30710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade, based on the information

provided by Makita in response to our

antidumping questionnaire. We have

implemented the Court’s decision in

this case to the extent that the data on

the record permitted.

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

NV when there were no usable sales of

the foreign like product in Japan. We

calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials and fabrication,

SG&A expenses, and profit. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the actual amounts incurred

and realized by Makita in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in

Japan. We used the weighted-average

home market selling expenses.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for

differences in the circumstances of sale

(COS). We made COS adjustments by

deducting home direct selling expenses

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.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period June 30,

1996, through July 1, 1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Makita Corporation ................... 0.09

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Issues

raised in the hearing will be limited to

those raised in the case briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may

be submitted not later than 5 days

thereafter. The Department will publish

the final results of this administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the Customs Service not to

assess antidumping duties on the

merchandise subject to review. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Upon issuance of the final results of

this review, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We will

calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate 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 CEP, by the total statutory CEP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between CEP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.

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

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will

be the rate established in the final

results of this review, except that no

deposit will be required for Makita if we

find zero or de minimis margins, i.e.,

margins less than 0.5 percent; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit 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 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; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 54.52

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, 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 administrative review and notice

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

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

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221. This

determination is issued and published

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)

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

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15040 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–816]

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: 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 a request from

respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.,

Ltd. (Ta Chen), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan. This review covers one

manufacturer and exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(POR) is June 1, 1996, through May 31,

1997.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30711

antidumping duties based on the

difference between export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert James or John Kugelman,

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–5222 and (202)

482–0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

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),

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department) regulations are to the

provisions codified at 19 CFR part 353

(April 1997). Where appropriate,

references may be made to the

Department’s new regulations (62 FR

27296), not in effect for this review, as

a statement of current departmental

practice.

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on certain stainless steel butt-weld

pipe fittings from Taiwan on June 16,

1993 (58 FR 33250). On June 11, 1997,

we published in the Federal Register

(62 FR 31786) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan covering the period June 1,

1996, through May 31, 1997.

On June 30, 1997, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.22(a)(2), Ta Chen requested

that we conduct an administrative

review for the aforementioned period.

On August 1, 1997, the Department

published a notice of ‘‘Initiation of

Antidumping Review’’ (62 FR 41339).

The Department issued an antidumping

questionnaire and supplemental

questionnaire to Ta Chen, which

responded. No parties submitted

comments to the Department regarding

questionnaire responses.

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

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On February 25, 1998, the

Department extended the time limits for

these preliminary results to May 31,

1998 in accordance with the Act. See

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings from Taiwan; Extension of Time

Limits for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (63 FR 13031,

March 17, 1998).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products subject to this

investigation are certain stainless steel

butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished

or unfinished, under 14 inches inside

diameter.

Certain welded stainless steel buttweld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) are

used to connect pipe sections in piping

systems where conditions require

welded connections. The subject

merchandise is used where one or more

of the following conditions is a factor in

designing the piping system: (1)

Corrosion of the piping system will

occur if material other than stainless

steel is used; (2) contamination of the

material in the system by the system

itself must be prevented; (3) high

temperatures are present; (4) extreme

low temperatures are present; (5) high

pressures are contained within the

system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of

shapes, with the following five shapes

the most basic: ‘‘elbows’’, ‘‘tees’’,

‘‘reducers’’, ‘‘stub ends’’, and ‘‘caps’’.

The edges of finished pipe fittings are

beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted

fittings are excluded from these

investigations. The pipe fittings subject

to these investigations are classifiable

under subheading 7307.23.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these investigations is

dispositive.

Pipe fittings manufactured to

American Society of Testing and

Materials specification A774 are

included in the scope of this order.

The POR is June 1, 1996 through May

31, 1997. This review covers sales of

certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Taiwan by Ta Chen.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in

public versions of the verification

reports, available to the public in Room

B–099 of the main Commerce Building.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise by respondent to the

United States were made at below NV,

we compared, where appropriate, the EP

and CEP to the NV, as described below.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we

compared the EPs or CEPs of individual

U.S. transactions to the monthly

weighted-average NV of the foreign like

product where there were sales at prices

above the cost of production (COP), as

discussed in the Cost of Production

Analysis section, below.

Export Price

We calculated the price of certain of

Ta Chen’s United States sales based on

EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, when the subject merchandise

was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States prior to the date of

importation and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of the

record.

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for movement

expenses, which included foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, international freight, marine

insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S.

brokerage and handling, and U.S.

Customs duties. We also made

deductions for discounts. See

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum

(Analysis Memo), June 1, 1998, at 6–7

and 8–9.

Constructed Export Price

We calculated the price of Ta Chen’s

remaining United States sales based on

CEP, in accordance with section 772(b)

of the Act, when the subject

merchandise was sold in the United

States to unaffiliated customers. In this

review all of Ta Chen’s CEP sales were

made after importation (i.e., the sales

were made from TCI’s warehouse

locations in California and Texas).

We calculated CEP based on FOB or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we deducted discounts.

Also where appropriate, in accordance
30712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

with section 772(d)(1), the Department

deducted commissions and direct

selling expenses from the starting price.

We deducted those indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs, which related to commercial

activity in the United States. We also

made deductions for movement

expenses, which include foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, marine insurance,

U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and

handling, and U.S. Customs duties.

Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of

the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP

profit. See Analysis Memo at 7–8 and 9–

11.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home-market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the home

market is viable as a basis for

calculating NV. We determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section

773(a)(1) of the Act because Ta Chen

had sales in Taiwan which were greater

than five percent of its sales in the U.S.

market. Therefore, in accordance with

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

based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities, in the

ordinary course of trade, and, to the

extent practicable, at the same level of

trade.

We calculated NV based on packed,

FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in Taiwan. We made

adjustments for differences in packing

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

of the Act. We also made adjustments,

where appropriate, for movement

expenses consistent with section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act; these included

inland freight from plant to customer. In

addition, we made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for

differences in circumstances of sale

(COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56. We made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses

incurred for home market sales (i.e.

credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses (i.e. credit expenses

and bank charges).

Cost of Production Analysis

In the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation of Ta Chen (the

most recently-completed segment of this

proceeding at the time of our initiation

of this administrative review) we

disregarded sales found to be below the

COP. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the

Department has reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales below the

COP may have occurred during this

review period. Thus, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of Ta Chen in the instant

review.

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated COP on a product

specific basis, based on the sum of the

respondent’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for home-market selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), and packing costs in

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

Act.

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

We used the respondent’s weightedaverage COP for the period June 1996 to

May 1997. We compared the weightedaverage COP figures to home-market

prices 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 such

sales had been made at prices below the

COP within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities, and such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

the home-market prices (not including

VAT), less any applicable movement

charges and discounts.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

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 the respondent’s

sales of a given product were at prices

below the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales of that model because

such sales were found to be made

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act, and because the below cost sales of

the product were at prices which would

not permit recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time, in

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

the Act. Where all contemporaneous

sales of comparable products were made

at prices below the COP, we calculated

NV based on CV, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

The results of our cost test for Ta

Chen indicated that for certain home

market models less than twenty percent

of the sales of the model were at prices

below COP. We therefore retained all

sales of these models in our analysis

and used them as the basis for

determining NV. Our cost test for Ta

Chen also indicated that for certain

other home market models more than

twenty percent of the home market sales

within an extended period of time were

at prices below COP and would not

permit the full recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. In

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act, we therefore excluded the belowcost sales of these models from our

analysis and used the remaining abovecost sales as the basis for determining

NV.

Constructed Value

For Ta Chen’s products for which we

could not determine the NV based on

comparison market sales because there

were no contemporaneous sales of a

comparable product, we compared U.S.

prices to constructed value (CV), in

accordance with Cemex v. United

States, 133 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

(Cemex), as discussed below.

On January 8, 1998, the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the

Court) issued its decision in Cemex. In

that case, which involved a

determination by the Department under

pre-URAA law, the Court discussed the

appropriateness of using CV as the basis

for foreign market value when the

Department finds home market sales to

be outside the ordinary course of trade.

However, the URAA amended the

definition of sales outside the ordinary

course of trade to include sales below

cost. See section 771(15) of the Act.

Consequently, the Department has

reconsidered its practice in light of this

court decision and has determined that

it would be inappropriate to resort

directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market

sales, as the basis for NV when the

Department finds foreign market sales of

merchandise identical or most similar to

that sold in the United States to be

outside the ordinary course of trade.

Instead, the Department will use sales of

similar merchandise, if such sales exist.

The Department will use CV as the basis

for NV only when there are no abovecost sales that are otherwise suitable for

comparison. Therefore, in this
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30713

proceeding, when making comparisons

we considered all products sold in the

home market, in accordance with

section 771(16) of the Act that were in

the ordinary course of trade for

purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market made

in the ordinary course of trade to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

model-matching characteristics listed in

Sections B and C of our antidumping

questionnaire. Therefore, we have

implemented the Court’s decision in

this case, to the extent that the data on

the record permitted.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of the COM of the product sold

in the United States, plus amounts for

home market SG&A expenses, and profit

and U.S. packing costs. We calculated

CV based on the methodology described

in the ‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of

this notice, above, plus an amount for

profit. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by Ta

Chen in connection with the production

and sale of the foreign like product, in

the ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country to

calculate SG&A expenses and profit.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

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

CFR 353.56 for COS differences. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market sales

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

For comparisons to CEP, we made

deductions for direct selling expenses

incurred on home market sales.

Differences in 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 EP or

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 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 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 (November 19, 1997).

In its questionnaire responses Ta

Chen stated that there were no

differences in its selling functions by

channels of marketing within each

market. In order to confirm

independently the absence of separate

levels of trade within or between the

U.S. and home markets, we examined

Ta Chen’s questionnaire responses for

indications that its functions as a seller

differed qualitatively and quantitatively

among customer categories. See

commentary to section 351.412 of the

Department’s new regulations (62 FR

27371).

Ta Chen reported two channels of

distribution in the home market (to

distributors and to end-users) and a

single channel of distribution in the

United States (to distributors). Upon

review, we have determined

preliminarily that Ta Chen performed

the same selling functions for its home

market and U.S. customers, irrespective

of distribution channel. Pursuant to

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

consider the selling functions reflected

in the starting price of home-market and

EP sales, and those reflected in the CEP

after the deductions pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act. Our analysis of the

questionnaire responses leads us to

conclude that sales within or between

each market are not made at different

levels of trade. Accordingly, we

preliminarily find that all sales in the

home market and the U.S. market were

made at the same level of trade.

Therefore, all price comparisons are at

the same level of trade and an

adjustment pursuant to section

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

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

published by the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in effect on the date of

sale of subject merchandise in order to

convert foreign currencies into U.S.

dollars, unless the daily rate involves a

‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance with the

Department’s practice, we have

determined, as a general matter, that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review (61 FR

8915, 8918, March 6, 1996) and Policy

Bulletin 96–1: Currency Conversions, 61

FR 9434, March 8, 1996. The benchmark

is defined as the rolling average of rates

for the past 40 business days. When we

determined a fluctuation existed, we

substituted the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period June 1,

1996, through May 30, 1997:

CERTAIN STAINLESS STEEL BUTTWELD PIPE FITTINGS FROM TAIWAN

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

Ta Chen .................................... 1.19

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first business day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Parties who

submit case 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.
30714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

The Department will publish a notice

of the final results of the administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any such written briefs or at a

hearing, if held, not later than 120 days

after the date of publication of this

notice.

The Department shall determine and

the Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by this review and for future

deposits of estimated duties. For duty

assessment purposes, we calculated an

importer-specific assessment rate by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales to each

importer and dividing this amount by

the total entered value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR for

each importer.

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

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

rate for Ta Chen will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in these

reviews but covered in a previous

segment of this proceeding, the cash

deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent segment; (3) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, a prior

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; and (4) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in this or any prior review,

the cash deposit rate will be 51.01

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation. These

deposit requirements, 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

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 determination

is issued and published in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22(c)(5).

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15041 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Foreign Fishing Vessel Identification

Requirements

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before August 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington

DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Bob Dickinson, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, International

Fisheries Division, 1315 East West

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland

20910, (301) 713–2337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

Under provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et

seq.), NOAA is responsible for

management of the Nation’s marine

fisheries. As part of its efforts to enforce

fishery regulations, NOAA has included

in some of those regulations

requirements that fishing vessels

display vessel identification in a

specific way. The display of vessel

identification assists law enforcement

officials in monitoring fishing and other

activities and to ascertain whether the

vessel is participating in activities

authorized for that vessel.

NOAA has previously received

Paperwork Reduction Act clearance for

all of its vessel identification

requirements under one Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) control

number, 0648–0306, but for internal

management reasons NOAA intends

that future clearances will be obtained

on a regional or fishery basis. This

notice is for requirements imposed on

foreign fishing vessels authorized to

conduct fishing activities in U.S. waters

under Section 204 of the MagnusonStevens Act.

II. Method of Collection

Each foreign fishing vessel assigned

an international radio call sign must

display that call sign in a specified size

on the port and starboard sides of the

deckhouse and on a weather deck.

III. Data

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business and other

for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20.

Estimated Time Per Response: 45

minutes (15 minutes each for 3 specified

locations).

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 15.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to

Public: $400.00.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.