30854 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as adverse BIA because

the margin was based on another

company’s uncharacteristic business

expense resulting in an unusually high

margin).

In this case, the Department has

preliminarily determined to assign to

Rhone Poulenc a margin of 60 percent,

the margin calculated in the original

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

using information provided by Rhone

Poulenc (see Anhydrous Sodium

Metasilicate from France; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 24,

1980)). There is no evidence of

circumstances indicating that this

margin is not appropriate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, the

Department preliminarily determines

that a margin of 60 percent exists for

Rhone Poulenc for the January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995 period.

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 publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

The Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department will determine, and

the Customs Service will assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of ASM from France entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Rhone Poulenc will the

rate established in the final results of

this review; (2) for companies not

covered in this review, but covered in

previous reviews or the original LTFV

investigation, 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 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 previous review

or the original LTFV investigation, the

cash deposit rate will be 60 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498,

November 24, 1980).

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

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: June 11, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15464 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–412–602]

Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From

the United Kingdom; 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 requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

forged steel crankshafts from the United

Kingdom. This review covers one

producer/exporter of this merchandise

to the United States for the review

period September 1, 1993 through

August 31, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV).

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments 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 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. David Dirstine or Lyn Johnson, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On September 2, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ (59 FR

45664) of the antidumping duty order

on certain forged steel crankshafts from

the United Kingdom. We received a

request from UES Ltd.-Forgings Division

(UEF) to review its sales to the United

States. On October 13, 1994, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c)

(1994), we initiated an administrative

review of this order for UES Ltd.-

Forgings Division covering the period

September 1, 1993 through August 31,

1994 (59 FR 51939).

The Department has now conducted

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

certain forged steel crankshafts. The

term ‘‘crankshafts,’’ as used in this

review, includes forged carbon or alloy

steel crankshafts with a shipping weight

between 40 and 750 pounds, whether

machined or unmachined. These

products are currently classifiable under

item numbers 8483.10.10.10,

8483.10.10.30, 8483.10.30.10, and

8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Neither cast

crankshafts nor forged crankshafts with

shipping weights of less than 40 pounds

or more than 750 pounds are subject to

this review. The HTS item numbers are
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30855

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Such or Similar Merchandise

In determining similar merchandise

comparisons pursuant to section 771(18)

of the Act, we considered the following

physical characteristics, which appear

in order of importance: (1) twisted vs.

untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3)

forging method; (4) engine type; (5)

number of bearings; (6) number of

flanges; and (7) number of

counterweights. We applied weight

separately based on a range of plus or

minus 20 percent of the weight of the

U.S. model. If there were two or more

potential home market matches after

applying each of the matching criteria,

including the 20-percent weight range,

we chose the home market model that

was closest in weight to the U.S. model.

Our reasons for applying weight as we

did are outlined in the Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Forged

Steel Crankshafts from the United

Kingdom, 60 FR 52150, 52151–152

(October 5, 1995).

United States Price

In calculating U.S. price (USP), we

used purchase price as defined in

section 772 of the Tariff Act, because all

sales to the first unrelated purchaser

took place prior to importation into the

U.S. We calculated purchase price based

on the packed, c.i.f. price to the first

unrelated purchaser in the United

States.

We made deductions, where

appropriate, for ocean freight (which

includes foreign inland freight), U.S.

duties, marine insurance and U.S.

brokerage and handling expenses in

accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the

Act.

Foreign Market Value

Section 733(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act

requires the Department to compare

sales in the United States with home

market sales of such or similar

merchandise made in the ordinary

course of trade if the home market is

viable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)

of the Act, we determined that the home

market is viable, and it is therefore an

appropriate basis for calculating FMV.

Where we used home market sales for

comparisons, we calculated FMV based

on packed, ex-factory or delivered

prices to customers in the United

Kingdom. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for rebates. We also

adjusted for home market movement

charges.

Because all price-to-price

comparisons involved purchase price

sales, we also made circumstance-ofsale (COS) adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, warranty expenses, customerrequested tooling expenses, and postsale warehousing expenses in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a). UEF

did not claim home market packing

expenses since subject merchandise is

loaded into bins as part of the

production process with no packing

material expenses incurred. In

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

Act, we then added U.S. packing costs

to all home market prices.

For certain U.S. products, we found

no home market product comparisons

after applying the model-matching

methodology, the 90/60-day

contemporaneity test, and the

difference-in-merchandise test. For

these products, we based FMV on

constructed value (CV) in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We

calculated CV based on the sum of the

respondent’s submitted cost of

materials, fabrication, selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses,

U.S. packing and profit. In accordance

with sections 773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of

the Act, we included the actual general

expenses calculated which exceeded the

statutory minimum (ten percent of the

cost of manufacturing (COM)). We used

the statutory minimum profit, eight

percent of the sum of COM and general

expenses, because the actual profit

amount was less than the statutory

minimum.

We made adjustments to CV, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for

differences in circumstances of sale.

These adjustments were made for

differences in credit expenses,

warranties, and warehousing.

On February 10, 1995, the petitioner,

the Krupp Gerlach Company (KGC)

submitted an allegation that UES Ltd.-

Forgings Division (UEF) sold

unmachined subject merchandise in its

home market at less than its cost of

production (COP) during the period of

review. After analyzing the allegation,

the Department determined, on January

18, 1996 (see memo to file), that

reasonable grounds did not exist to

believe or suspect that home market

sales were made below COP, as required

to initiate a COP investigation under

773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we did not

initiate an investigation of sales made

below COP for this review period.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP

with FMV, we preliminarily determine

the following weighted-average margin

for the period September 1, 1993

through August 31, 1994:

Producer/Exporter: UEF.

Margin (Percent): .52.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days and interested

parties may request a hearing not later

than 10 days after publication of this

notice. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results

and may submit written arguments in

case briefs on these preliminary results

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in case briefs, may be filed

no later than 7 days after the time limit

for filing case briefs. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 7 days after the

scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and

rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 353.38(e). The Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

the case or briefs.

Upon completion of the final results

in this review, the Department shall

determine, and the Customs Service

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Individual

differences between USP and FMV may

vary from the percentage stated above.

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirement will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1) the cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be that

established in the final results of this

administrative review (except that no

deposit will be required if the margin is

zero or de minimis, i.e., 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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 6.55 percent, the adjusted ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV

investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall
30856 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

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 administrative review and notice

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

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

and section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22(c)(5)).

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15460 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Minority Business Development

Agency

Notice; Solicitation of Business

Development Center Applications for

CHICAGO I and CHICAGO II

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive

Order 11625 and 15 U.S.C. 1512, the

Minority Business Development Agency

(MBDA) is soliciting competitive

applications from organizations to

operate the Minority Business

Development Centers (MBDC) listed in

this document.

The purpose of the MBDC Program is

to provide business development

assistance to persons who are members

of groups determined by MBDA to be

socially or economically disadvantaged,

and to business concerns owned and

controlled by such individuals. To this

end, MBDA funds organizations to

identify and coordinate public and

private sector resources on behalf of

minority individuals and firms; to offer

a full range of client services to minority

entrepreneurs; and to serve as a conduit

of information and assistance regarding

minority business.

In accordance with the Interim Final

Policy published in the Federal Register

on May 31, 1996, the cost-share

requirement for the MBDCs listed in this

notice has been increased to 40%. The

Department of Commerce will fund up

to 60% of the total cost of operating an

MBDC on an annual basis. The MBDC

operator is required to contribute at

least 40% of the total project cost (the

‘‘cost-share requirement’’). Cost-sharing

contributions may be in the form of

cash, client fees, third party in-kind

contributions, non-cash applicant

contributions or combinations thereof.

In addition to the traditional sources of

an MBDC’s cost-share contribution, the

40% may be contributed by local, state

and private sector organizations. It is

anticipated that some organizations may

apply jointly for an award to operate the

center. For administrative purposes, one

organization must be designated as the

recipient organization.

DATES: The closing date for applications

for each MBDC is JULY 19, 1996.

PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: A preapplication conference will be held. For

the exact date, time, and location,

contact the Chicago Regional Office at

(312) 353–0182.

Proper identification is required for

entrance into any Federal building.

ADDRESSES: Completed application

packages should be submitted to the

U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority

Business Development Agency, MBDA

Executive Secretariat, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 5073,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following are MBDCs for which

applications are solicited:

1. MBDC Application: Chicago I.

Metropolitan Area Serviced: Chicago,

Illinois.

Award Number: 05–10–96001–01.

For Further Information and an

Application Package, Contact: David

Vega, Regional Director, at (312) 353–

0182.

Contingent upon the availability of

Federal funds, the cost of performance

for the first budget period (13 months)

from October 1, 1996 to October 31,

1997, is estimated at $460,834. The total

Federal amount is $276,500 and is

composed of $269,756 plus the Audit

Fee amount of $6,744. The application

must include a minimum cost share of

40%, $184,334 in non-federal (costsharing) contributions for a total project

cost of $460,834.

2. MBDC Application: Chicago II.

Metropolitan Area Serviced: Chicago,

Illinois.

Award Number: 05–10–96003–01.

For Further Information and an

Application Package, Contact: David

Vega, Regional Director, at (312) 353–

0182.

Contingent upon the availability of

Federal funds, the cost of performance

for the first budget period (13 months)

from October 1, 1996 to October 31,

1997, is estimated at $460,834. The total

Federal amount is $276,500 and is

composed of $269,756 plus the Audit

Fee amount of $6,744. The application

must include a minimum cost share of

40%, $184,334 in non-federal (costsharing) contributions for a total project

cost of $460,834.

Standard Paragraphs

The following information and

requirements are applicable to the listed

MBDCs: Chicago I and Chicago II.

The funding instrument for this

project will be a cooperative agreement.

If the recommended applicant is the

current incumbent organization, the

award will be for 12 months. For those

applicants who are not incumbent

organizations or who are incumbents

that have experienced closure due to a

break in service, a 30-day start-up

period will be added to their first budget

period, making it a 13-month award.

Competition is open to individuals,

non-profit and for-profit organizations,

state and local governments, American

Indian tribes and educational

institutions.

Applications will be evaluated on the

following criteria: the knowledge,

background and/or capabilities of the

firm and its staff in addressing the needs

of the business community in general

and, specifically, the special needs of

minority businesses, individuals and

organizations (45 points), the resources

available to the firm in providing

business development services (10

points); the firm’s approach (techniques

and methodologies) to performing the

work requirements included in the

application (25 points); and the firm’s

estimated cost for providing such

assistance (20 points). In accordance

with Interim Final Policy published in

the Federal Register on May 31, 1996,

the scoring system will be revised to

add ten (10) bonus points to the

application of community-based

organizations. Each qualifying

application will receive the full ten

points. Community-based applicant

organizations are those organizations

whose headquarters and/or principal

place of business within the last five

years have been located within the

geographic service area designated in

the solicitation for the award. Where an

applicant organization has been in

existence for fewer than five years or

has been present in the geographic

service area for fewer than five years,

the individual years of experience of the

applicant organization’s principals may

be applied toward the requirement of

five years of organization experience.

The individual years of experience must

have been acquired in the geographic

service area which is the subject of the

solicitation. An application must

receive at least 70% of the points