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) whether such sales were made at

prices which permitted the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time in the normal course of trade.

Where less than 20 percent (by quantity)

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product were at prices less than the

COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product. Where 20

percent (by quantity) or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POI were at prices less than

the COP, we determine such sales to

have been made in substantial

quantities within an extended period;

where we determine that such sales

were also not made at prices that permit

recovery of cost within a reasonable

period, we disregard the below-cost

sales.

Based on our COP test, we found that

less than 20 percent (by quantity) of

Linz’s sales of a given product were at

prices less than COP. Thus, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales.

Therefore for matching purposes, export

prices were compared to home market

prices for all comparisons, and

constructed value (CV) was not

required.

b. Adjustments to Prices

We calculated NV based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers and prices to affiliated

customers where the sales were made at

arm’s length. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for foreign inland

freight and inland insurance, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B). In

addition, where appropriate, we

adjusted for differences in

circumstances of sale for credit

expenses, post-sale warehousing, and

commissions, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C). Linz did not report

home market indirect selling expenses,

therefore, we were unable to offset

commissions paid in the U.S. with

home market indirect selling expenses.

We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In no

case did the difference in merchandise

adjustment for the comparison product

exceed 20 percent of the U.S. product’s

cost of manufacturing. In addition, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B), we deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs.

Linz also reported for purposes of the

difference in merchandise adjustment,

different manufacturing cost for

identical yarns based on the machine

which produced the yarn. We have

recalculated this adjustment based on

the weighted-average cost for

manufacturing identical yarns for the

POI.

Linz also reported an amount upon

which to base an adjustment for

differences in quantities sold in the U.S.

and Austrian markets. Although Linz

claimed that it incurred differing costs

based on quantities produced, it also

stated in its January 6, 1997

supplemental response that the

application of its small quantity price

adjustment is flexible, made on a caseby-case basis, and is meant only as a

guideline. Therefore, Linz was unable to

demonstrate, based on information on

the record, that pricing differences were

related to quantity. Accordingly, we

have not made the requested

adjustment.

Linz was instructed to provide sales

made to affiliated weaving mills in

Austria. Sales not made at arm’s-length

were excluded from our LTFV analysis.

To test whether these sales were made

at arm’s length, we compared the

starting prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, and packing. We utilized the

99.5 percent benchmark ratio used in

the 1993 carbon steel investigations (see

below). Where no related customer price

ratio could be constructed because

identical merchandise was not sold to

unrelated customers, we were unable to

determine that these sales were made at

arm’s-length and, therefore, excluded

them from our LTFV analysis. See, Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR

37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993.))

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales. The official rates are

based on rates certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to convert foreign

currencies based on the dollar exchange

rate in effect on the date of sale of the

subject merchandise, except if it is

established that a currency transaction

on forward markets is directly linked to

an export sale. When a company

demonstrates that a sale on forward

markets is directly linked to a particular

export sale in order to minimize its

exposure to exchange rate losses, the

Department will use the rate of

exchange in the forward currency sale

agreement.

Section 773A(a) also directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

exists, we substitute the benchmark rate

for the daily rate, in accordance with

established practice. Further, section

773A(b) directs the Department to allow

a 60-day adjustment period when a

currency has undergone a sustained

movement. A sustained movement has

occurred when the weekly average of

actual daily rates exceeds the weekly

average of benchmark rates by more

than five percent for eight consecutive

weeks. (For an explanation of this

method, see Policy Bulletin 96–1:

Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434,

March 8, 1996.)) Such an adjustment

period is required only when a foreign

currency is appreciating against the U.S.

dollar. The use of an adjustment period

was not warranted in this case because

the Austrian schilling did not undergo

a sustained appreciation.
14 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information

determined to be acceptable for use in

making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise 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 the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

G. Borckenstein und Sohn ....... 4.77

Linz Textil GmbH ...................... 10.83

All Others .................................. 7.93

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our 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 these imports

are materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than June 16,

1997, and rebuttal briefs no later than

June 23, 1997. A list of authorities used

and an executive summary of issues

should accompany any briefs submitted

to the Department. Such summary

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. In accordance with

section 774 of the Act, we will hold a

public hearing, if requested, to afford

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on arguments raised in case or

rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held on June 26, 1997, at 2:00

p.m. in room 1414 at the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: March 18, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7591 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 032097B]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of three applications for

scientific research permits (P632, P638,

P642).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the State of California, Department of

Transportation, District 4, in Oakland,

CA (CalTrans 4), Michael H. Fawcett in

Bodega Bay, CA, and the University of

California, Davis, Bodega Marine

Laboratory in Bodega Bay, CA (BML)

have applied in due form for permits

authorizing takes of a threatened species

for scientific research purposes.

DATES: Written comments or requests for

a public hearing on any of these

applications must be received on or

before April 25, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The applications and

related documents are available for

review in the following offices, by

appointment:

Office of Protected Resources, F/PR3,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226 (301–713–

1401); and

Protected Species Division, NMFS,

777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa

Rosa, CA 95404–6528 (707–575–6066).

Written comments or requests for a

public hearing should be submitted to

the Protected Species Division in Santa

Rosa, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CalTrans

4, Michael Fawcett, and BML request

permits under the authority of section

10 of the Endangered Species Act of

1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543) and

the NMFS regulations governing ESAlisted fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR

parts 217–227).

CalTrans 4 (P632) requests a five-year

permit for takes of adult and juvenile,

threatened, central California coast coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

associated with fish population and

habitat studies throughout Sonoma,

Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo

Counties. The studies consist of three

assessment tasks for which ESA-listed

fish are proposed to be taken: (1)

Presence/absence, (2) population

estimates, and (3) habitat quality

evaluation. ESA-listed fish are proposed

to be observed or captured,

anesthetized, handled, allowed to

recover from the anesthetic, and

released or captured and sacrificed.

Indirect mortalities associated with

research activities are also requested.

Michael Fawcett (P638) requests a

five-year permit for takes of adult and

juvenile, threatened, central California

coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch) associated with fish population

and habitat studies in the Russian River

and Salmon Creek drainages of Sonoma

County. The studies consist of three

assessment tasks for which ESA-listed

fish are proposed to be taken: (1)

Presence/absence, (2) population

estimates, and (3) habitat quality

evaluation. ESA-listed fish are proposed

to be observed or captured,

anesthetized, handled, allowed to

recover from the anesthetic, and

released. Indirect mortalities associated

with research activities are also

requested.

BML (P642) requests a five-year

permit for takes of adult and juvenile,

threatened, central California coast coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

associated with ongoing genetic

population inventories throughout the

Evolutionarily Significant Unit. ESAlisted adult carcasses are proposed to be

sampled for small (less than 1⁄2 cu. cm)

tissues wherever the carcasses are

found. ESA-listed juvenile fish are

proposed to be collected for the

acquisition of small (less than 1 sq. mm)

non-lethal caudal fin tissue samples, in

conjunction with the California

Department of Fish and Game’s

population surveys. ESA-listed

juveniles will be captured, anesthetized,

handled, allowed to recover from the

anesthetic, and released. ESA-listed