Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26567

Louisiana

3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA

71302, (318) 473–7920

Maine

PO Box 405, 444 Stillwater Avenue, Suite 2,

Bangor, ME 04402–0405, (207) 990–9106

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode

Island

451 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002, (413)

253–4300

Michigan

Suite 200, 3001 Coolidge Road, East Lansing,

MI 48823, (517) 324–5100

Minnesota

410 AgriBank Building, 375 Jackson Street,

St. Paul, MN 55101–1853, (651) 602–7800

Mississippi

Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol

Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 956–4316

Missouri

Parkade Center, Suite 235, 601 Business Loop

70 West, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876–

0976

Montana

Unit 1, Suite B, 900 Technology Boulevard,

Bozeman, MT 59715, (406) 585–2580

Nebraska

Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial

Mall N, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437–5551

Nevada

1390 S. Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703–

9910, (775) 887–1222

New Jersey

Tarnsfield Plaza, Suite 22, 790 Woodlane

Road, Mt. Holly, NJ 08060, (609) 265–3600

New Mexico

Room 255, 6200 Jefferson Street, NE

Albuquerque, NM 87109, (505) 761–4950

New York

The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 S. Salina

Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202–

2541, (315) 477–6400

North Carolina

Suite 260, 4405 Bland Road, Raleigh, NC

27609, (919) 873–2000

North Dakota

Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rooser,

PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502–1737,

(701) 250–4781

Ohio

Federal Building, Room 507, 200 N. High

Street, Columbus, OH 43215–2477, (614)

255–2400

Oklahoma

Suite 108, 100 USDA, Stillwater, OK 74074–

2654, (405) 742–1000

Oregon

Suite 1410, 101 SW Main, Portland, OR

97204–3222, (503) 414–3300

Pennsylvania

Suite 330, One Credit Union Place,

Harrisburg, PA 17110–2996, (717) 237–

2299

Puerto Rico

PO Box 366106, San Juan, PR 00936–6101,

(787) 766–5095

South Carolina

Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835

Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC

29201, (803) 765–5163

South Dakota

Federal Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth

Street, SW, Huron, SD 57360, (605) 352–

1100

Tennessee

Suite 300, 3322 W. End Avenue, Nashville,

TN 37203–1084, (615) 783–1300

Texas

Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 S. Main,

Temple, TX 76501, (254) 742–9700

Utah

Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 S.

State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT

84147, (801) 524–4320

Vermont and New Hampshire

City Center, 3rd Floor 89 Main Street,

Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828–6000

Virginia

Culpeper Building, Suite 238, 1606 Santa

Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229

(804) 287–1550

Washington

Suite B, 1835 Black Lake Blvd., SW,

Olympia, WA 98512–5715, (360) 704–7740

West Virginia

Federal Building, Room 320, 75 High Street,

Morgantown, WV 26505–7500, (304) 291–

4791

Wisconsin

4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI

54481, (715) 345–7600

Wyoming

Federal Building, Room 1005, 100 East B, PO

Box 820, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 261–

6300

[FR Doc. 00–11373 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–484–801]

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From

Greece: 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: Based on a request by a Greek

producer, Tosoh Hellas A.I.C., the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on electrolytic

manganese dioxide from Greece.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales by Tosoh Hellas A.I.C. have

not been made below normal value. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries of EMD from Tosoh

Hellas A.I.C. during the period of

review.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On April 17, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 15243) the antidumping duty order

on electrolytic manganese dioxide

(EMD) from Greece. Tosoh Hellas A.I.C.

(Tosoh) requested a review on April 29,

1999. In response to this request, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of administrative review on

May 20, 1999, in accordance with 19

CFR 351.213(b) (64 FR 28973). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of EMD from Greece. EMD is

26568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has

been refined in an electrolysis process.

The subject merchandise is an

intermediate product used in the

production of dry-cell batteries. EMD is

sold in three physical forms, powder,

chip, or plate, and two grades, alkaline

and zinc-chloride. EMD in all three

forms and both grades is included in the

scope of the order. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

number 2820.10.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

number is provided for convenience and

customs purposes. It is not

determinative of the products subject to

the order. The written product

description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is April

1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.

Product Comparability and Home

Market Viability

In a July 20, 1999, submission, and in

several subsequent submissions from

Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC and

Chemetals Inc. (collectively ‘‘the

petitioners’’), the petitioners allege three

points concerning the selection of

comparable merchandise: (1) The zincchloride-grade EMD sold in the home

market is not a foreign like product that

can be compared to the alkaline-grade

EMD sold to the United States under the

definition set forth in section 771(16)(B)

of the Act; (2) the current review

presents an unusual situation in which

the home market sales of EMD, though

accounting for more than five percent of

sales to the United States, should not be

considered a viable comparison market;

and (3) a particular market situation

exists which warrants rejection of home

market sales for comparison purposes.

We have preliminarily determined the

following: (1) The subject merchandise

sold in Greece is a foreign like product

as defined under section 771(16)(B) of

the Act; (2) the home market is viable

within the meaning of section

773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act; and (3) a

particular market situation does not

exist within the meaning of section

773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act.

With respect to the first point, we

examined whether the EMD grade sold

in the home market met the standards

of section 771(16)(B) of the Act.

Specifically, pursuant to section

771(16)(B) of the Act, we evaluated the

following criteria: (1) Whether the

foreign like product was produced in

the same country and by the same

person as the subject merchandise; (2)

whether the merchandise in question is

like in component material or materials

and in the purposes for which used; and

(3) whether the two grades (i.e., zincchloride and alkaline) of EMD are

approximately equal in commercial

value.

Based on the information provided on

the record we found that the

merchandise in question is produced in

the same country and by the same

person as the subject merchandise. In

addition, we found that both the U.S.—

and home market—sold grades of EMD

are produced using the same component

materials and both grades are used as

cathode material in the production of

dry-cell batteries.

With regard to the commercial-value

criterion, we found that the products

satisfy our twenty-percent difference-inmerchandise test which we generally

apply to evaluate the commercial-value

criterion of the statute. See Import

Administrative Policy Bulletin 92.2

‘‘Difference in Merchandise, 20 percent

rule’’ (July 29, 1992); Certain Forged

Stainless Steel Flanges From India:

Final Results of Antidumping Duties

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51263,

51265 (October 1, 1996); Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, From Japan, and

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 63860,

63874 (November 17, 1998). In addition,

information the respondent submitted

on March 13, 2000, shows that the two

products have less than a two-percent

difference in price when sold to a

particular third-country market, the

respondent’s only market in which both

zinc-chloride-grade and alkaline-grade

EMD are sold. This less than twopercent difference in price, when

considered in conjunction with a

difference-in-merchandise adjustment of

less than 20 percent, provides an

indication that the grades are

approximately equal in commercial

value. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine that the two products are

‘‘approximately equal in commercial

value’’ as set forth in section

771(16)(B)(iii) of the Act.

Based on the reasons stated above, we

determined that zinc-chloride-grade

EMD is a foreign like product as defined

under section 771(16)(B) of the Act. For

a detailed explanation of our analysis,

see the Decision Memorandum from

Office Director to Deputy Assistant

Secretary dated May 1, 2000 (‘‘Decision

Memo’’).

With respect to the petitioners’

second point, we analyzed whether the

current review presents an unusual

situation in which home market sales of

EMD constituting more than five

percent of sales to the United States

should not be considered viable. Based

on our interpretation of the statute, we

have preliminarily found that in this

case there is no unusual situation which

makes our application of our normal

statutory five-percent viability test

inappropriate. Therefore, since the

aggregate quantity of the respondent’s

home market sales is more than fivepercent of the aggregate quantity of the

respondent’s U.S. sales, we find that it

is viable in accordance with our statute

and regulations. For a detailed

explanation of our analysis, see the

Decision Memo.

Finally, with respect to the

petitioners’ final point, that a particular

market situation exists, the petitioners

assert in their July 20, 1999, submission,

that there are a number of elements

which do not permit a proper price-toprice comparison in this review period.

According to the petitioners, these

elements are as follows: (1) The

component materials used in the home

market product are unlike the

component materials in the U.S.

product; (2) the two types of EMD differ

substantially in the purposes for which

they are used; (3) the two types of EMD

differ substantially in commercial value;

and (4) Tosoh’s home market sales are

incidental or insignificant to Tosoh. The

petitioners argue that all of these factors

create a particular market situation that

prevents the Department from making

an appropriate price-to-price

comparison.

The Act states that there may be

‘‘particular market situations’’ in a

foreign market that do not permit a

proper comparison with EP or CEP

sales. Although the Act does not

identify these ‘‘particular market

situations,’’ several are identified in the

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA), H. Doc.103–316, vol. 1, 103d

Cong., 2d sess., 822 (1994). These

include: (1) Where a single sale in a

foreign market constitutes five percent

of sales to the United States; (2) where

there are such extensive government

controls over pricing in a foreign market

that prices in that market cannot be

considered competitively set; and (3)

where there are differing patterns of

demand in the United States and a

foreign market. Finally, 19 CFR

351.404(c)(2) permits the Department to

decline to calculate normal value on the

basis of prices in a viable home market

if parties establish to the Department’s

satisfaction that certain situations in the

viable market would not permit a proper

comparison of like product prices in

that market with EP or CEP sales. See

SAA at 822.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26569

We have found no evidence of a

particular market situation, within the

meaning of section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of

the Act, which would prevent a proper

price comparison and which warrants a

departure from the normal five-percent

viability test. For example, there is no

evidence to suggest that a single sale in

the home market constitutes five

percent of sales to the United States,

that there are extensive government

controls over pricing in the Greek home

market, or that there are differing

patterns of demand for EMD in the

United States and in the home market.

For a detailed explanation of our

analysis, see our Decision Memo.

Because the criteria on which the

petitioners rely in their particular

market-situation argument reflect the

definition of a foreign like product in

sections 771(16)(B) (ii) and (iii) of the

Act, we examined whether the SAA

mentions any of the criteria as

determinants of a particular market

situation. Based on our analysis of the

SAA, we found that the SAA does not

mention any of the criteria on which the

petitioners rely in their particularmarket-situation argument as a measure

for finding that a particular market

situation exists. For a detailed

explanation of our analysis, see the

Decision Memo.

Constructed Export Price

For the price to the United States, we

used constructed export price (CEP) as

defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We

calculated CEP based on the packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions for any movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act and the SAA (at 823–824), we

calculated the CEP by deducting selling

expenses associated with economic

activities occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses and

indirect selling expenses.

With respect to CEP profit, section

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

Department, in determining CEP, to

identify and deduct from the starting

price in the U.S. market an amount for

profit allocable to selling and furthermanufacturing activities in the United

States. Section 772(f) of the Act

provides the rule for determining the

amount of CEP profit to deduct from the

CEP starting price. In this review, since

we do not have any cost information to

calculate CEP profit, we determined that

the best available sources of profit

information are the 1998 financial

statements which the respondent and its

U.S. affiliate submitted in response to

section A of our questionnaire. See

Analysis Memorandum dated April 28,

2000 (‘‘Analysis Memo’’).

Finally, in accordance with section

772(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we adjusted CEP

to reflect a rebate which Tosoh is

contractually obligated to make to its

customer based on the relationship of its

price, after all previously described

adjustments, and normal value. For

further details see Analysis Memo.

Normal Value

In calculating normal value, as we

stated above, we determined that the

quantity of foreign like product sold by

the respondent 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 the quantity of sales in the

home market was greater than five

percent of the sales to the U.S. market.

Therefore, in accordance with section

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

normal value on the price at which the

foreign like product was sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

See Analysis Memo.

We calculated monthly, weightedaverage normal values. Because

identical merchandise was not sold

during the relevant contemporaneous

period, we compared U.S. sales to sales

of the most similar foreign like product

in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of

the Act.

Home market prices were based on

packed, free-on-truck prices to the

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. Where applicable, we made

adjustments for differences in packing

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

of the Act. We also made adjustments

for differences in costs attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

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

differences in circumstances of sale

(COS) in accordance with section 773

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

351.410. With respect to our

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home-market

direct selling expenses from normal

value. We also made adjustments for

home-market indirect selling expenses

to offset U.S. indirect selling expenses.

Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determined normal value for sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sales in

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

the Act. The normal value level of trade

is that of the starting-price sales in the

home market. See 19 CFR

351.412(c)(iii).

To determine whether home market

sales were at a different level of trade

than U.S. sales, we examined stages in

the marketing process and selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. Tosoh reported

that there was only one channel of

distribution in the home market, and we

conclude that there is only one level of

trade. Because all of Tosoh’s U.S. sales

were CEP sales, we identified the level

of trade based on the price after the

deduction of expenses and profit under

section 772(d) of the Act, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.412(c)(ii). Based on our

analysis, we considered CEP sales to

constitute a single level of trade. Based

on the record, we found that there were

significant differences between the

selling activities associated with the

home market level of trade and those

associated with the CEP level of trade.

Therefore, we determined that CEP sales

were at a different level of trade from

the home market sales. Consequently,

we could not match U.S. sales to sales

at the same level of trade in the home

market. Moreover, data necessary to

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

was not available. Therefore, because

home market sales were made at a more

advanced stage of distribution than that

of the CEP level, we made a CEP-offset

adjustment when comparing CEP and

home market sales in accordance with

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

more detailed description of our

analysis, see the Level-of-Trade section

of our Analysis Memo.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margin of 0.00 for

Tosoh for the period April 1, 1998,

through March 31, 1999.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 40 days after the date of

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Issues raised in

hearings will be limited to those raised

in the respective case and rebuttal

briefs. 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 35 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with the arguments:

(1) A table of contents, (2) a statement

of the issue, (3) a list of authorities used,

and (4) an executive summary of issues.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

26570 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

Hearing requests should specify the

number of participants and provide a

list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. All memoranda to

which we refer in this notice can be

found in the public reading room,

located in the Central Records Unit,

room B–099 of the main Department of

Commerce building.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or at a hearing. The Department will

issue final results of this review within

120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results

of this administrative review, if there is

no change from our preliminary results,

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate all appropriate entries without

regard to antidumping duties.

On April 20, 2000, the International

Trade Commission (ITC) determined

that revoking the existing antidumping

duty orders on electrolytic manganese

dioxide from Greece and Japan would

not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore,

because the order will be revoked as a

result of the ITC’s determination with

an effective date of January 1, 2000, no

deposit requirements will be effective

for 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.

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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11461 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–806]

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From

Japan: 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: Based on a request by a

Japanese producer, Tosoh Corporation,

the Department of Commerce is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

electrolytic manganese dioxide from

Japan.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales by Tosoh Corporation have

not been made below normal value. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct Customs to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries of EMD from Tosoh

Corporation during the period of review.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Tabash or Richard Rimlinger,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On April 17, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 15243) the antidumping duty order

on electrolytic manganese dioxide

(EMD) from Japan. On June 30, 1999, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of administrative review in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

sales of EMD from Japan. EMD is

manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has

been refined in an electrolysis process.

The subject merchandise is an

intermediate product used in the

production of dry-cell batteries. EMD is

sold in three physical forms, powder,

chip or plate, and two grades, alkaline

and zinc-chloride. EMD in all three

forms and both grades is included in the

scope of the order. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

number 2820.10.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) of

the United States. The HTSUS number

is provided for convenience and

customs purposes. It is not

determinative of the products subject to

the order. The written product

description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is April

1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.

Product Comparisons

Two product-comparison issues arose

prior to the completion of these

preliminary results. First, the sub-types

of alkaline-grade EMD Tosoh sold in the

home market and a sub-type of alkalinegrade EMD Tosoh sold to the United

States varied by physical characteristics

such as moisture, mesh, and particle

size.

Tosoh provided in its questionnaire

response a product-matching table

identifying the various sub-types of

alkaline-grade EMD it sold in the home

market and to the United States. In its

July 21, 1999, submission, the

respondent stated that the sub-type of

alkaline-grade EMD it sold to the United

States was not sold in the home market

during the POR and that the Department

should match the sub-type sold in the

United States to the closest sub-type of

alkaline-grade EMD sold in the home

market. Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC and

Chemetals Inc. (collectively ‘‘the

petitioners’’) responded that the

Department should disregard the

respondent’s proposed productmatching criteria and base normal value

of EMD exported to the United States on

all sales of alkaline-grade EMD in the

home market because, they argue, it is

the Department’s practice to base

model-matching schemes only on