6168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

serviced by the following official

agency: Minot Grain Inspection, Inc.:

Benson Quinn Company, Underwood;

and Missouri Valley Grain Company,

Washburn, all in McLean County.

Interested persons, including

Jamestown, are hereby given the

opportunity to apply for designation to

provide official services in the

geographic areas specified above under

the provisions of Section 7(f) of the Act

and section 800.196(d) of the

regulations issued thereunder.

Designation in the Jamestown

geographic area is for the period

beginning August 1, 1997, and ending

July 31, 2000. Persons wishing to apply

for designation should contact the

Compliance Division at the address

listed above for forms and information.

Applications and other available

information will be considered in

determining which applicant will be

designated.

AUTHORITY: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.)

Dated: February 5, 1997

Neil E. Porter

Director, Compliance Division

[FR Doc. 97–3374 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–F

Deposting of Stockyards

Notice is hereby given, that the

livestock markets named herein,

originally posted on the dates specified

below as being subject to the Packers

and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended

(7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), no longer come

within the definition of a stockyard

under the Act and are therefore, no

longer subject to the provisions of the

Act.

Facility No., name, and location of stockyard Date of posting

AZ–100, Arizona Livestock Auction, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona ................................................................................................... February 12, 1975.

IA–111, Audubon County Livestock Exchange, Audubon, Iowa ............................................................................................. May 28, 1959.

IA–127, Coggon Livestock Sales Co., Coggon, Iowa ............................................................................................................. May 18, 1959.

IA–163, Independence Livestock Sales Company, Independence, Iowa ............................................................................... May 23, 1959.

IA–259, The Auction Farm, Sheldon, Iowa ............................................................................................................................. July 21, 1987.

NB–177, Spalding Livestock Market, Spalding, Nebraska ...................................................................................................... January 27, 1950.

NY–157, Bast’s Livestock Exchange, Watertown, New York ................................................................................................. August 2, 1978.

NC–167, Foothills Livestock Auction, Inc., Spindale, North Carolina ..................................................................................... July 11, 1994.

PA–115, Green Dragon Livestock Sales, Ephrata, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... December 10, 1959.

This notice is in the nature of a

change relieving a restriction and, thus,

may be made effective in less than 30

days after publication in the Federal

Register without prior notice or other

public procedure. This notice is given

pursuant to section 302 of the Packers

and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202) and

is effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Done at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of

February 1997.

Daniel L. Van Ackeren,

Director, Livestock Marketing Division,

Packers and Stockyards Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–3375 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3210–KD–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economics and Statistics

Administration

2000 Census Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Economics and Statistics

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended by Pub. L. 94–409,

Pub. L. 96–523, and 97–375), we are

giving notice of a meeting of the 2000

Census Advisory Committee. The

meeting will convene on March 6–7,

1997, at the Bureau of the Census,

Conference Center, Federal Building 3,

Suitland, MD 20746.

The Advisory Committee is composed

of a Chair, Vice Chair, and up to thirtyfive member organizations, all

appointed by the Secretary of

Commerce. The Advisory Committee

will consider the goals of Census 2000

and user needs for information provided

by that census, and provide a

perspective from the standpoint of the

outside user community about how

operational planning and

implementation methods proposed for

Census 2000 will realize those goals and

satisfy those needs. The Advisory

Committee shall consider all aspects of

the conduct of the 2000 census of

population and housing, and shall make

recommendations for improving that

census.

DATES: On Thursday, March 6, 1997, the

meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and

adjourn for the day at 4:30 p.m. On

Friday, March 7, 1997, the meeting will

begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30

p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the Bureau of the Census, Conference

Center, Federal Building 3, Suitland,

MD 20746.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anyone wishing additional information

about this meeting, or who wishes to

submit written statements or questions,

may contact Maxine Anderson-Brown,

Committee Liaison Officer, Department

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Room 3039, Federal Building 3,

Washington, DC 20233, telephone: 301–

457–2308.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A brief

period will be set aside for public

comment and questions. However,

individuals with extensive questions or

statements for the record must submit

them in writing to the Commerce

Department official named above at

least three working days prior to the

meeting.

The meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Kathy Maney; her telephone number is

301–457–2308.

Dated: February 6, 1997.

Everett M. Ehrlich,

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs,

Economics and Statistics Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3378 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–EA–M

International Trade Administration

[A–588–609]

Color Picture Tubes From Japan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of color picture tubes from Japan.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6169

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on color

picture tubes (CPTs) from Japan. The

period of review (POR) is January 1,

1995 through December 31, 1995. The

review indicates the existence of

dumping margins during this period.

We have preliminarily determined

that subject merchandise has been sold

at less than normal value (NV) during

the POR. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on entries during

the POR. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle or Kris Campbell, 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.

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, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to the current regulations, as

amended by the interim regulations

published in the Federal Register on

May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On January 26, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 2488) a notice of ‘‘Opportunity To

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on CPTs

from Japan (52 FR 44171 (November 18,

1987)). In accordance with 19 C.F.R.

353.22(a), the petitioners, the

International Association of Machinists

and Aerospace Workers, International

Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried,

Machine & Furniture Workers, AFL–

CIO, Industrial Union Department AFL–

CIO, requested that we conduct an

administrative review of sales of CPTs

from Japan by Mitsubishi Electric

Corporation (MELCO). We published a

notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review on February

20, 1996 (61 FR 6347), covering the

period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995.

Because it was not practicable to

complete this review within the normal

time frame, on October 25, 1996, we

published in the Federal Register our

notice of extension of the time limit for

these preliminary results to January 30,

1997 (61 FR 55271). The deadline for

the final results will continue to be 120

days after publication of these

preliminary results.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of CPTs from Japan. CPTs are

defined as cathode ray tubes suitable for

use in the manufacture of color

televisions or other color entertainment

display devices intended for television

viewing. This merchandise is

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

8540.11.00.10, 8540.11.00.20,

8540.11.00.30, 8540.11.00.40,

8540.11.00.50 and 8540.11.00.60.

Although the HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we verified information

provided by MELCO by 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. We

conducted the verification at the

company’s headquarters in Kyoto,

Japan, from September 17 through

September 20, 1996. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report. See

Memorandum from Case Analyst to File,

dated December 27, 1996.

Product Comparisons

We calculated NV on a monthly

weighted-average basis. Where possible,

we compared U.S. sales to sales of

identical merchandise in Japan. For U.S.

sales in which identical merchandise

was not sold during the relevant

contemporaneous period, we compared

U.S. sales to the most similar foreign

like product on the basis of

characteristics listed in MELCO’s April

1, 1996 response to section A of our

questionnaire.

Constructed Export Price

We calculated a constructed export

price (CEP) for MELCO’s U.S.

transactions, in accordance with section

772(b) of the Act, because sales to the

first unrelated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States.

We calculated CEP based on the

packed, ex-warehouse price from the

U.S. subsidiary to unrelated customers.

We made deductions from CEP for U.S.

packing in the United States,

international freight, foreign inland

freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

duties, U.S. inland freight insurance and

U.S. inland freight. In accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we

deducted from CEP the following selling

expenses that related to economic

activity in the United States:

commissions, direct selling expenses,

including advertising, warranties, credit

expenses, discounts, rebates, and

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs, and further

manufacturing. We also made an

adjustment for CEP profit in accordance

with section 772 (d)(3) of the Act.

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

respondent’s 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)(C) of the Act. Since

respondent’s 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. We based NV on the

packed, delivered price to unrelated

purchasers in the home market.

Where applicable, we made

adjustments to home market prices for

discounts, rebates, technical service

expenses, pre-sale warehouse expenses,

and royalties. To adjust for differences

in circumstances of sale between the

home market and the United States, we

deducted post-sale inland freight and

credit expense from NV in accordance

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

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.56(b), we

made an adjustment to NV for indirect

selling expenses in the home market to

offset the sum of commissions in the

United States.

In order to adjust for differences in

packing between the two markets, we

deducted home market packing costs

from NV and added U.S. packing costs.

We compared U.S. sales of CPTs to

NV based on constructed value (CV)

when MELCO did not have

contemporaneous home market sales of

CPTs with which we could compare the

U.S. sale. We calculated CV in

accordance with section 773(e) of the

Tariff Act. We included the cost of

materials, labor, general expenses, profit

and packing. Where appropriate, we
6170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

made adjustments to CV, in accordance

with 19 C.F.R. 353.56, for differences in

circumstances of sale.

The home market and CV databases

that MELCO submitted did not contain

matches for certain U.S. sales. See

Memorandum from Analyst to File:

Preliminary Results for MELCO, January

30, 1997. Therefore, in accordance with

section 776 of the Act, we applied a rate

based on the facts available to these

sales. Given the nature and extent of the

deficiency, we have selected the

weighted-average rate that we calculated

for all other sales in this review (1.92

percent) as facts available. See section

776(a) of the Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(7) of the

Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 316,

Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994))

(SAA) at 829–831, to the extent

practicable, we will calculate NV based

on sales at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sale. In this review, we were unable

to find comparison sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sales.

Accordingly, we compared the sales in

the United States to sales at a different

level of trade in the comparison market.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a

U.S. sale with a home market sale made

at a different level of trade, we will

adjust the NV to account for this

difference if two conditions are met.

First, there must be differences between

the actual selling functions performed

by the seller at the level of trade of the

U.S. sale and at the level of trade of the

comparison market sale used to

determine NV. Second, the differences

must affect price comparability as

evidenced by a pattern of consistent

price differences between sales at the

different levels of trade in the market in

which NV is determined. For CEP sales,

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

establishes the procedures for making a

CEP ‘‘offset’’ when two conditions exist:

(1) NV is established at a level of trade

which constitutes a more advanced

stage of distribution than the level of

trade of the CEP; and (2) the data

available do not provide an appropriate

basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.

We based the level of trade of CEP

sales on the price in the United States

after making the CEP deductions under

section 772(d) but before making the

deductions under section 772(c). Where

home market sales served as the basis

for NV, we determined the NV level of

trade based on starting prices in the

home market. Where NV was based on

CV, we determined the NV level of trade

based on the level of trade of the sales

from which we derived SG&A and profit

for CV.

In order to determine whether sales in

the comparison market are at a different

level of trade than the CEP, we

examined whether the comparison sales

were at different stages in the marketing

process than the CEP. We made this

determination on the basis of a review

of the distribution system in the

comparison market, including selling

functions, class of customer, and the

level of selling expenses for each type

of sale. Different stages of marketing

necessarily involve differences in

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in the level of trade.

Similarly, while customer categories

such as ‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’

may be useful in identifying different

levels of trade, they are insufficient in

themselves to establish that there is a

difference in the level of trade. See

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

51896 (October 4, 1996).

MELCO requested that we make a

level-of-trade adjustment, or a CEP

offset if we could not quantify a levelof-trade adjustment, because sales in the

home market involved a more advanced

level of trade than the level of trade of

the CEP. Our analysis of the reported

selling expenses, selling functions, and

customer classes of U.S. and home

market sales demonstrates that the home

market sales are distributed through a

more advanced marketing stage than

that involved at the level of trade of the

CEP.

Because we compared CEP sales to

home market sales at a different level of

trade, we examined whether a level-oftrade adjustment was appropriate. In

this case, we were unable to quantify

price differences involving comparisons

of sales made at different levels of trade

because the same level of trade as that

of the CEP did not exist in the home

market. Therefore, we could not

determine whether there was a pattern

of consistent price differences between

the levels of trade based on respondent’s

home market sales of merchandise

under review.

Because we were unable to quantify a

level-of-trade adjustment based on a

pattern of consistent price differences,

we granted a CEP offset where the

comparison sales were at a more

advanced level of trade than the sales to

the United States, in accordance with

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

To calculate the CEP offset, in

accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of

the Act, we considered the home market

indirect selling expenses and deducted

this amount from NV on home market

sales which we compared to U.S. CEP

sales. We limited the home market

indirect selling expense deduction by

the amount of the indirect selling

expenses incurred in the United States.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the

Act. Currency conversions were made at

the rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

to convert foreign currencies into U.S.

dollars unless the daily rate involves a

‘‘fluctuation.’’ It is our practice to find

that a fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5,

1996). The benchmark rate is defined as

the rolling average of the rates for the

past 40 business days. Because we

found no fluctuation in this case, we

believe it is appropriate to use a daily

exchange rate for currency conversion

purposes.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of the

CEP to NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following dumping margin

exists for the period January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

MELCO ..................................... 1.92

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

approximately 44 days after the

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written comments

(case briefs) within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

comments (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, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6171

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because the inability to link

sales with specific entries prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we have calculated an

importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rate for the merchandise

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 NV and CEP, by the

total 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.) The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, 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) For

MELCO the cash deposit rate will be the

rate established in the final results of

this review; (2) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original less-than-fair

value investigation (LTFV), but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that which was established for

the most recent period for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; (3) for

non-Japanese exporters of subject

merchandise from Japan, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the Japanese supplier of that exporter;

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

rate will be 27.93 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation, as explained below. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT) 1993), decided that once an

‘‘All Others’’ rate is established for a

company it can only be changed

through an administrative review. We

have determined that, in order to

implement these decisions, it is

appropriate to reinstate the ‘‘All Others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation (or that

rate as amended for correction of

clerical errors or as a result of litigation)

in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. Therefore, we

are reinstating the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

made effective by the final

determination of sales at LTFV (see

Color Pictures Tubes, 52 FR 44171,

November 18, 1987).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

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

C.F.R. 353.22.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3361 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–533–808]

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From

India; Preliminary Results of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

new shipper antidumping duty

administrative review; Certain stainless

steel wire rod from India.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel wire rods (SSWR) from

India in response to a request by one

manufacturer/exporter, Isibars Limited

(Isibars). This review covers sales of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period January 1, 1996 through June

30, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have not 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

liquidate subject entries without regard

to antidumping duties.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February, 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

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.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 28, 1996, the Department

received a request from Isibars for a new

shipper review pursuant to section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section

353.22(h) of the Department’s interim

regulations, which govern

determinations of antidumping duties

for new shippers. These provisions state

that, if the Department receives a

request for review from an exporter or

producer of the subject merchandise

stating that it did not export the

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (POI) and

that such exporter and producer is not

affiliated with any exporter or producer

who exported the subject merchandise

during that period, the Department shall

conduct a new shipper review to

establish an individual weightedaverage dumping margin for such

exporter or producer, if the Department

has not previously established such a

margin for the exporter or producer. To

establish these facts, the exporter or

producer must include with its request,

with appropriate certification: (i) the

date on which the merchandise was first

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption, or, if it cannot certify

as to the date of first entry, the date on

which it first shipped the merchandise