Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2661

300-acre Sunplex Industrial Park,

Mississippi Highway 57 between

Interstate 10 and US Highway 90,

within one mile of the city limits of

Ocean Springs (Jackson County); Site 11

(621 acres)—within the 3,600-acre Port

Bienville Industrial Park, mouth of the

Pearl River, 2.7 miles south of U.S.

Highway 90, Pearlington (Hancock

County); Site 12 (87 acres)—Mississippi

Army Ammunition Plant (part of the

14,000-acre John C. Stennis Space

Center), 4 miles north of Interstate 10,

State Highway 607, Kiln, (Hancock

County); and, Site 13 (67 acres)—

Stennis International Airport, Kiln

(Hancock County). All of these sites are

owned or controlled by either the

Jackson County Port Authority or the

Hancock County Port and Harbor

Commission. No specific manufacturing

requests are being made at this time.

Such requests would be made to the

Board on a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is March 17, 1998. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period to April 1, 1998.

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Gulf Regional Planning Commission,

1232 Pass Road, Gulfport, MS 39501

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

3716, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230

Dated: January 7, 1998.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1162 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Notice of

Partial Termination and Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests

for administrative review, the

Department of Commerce has conducted

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Brazil. Because we determined that

Companhia Brasileria Carbureto de

Calcio had no shipment of the subject

merchandise, we are terminating this

review with regard to that firm. This

notice of preliminary results covers one

manufacturer/exporter, Companhia de

Ferro Ligas da Bahia, for the period

March 1, 1996, through February 28,

1997. The review indicates that there

was no dumping margin during this

period. If these preliminary results are

adopted for purposes of the final results

of our administrative review, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties of zero on entries

during the period of review. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the arguments

(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a

brief summary of each argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Frankel or Sal Tauhidi, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–5849 or (202) 482–4851,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 to the

Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (1997). Where appropriate, we have

cited the Department’s new regulations,

codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR

27296, May 19, 1997). While not

binding on this review, the new

regulations serve as a restatement of the

Department’s policies.

Background

On March 7, 1997 (62 FR 10521), the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on

Ferrosilicon from Brazil covering the

period March 1, 1996, through February

28, 1997. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), in March 1997, Companhia

de Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa),

Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De

Calcio (CBCC), and Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais (Minasligas)

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of their

respective shipments of ferrosilicon to

the United States during this period. On

April 24, 1997, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review (62 FR 19988).

The Department is now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

On May 14, 1997, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Ferbasa, CBCC, and

Minasligas. On June 20, 1997, CBCC

submitted a letter to the Department

stating that it had no shipments or sales

of the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review

(POR). On June 25, 1997, we requested

the Customs Service (Customs) to

confirm that CBCC had no shipments of

the subject merchandise during the

POR. On June 27, 1997, Customs did so.

Therefore, because we determined that

CBCC had no shipments of the subject

merchandise during the POR, we are

terminating this review with respect to

CBCC. Further, on July 7, 1997,

Minasligas requested that it be allowed

to withdraw its request for review and

that the review be terminated pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). On July 29,

1997, the Department published a

partial termination notice of the

administrative review on ferrosilicon

from Brazil with respect to Minasligas.

(See Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (62 FR 40501)

(July 29, 1997).)

Ferbasa submitted its response to the

questionnaire on July 11, 1997. The

Department issued supplemental

questionnaires on August 13, 1997, and

October 14, 1997. We received Ferbasa’s
2662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

responses to the supplemental

questionnaires on September 2, 1997,

and October 24, 1997, respectively.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of a

preliminary determination if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit. On September 15,

1997, the Department published an

extension of the time limits for the

preliminary results. (See Ferrosilicon

from Brazil: Extension of Time Limits of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, (62 FR 48218).)

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we verified the sales and cost

questionnaire responses of Ferbasa from

November 3, 1997 to November 11,

1997. We conducted verification of

home market and U.S. sales information

provided by Ferbasa using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the company’s sales

and production facility, the examination

of relevant sales and financial records,

and original documentation containing

relevant information.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is ferrosilicon, a ferro alloy

generally containing, by weight, not less

than four percent iron, more than eight

percent but not more than 96 percent

silicon, not more than 10 percent

chromium, not more than 30 percent

manganese, not more than three percent

phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent

magnesium, and not more than 10

percent calcium or any other element.

Ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy produced by

combining silicon and iron through

smelting in a submerged-arc furnace.

Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an

alloying agent in the production of steel

and cast iron. It is also used in the steel

industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing

agent, and by cast iron producers as an

inoculant.

Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size

and by grade. The sizes express the

maximum and minimum dimensions of

the lumps of ferrosilicon found in a

given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are

defined by the percentages by weight of

contained silicon and other minor

elements. Ferrosilicon is most

commonly sold to the iron and steel

industries in standard grades of 75

percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon.

Calcium silicon, ferrocalcium silicon,

and magnesium ferrosilicon are

specifically excluded from the scope of

this review. Calcium silicon is an alloy

containing, by weight, not more than

five percent iron, 60 to 65 percent

silicon, and 28 to 32 percent calcium.

Ferrocalcium silicon is a ferro alloy

containing, by weight, not less than four

percent iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon,

and more than 10 percent calcium.

Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy

containing, by weight, not less than four

percent iron, not more than 55 percent

silicon, and not less than 2.75 percent

magnesium. Ferrosilicon is currently

classifiable under the following

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS):

7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000,

7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000,

7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. The

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. Our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is

included within the scope of this order

if it meets, in general, the chemical

content definition stated above and is

capable of being used as ferrosilicon.

Parties that believe their importations of

ferrosilicon slag do not meet these

definitions should contact the

Department and request a scope

determination.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Ferbasa, covered by the

description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to the U.S. sale. During the

month of the U.S. sale, Ferbasa had

home market sales of identical

merchandise; therefore, pursuant to

section 771(16) of the Act we used those

sales for comparison purposes and made

no adjustments for differences in

merchandise.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine normal value

(NV) based on sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade (LOT)

as the export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) transaction. The NV

LOT is that of the starting-price sales in

the comparison market or, when NV is

based on constructed value (CV), that of

the sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative (SG&A)

expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S.

LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from

exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR

61731 (November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from Ferbasa regarding the marketing

stages involved in the reported home

market and U.S. sales, including a

description of the selling activities

performed by Ferbasa for each channel

of distribution. Pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at

827, in identifying levels of trade for EP

and home market sales we considered

the selling functions reflected in the

starting prices before any adjustments.

Ferbasa made only one U.S. sale during

the period of review, which was to an

unaffiliated reseller in the U.S. market.

It made sales to unaffiliated resellers

and to steel producers in the home

market. The selling functions for the

U.S. sale and for all home market sales

are almost identical. The selling

functions include invoicing, order

acknowledgment, order processing,

quality control, marketing, and price

negotiation. With regard to the U.S. sale,

Ferbasa also incurred freight expenses

for movement of the subject

merchandise from the factory to the port

of embarkation. This does not represent

a significant difference in selling

functions. Thus, based on our analysis

of the selling functions performed by

Ferbasa, we conclude that a single level

of trade exists in each market and that

home market sales and the U.S. sale

were all made at the same level of trade.

Therefore, we have not made a level of

trade adjustment because the price

comparison is at the same level of trade

and an adjustment pursuant to section
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2663

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not

appropriate.

Export Price

We calculated EP, in accordance with

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

because the subject merchandise was

sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price was not otherwise warranted

based on the facts of record. We

calculated EP based on the packed FOB

prices to Ferbasa’s unaffiliated customer

in the United States. In accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight from the plant to

the port and for brokerage and handling,

because these expenses were incident to

bringing the subject merchandise from

the original place of shipment in the

exporting country to the place of

delivery. No other adjustments to EP

were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

Viability

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

Ferbasa’s volume of home market sales

of foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii)

of the Act. Since the aggregate volume

of home market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable for

Ferbasa. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

based NV on the prices at which the

foreign like products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

We calculated NV as noted in the

‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’ section of

this notice, below.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the COP in the last completed segment

of the proceeding for Ferbasa (i.e.,

Ferrosilicon from Brazil; Final Results of

Administrative Review (61 FR 59407)

(November 22, 1996)), we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP, as provided by

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by Ferbasa in the

home market.

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of Ferbasa’s cost of materials

and fabrication employed in producing

the foreign like product, plus amounts

for general and administrative expenses

(G&A). We adjusted Ferbasa’s reported

costs to calculate the cost of

manufacturing for the months

corresponding to the company’s sales

reporting period. We further adjusted

Ferbasa’s reported net interest expense

calculations to account for certain items

of income or expense that were

improperly excluded or included in the

company’s calculation.

2. Net Home Market Prices for

Comparison to COP

We calculated net price by reducing

the gross unit price by amounts for IPI

and ICMS taxes, indirect selling

expenses, home market packing

expenses, direct selling expenses, and

billing adjustments. We also made

upward adjustments to the home market

prices for interest revenue and packing

revenue earned by Ferbasa. We adjusted

Ferbasa’s reported home market packing

costs for errors found at verification.

3. Test of Home Market Prices

We used Ferbasa’s weighted-average

COP, as adjusted (see above), for the

period September 1996, through

February 1997. We compared the

weighted-average COP figure to the net

home-market sales prices (see above) of

the foreign like product as required

under section 773(b) of the Act. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices below the

COP, we examined whether (1) within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices (which did not include value

added taxes) (VAT) less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

rebates. Since the COP did not contain

VAT, for purposes of our sales-belowcost analysis, we used home market

prices which were exclusive of VAT.

4. Results of the COP Test

In accordance with section

773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent

of Ferbasa’s sales of ferrosilicon were at

prices below the COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of Ferbasa’s sales

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we determined such sales to

have been made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and not at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

such below-cost sales of Ferbasa.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

ferrosilicon by Ferbasa to the United

States were made at less than fair value,

we compared the EP to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we calculated a monthly

weighted-average price for NV and

compared this to the U.S. transaction.

Price to Price Comparisons

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product was first sold

for consumption in the exporting

country, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of

trade, and at the same level of trade as

the export price, as defined by section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We increased

NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(A) and reduced it

by home market packing costs and ICMS

and IPI taxes in accordance with

773(a)(6)(B) (i) and (iii) of the Act. We

adjusted Ferbasa’s reported U.S. and

home market packing costs to correct for

errors found at verification. In addition,

we increased NV for packing revenue

and interest revenue earned by Ferbasa

and decreased NV for billing

adjustments reported by Ferbasa. We

made a circumstance of sale adjustment

for credit expenses under

773(a)(6)(C)(iii). Further, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made an

offset to NV for U.S. commissions. No

other adjustments to NV were claimed

or allowed.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773(A) of the

Act. Currency conversions were made

based on the rates certified by the

Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773(A)

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ It is

our practice to find that a fluctuation

exists when the daily exchange rate

differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25

percent. See Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
2664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

Pipe and Tube from Turkey (61 FR

35188, 35192) (July 5, 1996). The

benchmark rate is defined as the rolling

average of the rates for the past 40

business days.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margin for

Ferbasa is zero percent for the period

March 1, 1996, through February 28,

1997.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

are invited to comment on the

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. For

duty assessment purposes, because this

review covers only one importer, we

will divide the total dumping margin

(calculated as the difference between

NV and EP) by the total number of

metric tons imported. We will direct

Customs to assess the resulting permetric ton dollar amount against each

metric ton of subject merchandise

entered by the importer during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of ferrosilicon from Brazil entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Ferbasa will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review, except if the rate

is less than 0.5 percent, ad valorem and,

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, the cash

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less than fair

value (LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published in the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a previous review, or the

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 35.95

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the antidumping duty order

(59 FR 11769, March 14, 1994) and; (5)

consistent with our practice in previous

reviews of this order, for those

companies that did not have shipments

of the subject merchandise during the

POR but which had previously been

reviewed or investigated, their cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recently reviewed period. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1157 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLIGN CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–337–803]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gabriel Adler or Kris Campbell, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement 2, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482–

3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations last codified at

19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that fresh

Atlantic salmon from Chile is being

sold, 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 are

shown in the Suspension of Liquidation

section of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

July 2, 1997. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Fresh

Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 62 FR

37027 (July 10, 1997) (Initiation Notice).

Since the initiation of the investigation,

the following events have occurred:

On July 12, 1997, the United States

International Trade Commission (the

ITC) preliminarily determined that there

is a reasonable indication that imports

of the product under investigation are

materially injuring the United States

industry.

On July 21, 1997, the Department

invited interested parties to submit

comments regarding selection of

respondents and model matching. After

considering those comments, on August