25830 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

market direct selling expenses from NV.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home-market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in CEP calculations.

Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determine NV for sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or

CEP). When there are no sales at the

same level of trade, we compare U.S.

sales to home-market sales at a different

level of trade. The NV level of trade is

that of the starting-price sales in the

home market.

To determine whether home-market

sales were at a different level of trade

than U.S. sales for this review, we

examined stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

Based on the record evidence, we found

that there were significant differences

between the selling activities associated

with the home-market level of trade and

those associated with both EP and CEP.

Therefore, we determined that EP and

CEP sales are at a different level of trade

than the home-market sales.

Consequently, we could not match U.S.

sales to sales at the same level of trade

in the home market. Moreover, data

necessary to determine a level-of-trade

adjustment was not available. Therefore,

when we matched EP sales to sales in

the home market, we made no level-oftrade adjustment. However, because

home-market sales were made at a more

advanced stage of distribution than that

of the CEP level, we made a CEP-offset

adjustment when comparing CEP and

home-market sales, in accordance with

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a

more detailed description of our

analysis, see the Level-of-Trade section

of our analysis memorandum dated

April 17, 1998.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margin for the period

August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997 to

be as follows:

Company Margin

(percent)

Bergerac, N.C. .......................... 9.24

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. A hearing, if

requested, will be held 2 days after

submission of rebuttal briefs at the main

Commerce Department building.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in briefs and

rebuttal briefs. Briefs from interested

parties may be filed no later than 30

days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in case briefs, may be filed no

later than five days after the deadline for

filing case briefs.

Parties who submit briefs or rebuttal

briefs in this proceeding are requested

to submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue, and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or hearing. The Department will issue

final results of this review within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because the inability to link

sales with specific entries prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we have calculated

importer-specific ad valorem dutyassessment rates based on the ratio of

the total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP or CEP, by the total

statutory EP or CEP value of the sales

compared and adjusting the result by

the average difference between EP or

CEP and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.)

Bergerac, N.C., could not identify the

importer of record for certain sales to

unaffiliated customers. Therefore, we

have calculated a single, per-unit duty

assessment rate by dividing the total

dumping margins by the total quantity

sold for these importers.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

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 rates for Bergerac, N.C.,

will be the rate established in the final

results of this review (except that no

deposit will be required if the firm has

a zero or de minimis margin, i.e., a

margin less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue investigation (LTFV), but the

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cashdeposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be 1.38. This is the ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

which we are reinstating in accordance

with the decisions by the Court of

International Trade in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93–

79 (May 25, 1993), and Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93–

83 (May 25, 1993). These cash-deposit

rates, when imposed, shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during 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 determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12315 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium; 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

of industrial phosphoric acid from

Belgium.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

one respondent, petitioner and one
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25831

domestic producer, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid from Belgium. The

period of review is August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997. This review

covers imports of industrial phosphoric

acid from one producer, Societe

Chimique Prayon-Rupel S.A.

(‘‘Prayon’’).

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have been

made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

the export price and normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. We will

issue the final results not later than 120

days from the date of publication of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Blankenbaker or Thomas Futtner,

AD/CVD Enforcement Office 4, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0989, and 482–

3814, 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 the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351,

62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Background

On August 20, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 31439) the antidumping duty order

on industrial phosphoric acid (‘‘IPA’’)

from Belgium. On August 4, 1997, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 41925) a notice of

opportunity to request an administrative

review of this antidumping duty order.

On August 29, 1997, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.213(b), Prayon, the

petitioner FMC Corporation (‘‘FMC’’),

and Albright & Wilson Americas Inc.

(‘‘Wilson’’), a domestic producer of the

subject merchandise, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Prayon’s exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. We

published the notice of initiation of this

review on September 25, 1997 (62 FR

50292).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of IPA from Belgium.

This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

2809.2000 and 4163.0000. The HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Product Comparisons

We calculated monthly, weightedaverage, normal values (NVs). The

industrial phosphoric acid exported by

Prayon to the United States is

PRAYPHOS P5, a refined industrial

phosphoric acid, and is the identical

merchandise sold by Prayon in its home

market in Belgium. Therefore, we have

compared U.S. sales to

contemporaneous sales of identical

merchandise in Belgium.

Export Price

Prayon sells to end-users in the

United States through its affiliated sales

agent. For these sales, we used export

price (EP). In accordance with sections

772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we calculated

and EP because Prayon sold the

merchandise directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation. Additional

factors used to determine EP include: (1)

Whether the merchandise was shipped

directly from the manufacturer to the

unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2) whether

this was the customary commercial

channel between the parties involved;

and (3) whether the function of the U.S.

affiliate was limited to that of a

processor of sales-related

documentation and a communications

link with the unrelated buyer. Where

the facts indicate that the activities of

the U.S. affiliate were ancillary to the

sale (e.g., arranging transportation or

customs clearance, invoicing), we treat

the transactions as EP sales. See e.g.,

Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Flat

Products From Canada: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 12725, 12738 (March 16,

1998). The record in this case indicates

that Prayon has correctly classified its

U.S. sales as EP sales. Prayon’s affiliated

sales agent in the United States, Quadra

Corporation (USA) (‘‘Quadra’’), served

as a processor of sales-related

documentation.

EP sales were based on the delivered

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. As

appropriate, we made deductions for

discounts and rebates, including early

payment discounts. We made

deductions for movement expenses in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act; these included foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs brokerage fees, merchandise

processing fees, and U.S. inland freight

expenses.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of the

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, in accordance with

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

NV on home market sales.

We also excluded from our NV

analysis sales to affiliated home market

customers where the weighted-average

sales prices to the affiliated parties were

less than 99.5 percent of the weightedaverage sales prices to unaffiliated

parties. See Usinor Sacilor v. United

States, 872 F. Supp. 1000, 1004 (CIT

1994).

We also made adjustments, consistent

with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, for

inland freight. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

In calculating credit expense, Prayon

reported the discount on accounts

receivable sold to its affiliated

coordination center. Since the reported

credit expense is greater than the credit

expense calculated using the standard

credit calculation (i.e., (date of payment

less date of shipment/ 365)* monthly

home market short-term interest rates*

gross price), we have determined that

the discount transaction between

Prayon and its affiliated coordination

center is not conducted at arm’s-length.

Accordingly, we have used the standard

credit calculation when calculating the

amount of credit to deduct from normal

value. We used the monthly home

market short-term borrowing rates

provided by Prayon in calculating

inventory carrying costs as the basis for

the monthly home market short-term

interest rates used in the credit

calculation.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.
25832 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the export

price (EP) or the (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, that of the

sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative expenses

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also

the level of the starting-price 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 sale 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 a

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, 61732 (November 19, 1997).

Prayon did not claim a LOT

adjustment; however, we requested

information concerning Prayon’s

distribution system, including selling

functions, to determine whether such an

adjustment was necessary. Prayon

reported that all sales during the period

of review (POR), in both the comparison

market (the home market in this case)

and the United States, were to end-users

and distributors. In the U.S. market,

Prayon sells to end-users through its

affiliated sales agent. The subject

merchandise is shipped from tankage in

a storage facility in Canada directly to

the customer. In the home market,

Prayon sells through several channels of

distribution. The first channel includes

direct sales made to end-users. For the

other channels, Prayon sells to either

end-users or distributors through its

affiliated sales agent. For all home

market customers, Prayon ships the

subject merchandise via independent

carriers directly to the customer from its

storage facilities at the plant. We have

examined information provided by

Prayon concerning these sales and

determined that the selling functions are

the same in the home market and U.S.

market. Prayon negotiates all final

prices and quantities, and bears the cost

of storage and handling, surveys and

delivery to customer. Prayon does not

maintain inventories for its customers,

provide after-sales service, or offer

advertising or other sales support

activities to its customers in either

market. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine that sales in the home market

and sales in the United States are at the

same LOT and that no adjustment is

warranted.

Commissions

The Department operates under the

assumption that commission payments

to affiliated parties (in either the United

States or home market) are not at arm’s

length. The Court of International Trade

has held that this is a reasonable

assumption. See Outokumpu Copper

Rolled Products AB v. United States,

850 F. Supp. 16,22 (1994).

Accordingly, the Department has

established guidelines to determine

whether affiliated party commissions

are paid on an arm’s-length basis such

that an adjustment for such

commissions can be made. See Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan, 61 FR

57,629 (November 7, 1996). First, we

compare the commissions paid to

affiliated and unaffiliated sales agents in

the same market. If there are no

commissions paid to unaffiliated

parties, we then compare the

commissions earned by the affiliated

selling agent on sales of merchandise

produced by the respondent to

commissions earned on sales of

merchandise produced by unaffiliated

sellers or manufacturers. If there is no

benchmark which can be used to

determine whether the affiliated party

commission is an arm’s-length value

(i.e., the producer does not use an

unaffiliated selling agent and the

affiliated selling agent does not sell

subject merchandise for an unaffiliated

producer), the Department assumes that

the affiliated party commissions are not

paid on an arm’s-length basis.

In this case, Prayon used an affiliated

sales agent in the home market and a

different affiliated sales agent in the

United States. Prayon did not use

unaffiliated agents during the POR and

did not place on the record information

that its affiliated home market and U.S.

selling agents acted as agents for

unaffiliated producers of the subject

merchandise. As a result, we were

unable to establish a benchmark for use

in determining whether commission

payments Prayon made to affiliated

selling agents were at arm’s length.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine not to make a circumstance of

sale adjustment for commissions in

either market.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the Act

based on rates certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank in effect on the dates of

U.S. sales. See Change in Policy

Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR

9434 (March 8, 1996).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Prayon ....................................... 3.96

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also request a hearing

within ten days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held as

early as convenient for the parties but

not later than 44 days after the date of

publication or the first work day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited

to issues raised in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will issue a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with the

methodology in Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Termination of

Administrative Review: Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the

Republic of Korea (62 FR 55574,

October 27, 1997), we calculated

exporter/importer-specific assessment
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25833

values by dividing the total dumping

duties due for each importer by the

number of tons used to determine the

duties due. We will direct Customs to

assess the resulting per-ton dollar

amount against each ton of the

merchandise entered by these importers

during the review period.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of industrial phosphoric acid from

Belgium 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 the

reviewed company will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review (except no cash

deposit will be required where the

weighted-average margin is de minimis,

i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received an individual rate;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, a previous review, or the

original 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; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 14.67 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 sections

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

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12317 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

amended Export Trade Certificate of

Review, Application No. 94–2A007.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

Florida Citrus Exports, L.C. (‘‘FCE’’) on

February 23, 1995. Notice of issuance of

the original Certificate was published in

the Federal Register on March 8, 1995

(60 FR 12735).

DATE: Effective February 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, (202) 482–5131. This is

not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. The

regulations implementing Title III are

found at 15 CFR Part 325 (1998).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of a

Certificate in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 94–2A007, was originally issued to

Florida Citrus Exports, L.C. on February

23, 1995 (60 FR 12735, March 8, 1995)

and previously amended on January 16,

1996 (61 FR 4255, February 5, 1996).

FCE’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended to:

1. Add the following entities as new

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate within the

meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 C.F.R. 325.2(1)): Dole

Citrus, Vero Beach, FL (controlling

entity: Dole Food Company, Inc.,

Westlake Village, CA); Hogan & Sons,

Inc., Vero Beach, FL; and The Packers

of Indian River, Ltd., Ft. Pierce, FL.

2. Delete Ocean Spray Cranberries

Inc., Vero Beach, FL as a ‘‘Member’’ of

the Certificate.

A copy of the amended certificate will

be kept in the International Trade

Administration’s Freedom of

Information Records Inspection Facility,

Room 4102, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Morton Schnabel,

Acting Director, Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs.

[FR Doc. 98–12377 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Evaluation of Coastal Zone

Management Program and National

Estuarine Research Reserves

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National Ocean

Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

DOC.

ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management

(OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate

the performance of the Pennsylvania,

Delaware and Alaska Coastal Zone

Management Programs.

These evaluations will be conducted

pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA),

as amended. The CZMA requires a

continuing review of the performance of

states with respect to coastal program

implementation. Evaluation of Coastal

Zone Management Programs requires

findings concerning the extent to which

a state has met the national objectives

enumerated in the CZMA, adhered to its

coastal program document approved by

the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered

to the terms of financial assistance

awards funded under the CZMA. The

evaluations will include a site visit,

consideration of public comments, and

consultations with interested Federal,

State, and local agencies and members

of the public. Public meetings are held

as part of the site visits.

Notice is hereby given of the dates of

the site visits for the listed evaluations,

and the dates, local times, and locations

of public meetings during the site visits.

The Delaware Coastal Management

Program site visit will be from June 1–

5, 1998. One public meeting will be

held during the week. This meeting is

scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at

7:00 P.M., at the Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control

Auditorium, Richardson and Robins

Building, 89 Kings Highway, Dover,

Delaware.

The Pennsylvania Coastal

Management Program site visit will be