3704 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices

firm to Cheil Synthetics Inc., (Cheil) and

whether the revocation issued or Cheil

should apply to Saehan. We have now

completed that review. We have

determined that Saehan is the successor

firm to Cheil. As such, the revocation

issued for Cheil applies to Saehan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482–4475 or

Linda Ludwig at (202) 482–3833, AD/

CVD Enforcement Office Eight, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

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 by

the Uruguay Round Agreement Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

part 351 (62 FR 27296).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 29, 1997, Saehan

requested that the Department conduct

a changed circumstances administrative

review pursuant to section 751(b) of the

Tariff Act to determine whether Saehan

should properly be considered the

successor firm to Cheil and if, as such,

the revocation issued for Cheil should

apply to Saehan. Saehan also requested

the Department to publish the

preliminary results concurrently with

the notice of initiation, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). In its request,

Saehan notified the Department that on

February 28, 1997, Cheil officially

changed its corporate name to Saehan,

and despite this change in corporate

name, the management, production

facilities, supplier relationships, and

customer base of Saehan are virtually

identical to those of the former Cheil. In

support of its claim, Saehan submitted

documentary evidence demonstrating

that Saehan maintained essentially the

same management, production facilities,

supplier, and customer relationships as

Cheil. Citing the Department’s

determinations in Sugars and Syrups

from Canada; Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review, 61 FR 48885 (Sept. 17, 1996)

and Industrial Phosphoric Acid from

Israel; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Changed

Circumstances Review, 58 FR 59010

(Nov. 5, 1993), Saehan claimed that the

Department should determine that it is

the successor-in-interest to Cheil.

On November 19, 1997, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 61801) the notice of

initiation and preliminary results of its

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order of

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip from the Republic of Korea.

We have now completed this changed

circumstances review in accordance

with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act, as

amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

antidumping duty order are shipments

of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or

primed polyethylene terephthalate, film,

sheet, and strip, whether extruded or

coextruded. The films excluded from

this review are metallized films, and

other finished films that have had at

least one of their surfaces modified by

the application of a performanceenhancing resinous or inorganic layer of

more than 0.00001 inches (0.254

micrometers) thick. Roller transport

cleaning film which has at least one of

its surfaces modified by the application

of SBR latex has also been ruled as not

within the scope of the order.

PET film is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States subheading

3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this order is dispositive.

This changed circumstances

administrative review covers Saehan.

Successorship

In considering questions involving

successorship, the Department examines

several factors including, but not

limited to, changes in (1) management,

(2) production facilities, (3) supplier

relationships, and (4) customer base.

See e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from

Canada; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR

20460 (May 13, 1992). While no one or

several of these factors will necessarily

provide a dispositive indication, the

Department will generally consider the

new company to be the successor to the

previous company if its resulting

operation is essentially the same as its

predecessor. See e.g., Industrial

Phosphoric Acid from Israel, Final

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994).

Thus, if evidence demonstrates that,

with respect to the production and sale

of the subject merchandise, the new

company operates as the same entity as

the former company, the Department

will treat the successor company the

same as the predecessor for purposes of

antidumping liability, e.g., assign the

same cash deposit rate, revocation, etc.

We have examined the information

provided by Saehan in its September 29,

1997 letter and determined that Saehan

is the successor-in-interest to Cheil. The

management and organizational

structure of the former Cheil has

remained intact under Saehan, and

there have been no changes in the

production facilities, supplier

relationships, or customer base.

Therefore, we determine that Saehan

has maintained the same management,

production facilities, supplier

relationships, and customer bases as did

Cheil. Based upon the foregoing, we

determine that the July 5, 1996

revocation issued for Cheil applies to

Saehan.

Comments

Although we gave interested parties

an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results, none were

submitted.

Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review

We determine that Saehan is the

successor-in-interest Cheil, and

accordingly, the revocation issued for

Cheil applies to Saehan. We will notify

the U.S. Customs Service of our

decision and instruct Customs to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties, merchandise produced by

Saehan on or after February 28, 1997,

the date on which the corporate name

change was legally effected.

This changed circumstances review

and notice are in accordance with

section 751(b) of the Act, as amended

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

351.216.

Dated: January 16, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1805 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–PS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–811]

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods

From France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices 3705

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Imphy S.A. and Ugine-Savoie

(respondents), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel wire rods from France.

This review covers the above

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States. The

period of review (POR) is January 1,

1996 through December 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine that

respondents sold subject merchandise at

less than normal value (NV) during the

POR. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of this

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

the export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) and the NV.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) A statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief (no longer than five

pages, including footnotes) summary of

the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Bolling or Stephen Jacques, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3434 or

(202) 482–1391, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 353 (1997).

Background

On December 29, 1993, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 68865) the final

affirmative antidumping duty

determination on certain stainless steel

wire rods from France, and published

an amended final determination and

antidumping duty order on January 28,

1994. On January 14, 1997, the

Department published the Opportunity

to Request an Administrative Review of

this order for the period January 1,

1996–December 31, 1996 (62 FR 1874).

The Department received a request for

an administrative review from Imphy,

S.A. (‘‘Imphy’’) and Ugine-Savoie

(‘‘Ugine’’), affiliated producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise, on

January 29, 1997. We published a notice

of initiation of the review on March 3,

1997 (62 FR 9413).

The Department is now conducting

this review in accordance with section

751 of the Act. The review covers sales

of certain stainless steel wire rods by

Imphy, Ugine, and their affiliated

companies, Metalimphy Alloys Corp.

(‘‘MAC’’), and Techalloy Company, Inc.

(‘‘Techalloy’’).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are certain

stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) products

which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled

annealed, and/or pickled rounds,

squares, octagons, hexagons, or other

shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy

steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or

more of chromium, with or without

other elements. These products are only

manufactured by hot-rolling, are

normally sold in coiled form, and are of

solid cross section. The majority of

SSWR sold in the United States is round

in cross-sectional shape, annealed, and

pickled. The most common size is 5.5

millimeters in diameter.

The SSWR subject to this review is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030,

7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045,

7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and

7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondents, covered

by the description in the Scope of the

Review section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

most similar foreign like product on the

basis of the characteristics listed in

Appendix III of the Department’s March

24, 1997 antidumping questionnaire. In

making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on

the physical characteristics reported by

the respondents.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price and

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these to

individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

We used EP, in accordance with

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

where the subject merchandise was sold

directly or indirectly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation because CEP

was not otherwise warranted based on

the facts of record. In addition, we used

CEP in accordance with subsections 772

(b), (c) and (d) of the Act, for those sales

to the first unaffiliated purchaser that

took place after importation into the

United States.

We made adjustments as follows:

We calculated EP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for discounts, foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. brokerage and handling, marine

insurance and U.S. Customs duties. We

also adjusted the starting price for

billing adjustments to the invoice price.

We calculated CEP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated customers. Where

appropriate, we made deductions for

early payment discounts, credit

expenses, warranty expenses, other

direct selling expenses and

commissions. We deducted those

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs and product

liability premiums, that related to

commercial activity in the United

States. We also made deductions for

foreign brokerage and handling, foreign

inland freight, international freight, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. brokerage and

handling, marine insurance, U.S.

repacking expenses and U.S. Customs

duties. We also adjusted the starting

price for billing adjustments to the

invoice price and for interest revenue.

Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP

profit in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.
3706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices

The Department has recalculated

credit expenses for those sales with

missing payment dates. For sales with

missing payment dates, the Department

set the date of payment to the projected

final results date.

Further Manufacturing

For products that were further

manufactured after importation, we

adjusted for all costs of further

manufacturing in the United States, and

the proportional amount of profit

allocated to such costs. In accordance

with section 772(f) of the Act, we

computed profit based on total revenues

realized on sales in both the U.S. and

home markets, less all expenses

associated with those sales. We then

allocated profit to expenses incurred

with respect to U.S. economic activity

(including further manufacturing costs),

based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses

to total expenses for both the U.S. and

home market.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

respondents’ volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since

respondents’ aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable.

Therefore, we have based NV on home

market sales.

Where appropriate, we deducted

discounts, credit expenses, warranty

expenses, inland freight and inland

insurance. We also adjusted the starting

price for billing adjustments to the

invoice price and interest revenue. We

did not adjust the starting price for

commissions in the home market

(please see the Concurrence

Memorandum for a discussion of this

issue).

For reasons discussed below in the

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section, we allowed a

CEP offset for comparisons made at

different levels of trade. To calculate the

CEP offset, we deducted the home

market indirect selling expenses from

normal value, on home market sales

which were compared to U.S. CEP sales.

We limited the home market indirect

selling expense deduction by the

amount of the indirect selling expenses

deducted in calculating the CEP under

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In

addition, in accordance with section

773(a)(6) (A) and (B), we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in EP and CEP

comparisons.

The Department has recalculated

credit expenses for those home market

sales with missing payment and

shipment dates. For sales with missing

payment dates, the Department

calculated payment date based on the

average time period between invoice

date and shipment date for those sales

where both invoice date and shipment

date appeared in the database. For sales

with missing shipment dates, the

Department calculated shipment date

based on the average time period

between invoice date and shipment date

for those sales where both invoice date

and shipment date appeared in the

database.

Price to CV Comparisons

When we based NV on CV, we

calculated CV in the manner described

below. See ‘‘Cost of Production

Analysis’’ section. Where we compared

CV to EP, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the U.S.

direct selling expenses.

Cost of Production Analysis

We had reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that sales of the foreign like

product under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the COP

because the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production (COP)

in the second administrative review (see

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France,

62 FR 7206 (February 18, 1997)).

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

of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by respondents in

the home market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product plus selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and all costs and expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment. In

our COP analysis, we used the home

market sales and COP information

provided by respondents in their

questionnaire responses.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of SSWR

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COPs to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of

respondents’ sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time.

Where 20 percent or more of

respondents’ sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because they (1) were made within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities in accordance

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

Act, and (2) based on comparisons of

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, 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.

Based on this test, we disregarded

certain below-cost sales in these

preliminary results.

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 the

comparison market. 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 amounts

incurred and realized by the

respondents in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home market selling

expenses.

Arm’s-Length Sales

Sales to affiliated customers in the

home market not made at arm’s length

were excluded from our analysis. To test

whether these sales were made at arm’s

length, we compared the starting prices

of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated

customers net of all movement charges,

direct selling expenses, discounts and

packing. Where prices to the related

party were on average 99.5 percent or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices 3707

more of the price to the unrelated party,

we determined that sales made to the

related party were at arm’s-length.

Where no related customer ratio could

be constructed because identical

merchandise was not sold to unrelated

customers, we were unable to determine

that these sales were made at arm’s

length and, therefore, excluded them

from our analysis. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Argentina, (58

FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993)). Where

the exclusion of such sales eliminated

all sales of the most appropriate

comparison product, we made

comparison to the next most similar

model.

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

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

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ For

these preliminary results of review, we

have determined that a fluctuation

exists when the daily exchange rate

differs from a benchmark by 2.25

percent. The benchmark is defined as

the rolling average of rates for the past

40 business days. Therefore, when we

determine a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate. (For a detailed explanation, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions, 61 FR 9434, March 8,

1996).

Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(b) of the Act, to 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 (‘‘CV’’), that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

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

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

exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

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

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

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

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

about the selling activities of the

producers/exporters associated with

each phase of marketing or the

equivalent. We asked respondents to

identify the specific differences and

similarities in selling functions and/or

support services between all phases of

marketing in the home market and the

United States.

In reviewing the selling functions

reported by the respondents, we

examined all types of selling functions

and activities reported in respondents’

questionnaire response on LOT. In

analyzing whether separate LOT existed

in this review, we found that no single

selling function was sufficient to

warrant a separate LOT in the home

market (see Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Proposed Rule,

(Proposed Regulations), 61 FR 7308,

7348).

In determining whether separate

levels of trade existed in or between the

U.S. and home market, the Department

considered the LOT claims of

respondents. To test the claimed LOT,

we analyzed, inter alia, the selling

activities associated with the phases of

marketing respondents reported. For the

home market, respondents reported one

LOT, sales to end-users. Also,

respondents stated that they make their

home market sales through two

channels of distribution: (1) Indirect

sales through Ugine-Service and its

local field offices; and (2) direct sales

made through the commercial

departments of Imphy and UgineSavoie. We examined record evidence

from this review and have determined

that there is only one LOT in the home

market, regardless of channel of

distribution.

For the U.S. market, respondents

reported two LOTs: (1) Sales to endusers through MAC (EP sales); and (2)

sales to distributors, e.g., MAC,

Techalloy (CEP sales). The Department

examined the selling functions

performed for both LOT. We found that

the selling functions were sufficiently

different in customer sales contacts (i.e.,

visiting customers/potential customers,

receiving orders, promotion of new

products and following-up on unpaid

invoices), technical services, computer

systems and administrative functions to

warrant two levels of trade in the United

States.

In order to determine whether

separate LOT actually existed between

the U.S. and home markets, we

reviewed the selling activities

associated with each channel of

distribution. When we compared EP

sales to home market sales, we

determined that sales were made at the

same LOT (i.e., to end-users) in both

markets. However, for CEP sales, we

determined that fewer and different

selling functions were performed for

CEP sales to MAC and Techalloy than

for home market sales to end-users. We

also found that the selling functions

were sufficiently different in customer

sales contacts, technical services,

inventory maintenance, computer

systems and administrative functions to

warrant treating CEP sales and home

market sales to end-users as different

LOT. In addition, we found that the

home market sales involved a more

advanced stage of distribution (to endusers) as compared to respondents’ CEP

sales in the United States (distributor).

To the extent practicable, we

compared normal value at the same LOT

as the U.S. sale. In this review, there

were no sales of the foreign like product

in the home market at the same LOT as

that of the CEP sales. Because we

compared CEP sales to home market

sales at a different LOT, we examined

whether a level of trade adjustment may

be appropriate. In this case, respondents

only sold at one LOT in the home

market; therefore, there is no basis upon

which respondents can demonstrate a

pattern of consistent price differences

between LOTs with respect to the

foreign like product. Further, we do not

have information which would allow us

to examine pricing patterns based on

respondents’ sales of other products and

there are no other respondents or other

record information on which such an

analysis could be based.

Because the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for making

a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the

home market is at a more advanced

stage of distribution than the LOT of the

CEP sale, a CEP offset is appropriate.

Respondents claimed a CEP offset for
3708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices

those U.S. CEP and CEP/Further

Manufactured (CEP/FM) sales compared

to sales in France through Ugine

Service. We included a CEP offset for all

sales in France which are compared

with CEP and CEP/FM sales in the

United States since the comparison of

home market sales to CEP sales is at a

different level of trade. We applied the

CEP offset to normal value or

constructed value, as appropriate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent)

for the period January 1, 1996, through

December 31, 1996, to be as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Imphy/Ugine-Savoie .................. 10.51

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 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

and/or other written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in those comments, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. 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. We have calculated importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of dumping margins calculated

for the examined sales made during the

POR to the total customs value of the

sales used to calculate those duties.

These rates will be assessed uniformly

on all entries of each particular importer

made during the POR. (This is

equivalent to dividing the total amount

of antidumping duties, which are

calculated by taking the difference

between statutory NV and statutory EP

or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between EP or CEP and

customs value for all merchandise

examined during the POR).

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 the

reviewed companies will be the rate

established in the final results of this

review (except that no deposit will be

required for firms with 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 24.51

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 reviews.

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.

These administrative reviews 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(c)(5).

Dated: January 16, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1806 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Regulation of Noncompetitive

Transactions Executed on or Subject

to the Rules of a Contract Market

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Concept release.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) is reevaluating its

approach to the regulation of

noncompetitive transactions executed

on or subject to the rules of a contract

market. Accordingly, the Commission is

soliciting comments on a broad range of

questions concerning the oversight of

transactions involving (i) the exchange

of futures contracts for, or in connection

with, cash commodities, (ii) other

noncompetitive transactions, and (iii)

the use of execution facilities for

noncompetitive transactions. Following

the receipt of public comments, the

Commission will determine whether

rulemaking is appropriate.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit their written data, views, and

opinions to Jean A. Webb, Secretary of

the Commission, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581. In addition,

comments may be sent by facsimile

transmission to facsimile number (202)

418–5221 or by electronic mail to

secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be

made to ‘‘Regulation of Noncompetitive

Transactions Executed on or Subject to

the Rules of a Contract Market.’’ Certain

related materials described herein are

available for inspection at the Office of

the Secretariat at the above address.

Copies of these materials also may be

obtained through the Office of the

Secretariat at the above address or by

telephoning (202) 418–5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Creed, Attorney, at (202) 418–

5493, Division of Trading and Markets,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

B. Purpose of This Release

C. Overview

II. Standards Governing EFP Transactions

A. Background

1. Historic Uses of EFPs

2. Current EFP Volume

3. Current Oversight of EFPs

B. Elements of a Bona Fide EFP

1. Relationship of the Instruments

(a) Qualitative Correlation

(b) Quantitative Correlation

(c) Request for Comments

2. Relationship of the Parties

(a) Separate Parties

(b) String Trades