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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2665

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general

information concerning a company’s corporate

structure and business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.

Section B requests a complete listing of all home

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,

of sales in the most appropriate third-country

market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S.

sales. Section D requests information on the cost of

production of the foreign like product and the

constructed value of the merchandise under

investigation.

2The petition had demonstrated reasonable

grounds to believe that Chilean producers/exporters

of the foreign like product had made sales below

cost in Japan and Brazil, and the Department had

initiated country-wide cost investigations with

respect to these markets. However, the petition did

not make an allegation of sales below cost with

respect to Canada. See Initiation Notice at 37029.

26, 1997, the Department selected the

following companies as respondents in

this investigation: Pesquera Mares

Australes Ltda. (Mares Australes);

Marine Harvest Chile (Marine Harvest);

Aguas Claras S.A. (Aguas Claras);

Pesquera Eicosal Ltda. (Eicosal); and

Cia. Pesquera Camanchaca S.A.

(Camanchaca) (collectively

‘‘respondents’’). See Selection of

Respondents, below. On the same date,

the Department issued an antidumping

questionnaire to the selected

respondents. 1

The respondents submitted their

initial responses to that questionnaire in

September and October of 1997. After

analyzing these responses, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to the

respondents to clarify or correct the

initial questionnaire responses.

On October 6, 1997, the Coalition for

Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (the

petitioners) requested that the

Department initiate a sales-below-cost

investigation with respect to sales in

Canada by Aguas Claras. 2 The

petitioners’ allegation was timely, and

provided reasonable grounds to believe

that Aguas Claras had made sales below

cost in Canada. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(b) of the Act, on

October 21, 1997, we initiated a salesbelow-cost investigation with respect to

Aguas Claras’ sales to Canada. See Cost

of Production, below.

On October 17, 1997, in accordance

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

Department determined that a particular

market situation existed in the home

market that rendered sales in that

market an inappropriate basis for

comparison to U.S. sales. The

Department requested that Eicosal and

Mares Australes, the two respondents

that had provided a response to Section

B of our questionnaire based on home

market sales, provide a revised response

based on sales to Japan, the only viable

third-country market for those two

companies. Eicosal and Mares Australes

complied with this request, but argued

that to the extent that the Department

considered that the home market

presents a particular market situation, it

should find that Japan also presents a

particular market situation. See

Selection of Comparison Markets,

below.

On October 17, 1997, the petitioners

filed a timely request for a 50-day

postponement of the preliminary

determination. Absent compelling

reasons to deny this request, and in

accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of

the Act and section 353.15(c) of the

Department’s regulations, on October

23, 1997, the Department postponed the

preliminary determination until not

later than January 8, 1998. See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Determination: Fresh

Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 62 FR

56151 (October 29, 1997).

Postponement of Final Determination

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination, if in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise.

On December 18, 1997, the

respondents in this investigation, who

account for a significant proportion of

exports of subject merchandise, made

such a request. In their request for an

extension of the deadline for the final

determination, the respondents

consented to the extension of

provisional measures to no longer than

six months. Since this preliminary

determination is affirmative, and there

is no compelling reason to deny the

respondents’ request, we have extended

the deadline for issuance of the final

determination until the 135th day after

the date of publication of this

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.

This period corresponds to each

respondent’s four most recent fiscal

quarters prior to the month of the filing

of the petition (i.e., June 1996).

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation covers

fresh, farmed Atlantic salmon, whether

imported ‘‘dressed’’ or cut. Atlantic

salmon is the species Salmo salar, in the

genus Salmo of the family salmoninae.

‘‘Dressed’’ Atlantic salmon refers to

salmon that has been bled, gutted, and

cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may

be imported with the head on or off;

with the tail on or off; and with the gills

in or out. All cuts of fresh Atlantic

salmon are included in the scope of the

investigation. Examples of cuts include,

but are not limited to: crosswise cuts

(steaks), lengthwise cuts (fillets),

lengthwise cuts attached by skin

(butterfly cuts), combinations of

crosswise and lengthwise cuts

(combination packages), and Atlantic

salmon that is minced, shredded, or

ground. Cuts may be subjected to

various degrees of trimming, and

imported with the skin on or off and

with the ‘‘pin bones’’ in or out.

Excluded from the scope are (1) fresh

Atlantic salmon that is ‘‘not farmed’’

(i.e., wild Atlantic salmon); (2) live

Atlantic salmon; and (3) Atlantic

salmon that has been subject to further

processing, such as frozen, canned,

dried, and smoked Atlantic salmon, or

processed into forms such as sausages,

hot dogs, and burgers.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable as item

numbers 0302.12.0003 and

0304.10.4093 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) of the United States.

Although the HTS statistical reporting

numbers are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise is

dispositive.

Class or Kind

We have preliminarily determined

that the products subject to this

investigation comprise a single class or

kind of merchandise. Our determination

is based on an evaluation of the criteria

set forth in Diversified Products v.

United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889

(CIT 1983) (Diversified Products), which

look to differences in: (1) The general

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, (2) the expectations of the

ultimate purchaser, (3) the ultimate use

of the merchandise, (4) the channels of

trade in which the merchandise moves,

and (5) cost. In making this

determination, we have rejected a

request by two of the respondents in

this investigation, Mares Australes and

Eicosal, that the Department determine

that there are two separate classes or

kinds of merchandise subject to

investigation: (1) Fresh whole dressed

Atlantic salmon, and (2) fresh Atlantic

salmon meat. See letter from Arnold &

Porter to Department of Commerce

(November 3, 1997). In our analysis of

the Diversified Products criteria, we

found first, with respect to physical

differences, that although certain

differences between the two forms of the
2666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

3Certain respondents contend that, in the

Japanese market, there is a distinction between

premium and super-premium salmon. While we

have accepted this claim for the preliminary

determination, we intend to examine this issue

thoroughly at verification.

4On October 31, 1997, the petitioners alleged that

respondents Mares Australes, Camanchaca, and

Eicosal are affiliated with their U.S. consignment

sellers because the nature of a consignment

relationship is such that the consignment seller

controls the exporter. We have not adopted that

position for this preliminary determination. In

recent cases involving consignment sales of

agricultural products, we explicitly recognized that

a consignment relationship does not per se establish

affiliation between the producer and the

consignment seller. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut

Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53287, 53295 (October 14, 1997)

(rejecting petitioners’ contention that ‘‘any

consignment sale implies affiliation between the

exporter and the consignment importer’’). Beyond

the consignment nature of the relationship between

the parties, the evidence on the record does not

warrant a finding of affiliation. For a further

merchandise exist, these differences

have not been shown to outweigh the

similarities among the products. With

respect to the expectations of the

ultimate purchaser and the ultimate use

of the merchandise, we found that both

whole dressed salmon and salmon cuts

are ultimately destined for human

consumption. Moreover, even if we

were to consider restaurants/

supermarkets as the ‘‘ultimate

purchaser,’’ there is insufficient

evidence to support the respondents’

claim that whole salmon is sold to

gourmet restaurants and fillets of

salmon are sold to supermarkets and

warehouse retailers. Finally, with

respect to cost, we found while there is

a cost difference involved in the

additional cutting procedure required to

make a fillet from a dressed fish, that

difference alone is not significant

enough to warrant a finding that there

are two classes or kinds of merchandise.

For a more detailed discussion of our

preliminary determination with respect

to the class or kind issue, see

Memorandum from Gary Taverman to

Richard W. Moreland, Fresh Atlantic

Salmon from Chile: Issues Concerning

the Preliminary Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value (January 8,

1998) (Preliminary Determination

Memorandum).

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individual

dumping margins for each known

exporter and producer of the subject

merchandise. However, section

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the

Department discretion, when faced with

a large number of exporters/producers,

to limit its examination to a reasonable

number of such companies if it is not

practicable to examine all companies.

Where it is not practicable to examine

all known producers/exporters of

subject merchandise, this provision

permits the Department to investigate

either: (1) A sample of exporters,

producers, or types of products that is

statistically valid based on the

information available at the time of

selection, or (2) exporters and producers

accounting for the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can reasonably

be examined.

After consideration of the

complexities expected to arise in this

proceeding (including issues of model

matching, market viability, and cost of

production), and the resources available

to the Department, we determined that

it was not practicable in this

investigation to examine all known

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise. Instead, we found that

given our resources we would be able to

investigate the five producers/exporters

with the greatest export volume, as

identified above. These companies

accounted for slightly less than 50

percent of all known exports of the

subject merchandise during the POI. For

a more detailed discussion of

respondent selection in this

investigation, see Memorandum from

the Team to Richard W. Moreland,

(August 26, 1997) (Respondent

Selection Memorandum).

Product Comparisons

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act,

all products produced by the

respondents that fit the definition of the

scope of the investigation and were sold

in the comparison third-country markets

during the POI fall within the definition

of the foreign like product. We have

relied on three criteria to match U.S.

sales of subject merchandise to

comparison market sales of the foreign

like product: form, grade, and weight

band. We have determined that it is

generally not possible to match across

forms, grades, or weight bands, because

there are significant differences among

products that cannot be accounted for

by means of a difference-in-merchandise

adjustment. (The exception to this

general rule is that dressed salmon with

gills in can be compared to dressed

salmon with gills out, after making a

difference-in-merchandise adjustment.)

Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales

to comparison market sales of identical

merchandise, and have not compared

U.S. sales to comparison market sales of

similar merchandise. A detailed

description of the matching criteria, as

well as our matching methodology, is

contained in the Preliminary

Determination Memorandum.3

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of fresh

Atlantic salmon from Chile were made

in the United States at less than fair

value, we compared the export price

(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to

the normal value (NV), as described in

the Export Price and Constructed Export

Price and Normal Value sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average EPs and

CEPs for comparison to weightedaverage NVs.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

In accordance with section 772 of the

Act, we calculated either an EP or a

CEP, depending on the nature of each

sale. Section 772(a) of the Act defines

EP as the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold before the date

of importation by the exporter or

producer outside the United States to an

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser

for exportation to the United States.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as

the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold in the United

States before or after the date of

importation, by or for the account of the

producer or exporter of the

merchandise, or by a seller affiliated

with the producer or exporter, to an

unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted

under sections 772 (c) and (d) of the

Act.

Consistent with these definitions, we

have found that Aguas Claras, Mares

Australes, and Camanchaca made EP

sales during the POI. These sales are

properly classified as EP sales because

they were made by the exporter or

producer outside the United States to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to the date of importation.

We note that the Aguas Claras EP sales

were indirect (i.e., these sales were

made through an affiliated U.S. reseller

that facilitated the processing of sales

documentation).

We also found that all the

respondents made CEP sales during the

POI. Marine Harvest and Aguas Claras

made sales through an affiliated reseller

in the United States after the date of

importation. Mares Australes, Eicosal,

and Camanchaca made sales classifiable

as CEP sales because the sales were

made for the account of the producer/

exporter by an unaffiliated consignment

agent in the United States after the date

of importation.4
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2667

discussion of this issue, see Preliminary

Determination Memorandum.

5Consistent with our practice, we did not deduct

from the CEP the expenses of the unaffiliated

consignment seller, since such expenses are

effectively covered by the commission charged by

the consignment seller to the producer/exporter.

See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia;

Final Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

53287, 53295 (October 14, 1997).

In their original questionnaire

responses, Mares Australes, Eicosal, and

Camanchaca reported prices based on

the aggregated revenues reported

periodically by unaffiliated

consignment sellers. Because it is the

Department’s preference to examine

transaction-specific data wherever

possible, we requested that these three

respondents prepare a listing of all sales

made by unaffiliated consignment

sellers to their U.S. customers. See

letters from Department of Commerce to

Arnold & Porter (October 31, 1997)

(regarding sales by Eicosal and

Camanchaca), and (November 20, 1997)

(regarding sales by Mares Australes).

The respondents complied with this

request, but argued that since this data

is not normally in their possession, the

Department should instead rely on

prices calculated on the basis of the

aggregated revenues reported by the

unaffiliated consignment sellers. See

letters from Arnold & Porter to

Department of Commerce (November

18, 1997) (submitting sales data for

Eicosal and Camanchaca), and

(December 8, 1997) (submitting sales

data for Mares Australes). Given the

Department’s preference for transactionspecific data, we have relied on that

data for this preliminary determination.

For all respondents, we calculated EP

and CEP, as appropriate, based on

packed prices charged to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States. (Where sales were made through

consignment sellers, we did not

consider the consignment seller to be

the customer; rather, the relevant

customer was the consignment seller’s

customer.) We based the date of sale on

the date of the invoice issued to the U.S.

customer.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2)

of the Act, we reduced the EP and CEP

by movement expenses and export taxes

and duties, where appropriate.

Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides

for additional adjustments to the CEP.

Generally, where sales were made

through an unaffiliated consignment

seller for the account of the exporter, we

deducted commissions from the CEP.5

Where sales were made through an

affiliated reseller, we deducted direct

and indirect selling expenses that

related to commercial activity in the

United States.

Section 772(d)(3) of the Act requires

that the CEP be adjusted for the profit

allocated to the selling expenses of a

producer/exporter’s affiliated reseller.

For Marine Harvest and Aguas Claras,

which made sales through affiliated

resellers, we calculated a CEP profit

ratio following the methodology set

forth in section 772(f) of the Act.

We made company-specific

adjustments as follows:

Aguas Claras. We based EP and CEP

on delivered or C&F prices to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States. For both EP and CEP sales, we

made deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for movement

expenses including foreign inland

freight from the plant to Santiago

airport, international air freight/

insurance, and U.S. brokerage and

handling fees and port charges. We also

made deductions for post sale price

adjustments corresponding to quality

claims.

In addition, for CEP sales, we made

deductions for U.S. inland freight to the

customer, imputed credit, direct

advertising, export documentation fees,

quality control/inspection fees, and U.S.

repacking costs.

Camanchaca. We based EP on either

delivered, CIF Miami airport, or

delivered, C&F Los Angeles airport,

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. We based CEP on either

delivered to customer or delivered FOB

warehouse prices to unaffiliated

customers of the consignment seller. For

both EP and CEP sales, we made

deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for movement

expenses including foreign inland

freight from plant to Santiago airport,

international air freight, transportation

insurance from plant to final

destination, and customs export

documentation fees.

In addition, for CEP sales, we made

deductions for U.S. customs duties,

handling and warehousing fees, U.S.

inland freight from the consignee to

customer, as well as imputed credit,

direct advertising, and wire transfer

fees.

Eicosal. We based CEP on either FOB

Miami, or delivered prices to the

unaffiliated consignment seller’s

customers in the United States. We

made deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for movement

expenses including foreign inland

freight from plant to Chilean port of

exit, international air freight, Chilean

brokerage and handling fees, and U.S.

inland freight from warehouse to

customer. We also deducted post-sale

price adjustments, including quality

claims and invoicing errors; imputed

credit; direct advertising; quality

control/inspection fees; expenses for

maintaining bank accounts in the

United States for sales of the subject

merchandise; and expenses associated

with gill tags. We made an upward

adjustment to the starting price for duty

drawback.

Mares Australes. We based EP and

CEP on either ex-factory, C&F U.S. port,

or FOB Santiago prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. For both

EP and CEP sales, we made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for movement expenses

including foreign inland freight from

plant to Santiago airport, international

air freight, U.S. customs duty, U.S.

brokerage and handling, and post sale

price adjustments including quality

claims and a consignment broker’s

surcharge.

In addition, for CEP sales, we made

deductions for U.S. inland freight from

the consignee to customer, as well as for

imputed credit, direct advertising,

Chilean customs export documentation

fees, and quality control/inspection fees.

Marine Harvest. We based CEP on

FOB U.S. port and delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States. We made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

movement expenses including foreign

inland freight from plant to Santiago

airport, international air freight, U.S.

customs duty, U.S. brokerage and

handling, and post sale price

adjustments including quality claims

and rebates. In addition, we deducted

U.S. inland freight from the port to the

affiliated reseller and from the affiliated

reseller to customer, as well as indirect

selling expenses incurred by the

affiliated reseller, repacking costs,

imputed credit, inventory carrying

costs, advertising, Chilean customs fees,

quality control/inspection fees, and

Association membership fees.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs

that NV be based on the price at which

the foreign like product is sold in the

home market (or third country market),

provided that the merchandise is sold in

sufficient quantities (or value, if

quantity is inappropriate) and that there

is no particular market situation that

prevents a proper comparison with the

EP or CEP. The statute contemplates

that quantities (or value) will normally

be considered insufficient if they are

less than five percent of the aggregate
2668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

In their responses to our antidumping

questionnaires, Mares Australes and

Eicosal claimed that NV should be

based on home market sales because the

home market was viable. Marine

Harvest and Aguas Claras indicated that

their respective home markets were not

viable, and claimed that NV should

instead be based on sales to Japan and

Canada, respectively, the only viable

third-country market for each of these

companies. Camanchaca stated that it

had no viable comparison market at all,

and claimed that NV should be based on

the constructed value.

In determining the appropriate

comparison market for each respondent,

we examined several issues, as

discussed in detail in the Preliminary

Determination Memorandum. First, we

determined that Chile was not an

appropriate comparison market for

Mares Australes and Eicosal because a

particular market situation existed in

Chile. Our determination was based on

record evidence indicating that this

market involves almost exclusively

‘‘industrial’’ or ‘‘off-quality’’ grades sold

directly from the factory depending on

availability. Since the Chilean market is

incidental to the respondents, it is not

appropriate for comparison with the

U.S. market, which is one of the

respondents’ primary marketing targets

and which involves sales of primarily

high-grade ‘‘premium’’ salmon made

through distributors.

After rejecting the use of the home

market for Mares Australes and Eicosal,

we determined that Japan is the

appropriate comparison market for

Mares Australes, Eicosal, and Marine

Harvest. In making this determination,

we rejected a contention by Mares

Australes and Eicosal that, by the logic

of the Department’s decision to reject

the home market, the Department

should also find that Japan presents a

particular market situation. We

determined that the Japanese market,

unlike the home market, is not

incidental to the respondents. Sales to

that market involve export-quality

merchandise which, while often

different in grade from merchandise

sold in the United States, is not so

different as to render the Japanese

market as a whole an unsuitable basis

for NV. By contrast, as explained above,

the merchandise sold in the home

market involved a relatively small

volume of merchandise that was not of

export-quality. Further, we note that the

Department’s decision to reject the use

of the home market was predicated in

part on the manner in which the foreign

like product is sold in that market. Sales

in Chile are made directly from the

respondents’ processing facilities, with

no guarantee of quality, on an ‘‘as

available’’ basis. By contrast, sales to

both the United States and Japan

involve much more elaborate

distribution systems, which are

designed to ensure customer

satisfaction. In view of these

considerations, we determined that

Japan could serve as a proper market on

which to base NV.

We note that for Eicosal and Marine

Harvest, we were unable to find any

appropriate price-to-price comparisons

based on sales to Japan for this

preliminary determination.

Accordingly, for these companies we

compared all U.S. sales to constructed

value (CV), i.e., the cost of the

merchandise sold in the United States

as if it were sold in Japan. However, for

Mares Australes we were able to make

price-to-price comparisons for some

U.S. sales.

For Aguas Claras, we determined that

the appropriate comparison market is

Canada. For this company, we were able

to find appropriate price-based NV

matches for some U.S. sales; for the

others, we resorted to CV. Finally, we

based NV for Camanchaca entirely on

CV, as that company did not have a

viable comparison market.

Adjustments made in deriving the

NVs for each company are described in

detail in Calculation of Normal Value

Based on Third-Country Prices and

Calculation of Normal Value Based on

Constructed Value, below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

We tested whether comparison market

sales were made below cost for all

respondents except Camanchaca, which

did not have a viable comparison

market. Although Eicosal and Marine

Harvest did not have comparison market

sales of comparable merchandise during

the POI, we performed a cost analysis

based upon the petitioners’ timely cost

allegation for purposes of determining

the proper basis for calculation of profit

for CV.

Based on an allegation contained in

the petition, we found reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of fresh Atlantic salmon made in Japan

and Brazil were made at prices below

the cost of production (COP). See

Initiation Notice, 62 FR at 37029, and

Memorandum from the Team to Richard

Moreland, (July 1, 1997) (Initiation

Checklist), at 10. In addition, based on

a timely allegation filed by the

petitioners on October 6, 1997, the

Department found reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales made by

Aguas Claras in Canada were made at

prices below the COP. See

Memorandum from the Team to Richard

Moreland, Regarding Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of

Production for Aguas Claras (October

21, 1997). As a result, the Department

has conducted investigations to

determine whether the respondents

made sales in their respective thirdcountry markets at prices below their

respective COPs during the POI within

the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

1. Calculation of COP. In accordance

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we

calculated a weighted-average COP for

each form of fresh Atlantic salmon,

based on the sum of the cost of

materials, fabrication and general

expenses, and packing costs. We relied

on the COP data submitted by each

respondent in its supplementary cost

questionnaire response, except, as

discussed below, in specific instances

where the submitted costs were not

appropriately quantified or valued.

Aguas Claras. We revised Aguas

Claras’ financial expenses to exclude an

offset for accounts receivables and

finished goods inventory.

Camanchaca. We revised

Camanchaca’s financial expenses to

reflect the ratio of net financial expenses

to cost of goods sold, consistent with

our general practice in the calculation of

financial expenses.

Eicosal. We recalculated Eicosal’s net

financial expense on the basis of the

consolidated financial expenses of

Eicosal’s parent company, Sociedad

Pesquera Eicosal S.A. We also

recalculated Eicosal’s general &

administrative (G&A) expenses to

exclude an affiliated company’s G&A

expenses.

Mares Australes. We revised Mares

Australes’ financial expenses to exclude

an offset for accounts receivables and

finished goods inventory. We also

rejected Mares Australes’ claim that the

calculation of costs should not include

the costs associated with a particular

group of salmon that had reached sexual

maturation prior to harvesting (i.e.,

salmon that had reached a ‘‘grilse’’

stage), because we found that the

respondent did not adequately support

its claim that this is an unusual, isolated

event. We relied on the average cost to

produce all groups of salmon sold

during the POI.

Marine Harvest. We increased the

reported cost of eggs and feed purchased

from affiliated parties to reflect the

difference between transfer prices and

market prices, since the transfer prices

were below market prices.

2. Test of Third-Country Comparison

Market Sales Prices. We compared the

adjusted weighted-average COP for each
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2669

6 In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the

Act, we determined that sales made at below the

COP were made in substantial quantities if the

volume of such sales represented 20 percent or

more of the volume of sales under consideration for

the determination of normal value. We note that on

December 18, 1997, the respondents submitted a

letter arguing that fresh Atlantic salmon is a highly

perishable product and that the Department should

not use the 20-percent ‘‘substantial quantities’’ test,

but instead apply the test set forth by section

773(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act (which compares the

average sales price to the average unit cost for the

period). Because the respondents did not raise their

argument until shortly before the issuance of this

preliminary determination, we have not had an

adequate opportunity to consider it. We have

therefore relied on the standard 20 percent test,

which has been used in past investigations

involving salmon. See Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic

Salmon from Norway 56 FR 7661 (February 25,

1991). However, we intend to examine this issue

further for the final determination of this

investigation.

respondent to the third-country

comparison market sales of the foreign

like product as required under section

773(b) of the Act (except for

Camanchaca, which had no viable

comparison market), in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at prices below the COP within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities,6 and whether such prices

were sufficient to permit the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the revised COP to the thirdcountry comparison market prices, less

any applicable movement charges,

taxes, rebates, commissions and other

direct and indirect selling expenses.

3. Results of the COP Test. After

performing the COP test, we determined

that Aguas Claras, Eicosal, Marine

Harvest, and Mares Australes made

third-country comparison market sales

of certain products at prices below the

COP, within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities. Further, we

found that the sales prices did not

permit for the recovery of costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis.

For Aguas Claras and Mares

Australes, which had sales of

comparable merchandise during the

POI, we did not conduct price-to-price

comparisons where all sales of a

particular product were made at prices

below the COP. Instead, we based NV

on CV, and calculated profit for CV on

the basis of third-country sales that did

not fail the cost test. See Calculation of

Normal Value Based on Constructed

Value, below. For Marine Harvest and

Eicosal, which had no sales of

comparable merchandise in the thirdcountry market that would permit priceto-price comparisons, the finding of

sales below cost affected only the

calculation of profit for CV, inasmuch as

profit for these companies was based

only on third-country sales that did not

fail the cost test.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Third-Country Prices

We performed price-to-price

comparisons where there were sales of

comparable merchandise in the thirdcountry market that did not fail the cost

test. Such comparisons were possible

only for Aguas Claras and Mares

Australes.

Aguas Claras. We calculated NV

based on delivered or C&F prices, and

made deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for movement

expenses including inland freight and

insurance from the plant to the Chilean

airport, international air freight and

insurance, customs export

documentation fee, and U.S. brokerage

and handling fees. We also adjusted the

starting price for quality claims. In

addition, we made circumstance of sale

(COS) adjustments for direct expenses,

where appropriate, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

included imputed credit expenses and

quality control/inspection fees. In

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

and (B) of the Act, we deducted third

country market packing costs and added

U.S. packing costs.

As discussed in the Level of Trade/

CEP Offset section of this notice below,

we preliminarily determined that it was

appropriate to make a CEP offset to NV.

Mares Australes. We calculated NV

based on C&F Japanese port or FOB

Santiago prices to unaffiliated

customers and made deductions, where

appropriate, from the starting price for

inland freight from the plant to Santiago

airport and international air freight. We

adjusted for COS differences in imputed

credit expenses, quality control/

inspection fees, Chilean customs export

document fees, repacking costs, and

direct advertising expenses.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Constructed Value

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides

that where NV cannot be based on

comparison market sales, NV may be

based on CV. Accordingly, for those

fresh Atlantic salmon products for

which we could not determine the NV

based on comparison market sales,

either because (1) there were no sales of

a comparable product (as was the case

for Eicosal, Marine Harvest, and

Camanchaca) or (2) all sales of the

comparison product failed the COP test

(as was the case for Aguas Claras and

Mares Australes, with respect to certain

products), we based NV on CV.

Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides

that CV shall be based on the sum of the

cost of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

selling, general, and administrative

expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S.

packing costs. For each respondent, we

calculated the cost of materials and

fabrication based on the methodology

described in the Calculation of COP

section of this notice, above. Except for

Camanchaca, for every respondent we

based SG&A and profit on the actual

amounts incurred and realized by the

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the comparison

market, in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Because there is

no viable comparison market for

Camanchaca, and hence no actual

company-specific profit and SG&A data

available for Camanchaca, we calculated

profit and indirect selling expenses in

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)

of the Act and the SAA at 841.

Specifically, the SAA at 841 provides

that where, due to the absence of data,

the Department cannot determine

amounts for profit under alternatives (i)

or (ii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act

or a ‘‘profit cap’’ under alternative (iii)

of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the

Department may apply alternative (iii)

on the basis of the facts available. In this

case, we are unable to determine an

amount for profit under alternatives (i)

or (ii) or a profit cap under alternative

(iii) because none of the respondents

have viable home markets. See 19 CFR

405(b)(2) of the Department’s revised

regulations (clarifying that under

section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, ‘‘foreign

country’’ means the country in which

the merchandise is produced), (62 FR

27296, 27412–13 (May 19, 1997)). As a

result, we are applying alternative (iii)

on the basis of the facts available

consistent with the SAA. As facts

available, we calculated Camanchaca’s

profit and indirect selling expenses

based on the weighted-average actual

profit and indirect selling expenses of

the other respondents in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in their

respective comparison markets.

In addition, for each respondent we

used U.S. packing costs as described in

the Export Price and Constructed Export

Price section of this notice, above.

We made adjustments to CV for

differences in COS in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56. For comparisons to EP, we made
2670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

COS adjustments by deducting direct

selling expenses incurred on thirdcountry market sales and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses

incurred on third-country market sales

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses

except those deducted from the starting

price in calculating CEP pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for

indirect selling expenses incurred on

third-country market sales to offset U.S.

commissions in EP and CEP

comparisons; specifically, we deducted

from NV the lesser of (1) the amount of

commission paid on a U.S. sale for a

particular product, or (2) the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

the third-country market sales for a

particular product.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

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 EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive SG&A 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 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 investigation, we obtained

information from each respondent about

the marketing stage involved in the

reported U.S. and third-country market

sales, including a description of the

selling activities performed by the

respondents for each channel of

distribution. In identifying levels of

trade for EP and third-country market

sales we considered the selling

functions reflected in the starting price

before any adjustments. For CEP sales,

we considered only the selling activities

reflected in the price after the deduction

of expenses and profit under section

772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if

claimed levels of trade are the same, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party

claims that levels of trade are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar.

For Mares Australes and Eicosal, we

found one level of trade in Japan and

one level of trade in the United States,

between which there were no significant

differences. Other than expenses related

to movement, these companies

performed few or no selling functions.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that these companies’ Japanese levels of

trade constitute neither more or less

advanced stages of distribution than the

levels of trade found in the United

States at the levels of trade of the CEP.

Accordingly, no adjustment for

differences in levels of trade is

warranted for either company.

For both Aguas Claras and Marine

Harvest, we found that there is one level

of trade for sales to Canada and Japan,

respectively, and one level of trade for

sales to the United States. As explained

below, we also preliminarily determine

that these companies’ comparison

market sales are made at a more advance

level of trade than that of the CEP.

Aguas Claras makes all sales to

Canada and all CEP sales to the United

States through its affiliated consignee,

Bowrain Corp. Information on the

record indicates that Bowrain performs

the same services with respect to both

groups of sales, including identifying

customers, arranging for handling and

storage, and sales support to the final

customer. As noted above, for CEP sales,

we consider only the selling activities

reflected in the price after the deduction

of expenses and profit under section

772(d) of the Act. Thus, the level of

trade of Aguas Claras’ Canadian sales

involves substantially more selling

functions (those performed by Bowrain)

than the level of trade of the CEP. We

also note that the level of trade of

Canadian sales differs from that of the

CEP with respect to customer class:

Canadian sales by Bowrain Corp. are to

Canadian distributors, retailers,

restaurants, and further processors; the

customer at the CEP level of trade is

Aguas Claras’ reseller, Bowrain Corp. In

light of these facts, we have determined

that Aguas Claras’ Canadian sales are

made at a different, and more advanced,

stage of marketing than the level of trade

of the CEP. Aguas Claras also made

indirect EP sales to the United States

that are at a level of trade in the United

States that is not substantially different

from that of the level of trade of the

CEP.

Similarly, Marine Harvest’s

comparison market sales are made at a

more advanced stage of marketing than

its CEP sales. Marine Harvest sells in

Japan to a trading company that

subsequently sells to processors and

fishmongers through layers of

wholesalers. The respondent maintains

a sales office in Japan (Marine Harvest

Japan) that coordinates with the trading

company. Marine Harvest Japan sets

prices and establishes order quantities

with the trading company’s primary

wholesaler, coordinating the terms and

conditions of the sale with the trading

company. Marine Harvest Japan also

assists in marketing salmon by

accompanying the primary wholesaler

on sales trips to secondary wholesalers

and by working directly with the

secondary wholesaler’s customers.

Further, Marine Harvest Japan provides

after-sales service and quality claims.

For CEP sales to its affiliated consignee

in the United States, Marine Harvest

performs few or no selling functions

other than services related to movement

of merchandise. Thus, Marine Harvest

performs fewer selling functions for

sales to the United States, at a different

stage of marketing. We therefore

preliminarily determine that Marine

Harvest’s sales to Japan are at a more

advanced level of trade than the level of

trade of the CEP.

Accordingly, for Aguas Claras and

Marine Harvest, a level-of-trade

adjustment is appropriate. However,

neither company sells salmon or any

other product at any other level of trade

in their comparison markets than that of

their fresh Atlantic salmon sales.

Therefore, because the data available do

not permit a determination that there is

a pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at different levels of trade

in the comparison markets, section

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

offset to be made to NV. We granted

such an offset equal to the amount of

indirect expenses incurred in the

comparison markets, but not exceeding

the amount of the deductions made

from the U.S. price in accordance with

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. For Aguas
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2671

Claras, we made no LOT adjustment for

comparisons to EP.

Finally, with respect to Camanchaca,

we did not perform a level-of-trade

analysis because this company does not

have a viable comparison market.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the

Act. The Department’s preferred source

for daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank

publishes daily exchange rates for

Japanese yen, but not for Chilean pesos.

For purposes of the preliminary results,

we made conversions of figures

denominated in Japanese yen based on

the official exchange rates published by

the Federal Reserve. For conversions of

figures involving Chilean pesos, we

relied instead on daily exchange rates

published by Dow Jones News/Retrieval

on-line system.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify 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

entries of fresh Atlantic salmon from

Chile, except for subject merchandise

produced and exported by Camanchaca,

Mares Australes, and Marine Harvest

(which have de minimis weightedaverage margins), that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We are also instructing the

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP or CEP, as

indicated in the chart below. These

instructions suspending liquidation will

remain in effect until further notice. We

note that, as stated in the Case History

section of the notice above, we have

extended the provisional measures from

four months to no more than six

months.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Aguas Claras ............................ 3.31

Eicosal ...................................... 8.27

Camanchaca ............................. 0.18

Mares Australes ........................ 1.21

Marine Harvest ......................... 1.87

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

All Others .................................. 5.79

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act directs

the Department to exclude all zero and

de minimis weighted-average dumping

margins, as well as dumping margins

determined entirely under facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

from the calculation of the ‘‘all others’’

rate. We have excluded the de minimis

dumping margins for Camanchaca,

Mares Australes, and Marine Harvest

from the calculation of the ‘‘all others’’

rate. No dumping margins were based

entirely on facts available.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs must be submitted to the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than April 13,

1998. Rebuttal briefs will be due no later

than April 20, 1998. A list of authorities

used, a table of contents, and an

executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made,

the hearing will tentatively be held on

Monday, April 28, 1998, at 8:30 A.M.,

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 within ten days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide 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 date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: January 8, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1164 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 21,

1998, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers,

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

Bicycle Helmets

The staff will brief the Commission on

options for a final safety standard for

bicycle helmets.

For a recorded message containing the

latest agenda information, call (301)

504–0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of

the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway,

Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504–0800.

Dated: January 14, 1998.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1287 Filed 1–14–98; 2:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Friday, January 23, 1998,

10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers,

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.