62700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash

deposit rate will be zero; (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 these reviews, 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 30.72

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

These administrative reviews and

notice are published in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25789 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–588–837

Large Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, 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: In response to a request by the

petitioner and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on large

newspaper printing presses and

components thereof, whether assembled

or unassembled, from Japan. This

review covers two manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States (Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai

Seisakusho, Ltd.). The period of review

is September 1, 1998 through August 31,

1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below the normal value

for one of the two companies subject to

this review. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of this

administrative review, we will instruct

the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to 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. Parties are

also encouraged to provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Nunno or Christopher Priddy,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0783 or

(202) 482–1130, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is

September 1, 1998 through August 31,

1999.

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 351 (1999).

Background

During the previous administrative

review period, covering sales of the

subject merchandise for the period

September 1, 1997 through August 31,

1998, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

(MHI) reported a U.S. sale to the Bergen

Record which was entered into contract

during that review period. See MHI’s

section A questionnaire response, dated

January 7, 1999, at Exhibit 1. However,

we deferred review of this sale until this

administrative review period because

the entries relating to this sale were not

fully delivered and installed by the

conclusion of that review period.

On September 9, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on large

newspaper printing presses and

components thereof, whether assembled

or unassembled (LNPP), from Japan

covering the period September 1, 1998,

through August 31, 1999. See

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 64 FR 48980

(Sept. 9, 1999).

On July 31, 1999, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner, Goss

Graphic Systems, Inc., requested an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order for the

following producers/exporters of LNPP:

MHI and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

(TKS). We also received requests for a

review from MHI and TKS on July 31,

1999. We published a notice of

initiation of this review on August 30,

1999. See Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 60161 (Nov. 4, 1999).

On November 24, 1999, we issued

antidumping questionnaires to the two

respondents. We received responses to

these questionnaires in December 1999

and January 2000.

On December 14, 1999, TKS requested

that it defer reporting a sale to Dow

Jones & Company (Dow Jones) until the

next administrative review because,

although TKS entered into an LNPP

sales contract with Dow Jones during

the POR, the entries relating to this sale

will not be fully delivered and installed

by the conclusion of the present review.

On December 21, 1999, we notified TKS

that it may report data on the Dow Jones

sale after it is completed, during the

next administrative review.

On March 13, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results in this review until

September 29, 2000. See Large

Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan

and Germany: Postponement of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 65 FR

13364 (Mar. 13, 2000).

We issued supplemental

questionnaires to MHI in April and May

2000, and received responses to these

questionnaires in May and June 2000.

We issued supplemental questionnaires

to TKS in March, May, July and August

2000, and received responses to these

questionnaires in May, June, July and

September 2000.

On June 23, 2000, the petitioner

submitted a letter stating that MHI did

not report home market sales that are

contemporaneous with the date of its

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62701

U.S. sale. In June and July 2000, we

asked both MHI and TKS to report

additional home market sales to the

Department. MHI and TKS reported this

additional sales and cost information in

July and August 2000. See the ‘‘Home

Market Sales Used to Calculate

Constructed Value Profit and Selling

Expenses’’ section of the notice below

for further discussion.

Pursuant to section 782(i)(3) of the

Act, we conducted verification of MHI’s

sales and cost responses in Japan in July

and August 2000. In addition, we

conducted verification of MHI’s U.S.

sales responses in September 2000.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are large newspaper printing presses,

including press systems, press

additions, and press components,

whether assembled or unassembled,

whether complete or incomplete, that

are capable of printing or otherwise

manipulating a roll of paper more than

two pages across. A page is defined as

a newspaper broadsheet page in which

the lines of type are printed

perpendicular to the running of the

direction of the paper or a newspaper

tabloid page with lines of type parallel

to the running of the direction of the

paper.

In addition to press systems, the

scope of this review includes the five

press system components. They are: (1)

A printing unit, which is any

component that prints in monocolor,

spot color, and/or process (full) color;

(2) a reel tension paster, which is any

component that feeds a roll of paper

more than two newspaper broadsheet

pages in width into a subject printing

unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or

combination of modules capable of

cutting, folding, and/or delivering the

paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper

broadsheet paper more than two pages

in width into a newspaper format; (4)

conveyance and access apparatus

capable of manipulating a roll of paper

more than two newspaper broadsheet

pages across through the production

process and which provides structural

support and access; and (5) a

computerized control system, which is

any computer equipment and/or

software designed specifically to

control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate

the functions and operations of large

newspaper printing presses or press

components.

A press addition is comprised of a

union of one or more of the press

components defined above and the

equipment necessary to integrate such

components into an existing press

system.

Because of their size, large newspaper

printing press systems, press additions,

and press components are typically

shipped either partially assembled or

unassembled, complete or incomplete,

and are assembled and/or completed

prior to and/or during the installation

process in the United States. Any of the

five components, or collection of

components, the use of which is to

fulfill a contract for large newspaper

printing press systems, press additions,

or press components, regardless of

degree of assembly and/or degree of

combination with non-subject elements

before or after importation, is included

in the scope of this review. Also

included in the scope are elements of a

LNPP system, addition, or component,

which taken altogether, constitute at

least 50 percent of the cost of

manufacture of any of the five major

LNPP components of which they are a

part.

For purposes of this review, the

following definitions apply irrespective

of any different definition that may be

found in Customs rulings, U.S. Customs

law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS): the term

‘‘unassembled’’ means fully or partially

unassembled or disassembled; and (2)

the term ‘‘incomplete’’ means lacking

one or more elements with which the

LNPP is intended to be equipped in

order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP

system, addition or component.

This scope does not cover spare or

replacement parts. Spare or replacement

parts imported pursuant to a LNPP

contract, which are not integral to the

original start-up and operation of the

LNPP, and are separately identified and

valued in a LNPP contract, whether or

not shipped in combination with

covered merchandise, are excluded from

the scope of this review. Used presses

are also not subject to this scope. Used

presses are those that have been

previously sold in an arm’s-length

transaction to a purchaser that used

them to produce newspapers in the

ordinary course of business.

Also excluded from the scope, in

accordance with the Department’s

determination in a changedcircumstances antidumping duty

administrative review of this order with

respect to MHI which resulted in the

partial revocation of the order with

respect to certain merchandise, are

elements and components of LNPP

systems, and additions thereto, which

feature a 22 inch cut-off, 50 inch web

width and a rated speed no greater than

75,000 copies per hour. See Large

Newspaper Printing Presses

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan:

Final Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Intent to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Order, In Part, 64 FR

72315 (Dec. 27, 1999). In addition to the

specifications set out in this paragraph,

all of which must be met in order for the

product to be excluded from the scope

of the order, the product must also meet

all of the specifications detailed in the

five numbered sections following this

paragraph. If one or more of these

criteria is not fulfilled, the product is

not excluded from the scope of the

order.

1. Printing Unit: A printing unit

which is a color keyless blanket-toblanket tower unit with a fixed gain

infeed and fixed gain outfeed, with a

rated speed no greater than 75,000

copies per hour, which includes the

following features:

• Each tower consisting of four levels,

one or more of which must be

populated.

• Plate cylinders which contain slot

lock-ups and blanket cylinders which

contain reel rod lock-ups both of which

are of solid carbon steel with nickel

plating and with bearers at both ends

which are configured in-line with

bearers of other cylinders.

• Keyless inking system which

consists of a passive feed ink delivery

system, an eight roller ink train, and a

non-anilox and non-porous metering

roller.

• The dampener system which

consists of a two nozzle per page

spraybar and two roller dampener with

one chrome drum and one form roller.

• The equipment contained in the

color keyless ink delivery system is

designed to achieve a constant, uniform

feed of ink film across the cylinder

without ink keys. This system requires

use of keyless ink which accepts greater

water content.

2. Folder: A module which is a double

3:2 rotary folder with 160 pages collect

capability and double (over and under)

delivery, with a cut-off length of 22

inches. The upper section consists of

three-high double formers (total of 6)

with six sets of nipping rollers.

3. RTP: A component which is of the

two-arm design with core drives and

core brakes, designed for 50 inch

diameter rolls; and arranged in the press

line in the back-to-back configuration

(left and right hand load pairs).

4. Conveyance and Access Apparatus:

Conveyance and access apparatus

capable of manipulating a roll of paper

more than two newspaper broadsheets

across through the production process,

and a drive system which is of

conventional shafted design.

62702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices

1Both of the respondents in this administrative

review shipped/entered only one LNPP into the

United States during the POR that was completely

assembled and installed.

5. Computerized Control System: A

computerized control system, which is

any computer equipment and/or

software designed specifically to

control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate

the functions and operations of large

newspaper printing presses or press

components.

Further, this review covers all current

and future printing technologies capable

of printing newspapers, including, but

not limited to, lithographic (offset or

direct), flexographic, and letterpress

systems. The products covered by this

review are imported into the United

States under subheadings 8443.11.10,

8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50,

8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the

HTSUS. Large newspaper printing

presses may also enter under HTSUS

subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00.

Large newspaper printing press

computerized control systems may enter

under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10,

8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40,

8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.

Home Market Sales To Calculate

Constructed Value Profit and Selling

Expenses

On June 23, 2000, Goss Graphic

Systems, Inc., the petitioner in this

proceeding, submitted a letter stating

that MHI did not report home market

sales that are contemporaneous with the

date of its U.S. sale. On June 30, 2000,

we asked MHI to report additional home

market sales to the Department. Because

this issue is not limited to MHI alone,

we also requested additional sales from

TKS.

Upon analysis of the home market

sales on the record for both MHI and

TKS in this administrative review, we

determined that the appropriate

universe of home market sales used to

calculate constructed value (CV) profit

and selling expenses should comprise

all sales made during the period

beginning with three months prior to

the respondent’s U.S. sale,1 and then the

nine subsequent months, including the

month of sale. See the September 29,

2000, memorandum from the team to

Richard W. Moreland entitled ‘‘Universe

of Home Market Sales Used to Calculate

Profit and Selling Expenses for

Constructed Value’’ for further

discussion.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether MHI’s and

TKS’s sales of LNPPs to the United

States were made at less than normal

value (NV), we compared constructed

export price (CEP) to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice.

Although the home market was viable

for both respondents, in accordance

with section 773 of the Act, we based

NV on CV because we determined that

the unique, custom-built nature of each

LNPP sold does not permit proper priceto-price comparisons. See Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, From

Japan: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 64 FR 55243, 55245 (Oct. 12,

1999) (LNPP Preliminary 1997–1998)

followed in Large Newspaper Printing

Presses and Components Thereof,

Whether Assembled or Unassembled,

From Japan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Rescission of

Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 7492,

7495 (Feb. 15, 2000) (LNPP Final 1997–

1998).

Constructed Export Price

For both MHI and TKS, we based the

U.S. price on CEP, in accordance with

sections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act,

because: (1) the sales contracts were

executed by the respondents’ affiliated

U.S. sales agents; and (2) the

respondents’ affiliated U.S. sales agents

engaged in a broad range of activities

including coordination of installation,

testing, and technical service expenses,

which we have classified as further

manufacturing. For MHI, we revised the

reported data based on our findings at

verification.

A. MHI

We calculated CEP based on the

packed, installed price to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States. We made

deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight charges, foreign brokerage and

handling charges, Japanese export

insurance, international freight

expenses, marine insurance, U.S.

Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and

handling charges, U.S. inland freight,

and U.S. inland insurance, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for warranty,

imputed credit, direct training expenses,

and U.S. indirect selling expenses,

including indirect warranty expenses

and other indirect selling expenses

incurred by MHI and its U.S. affiliate

associated with economic activity

occurring in the United States, in

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

Act.

As in prior segments of this

proceeding, we calculated an imputed

credit expense by multiplying an

interest rate by the net balance of

production costs incurred, and progress

payments made, during the construction

period. MHI reported this expense using

a U.S.-dollar-denominated, short-term

interest rate for the entire balance,

consistent with our imputed credit

expense methodology that relies on the

interest rate applicable to the currency

in which the sale is made. MHI used

interest rates obtained from the Federal

Reserve in their credit calculation.

However, we recalculated MHI’s

imputed credit expense calculation

using the U.S. interest rate based on

MLP U.S.A. Inc.’s actual borrowing

experience rather than interest rates

obtained from the Federal Reserve. For

a detailed explanation of this analysis,

see the calculation memorandum issued

for the preliminary results of this

review, dated September 29, 2000.

In addition, we deducted the cost of

further manufacturing or assembly,

including installation expenses, in

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

Act. We classified installation charges

as part of further manufacturing,

because the U.S. installation process

involves extensive technical activities

on the part of engineers and installation

supervisors. See Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries v. United States, 15 F. Supp.

2d 807, 815–16 (CIT 1998) (Mitsubishi).

We relied on MHI’s reported amount for

further manufacturing except that we

revised the calculation of the further

manufacturing general and

administrative (G&A) expense rate by

using weighted-averages of MLP U.S.A.

Inc.’s company wide G&A expenses and

costs of goods sold based on its

December 31, 1998 and December 31,

1999 financial statements.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit, to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by MHI and its affiliate on their sales of

the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

B. TKS

We calculated CEP based on the

packed price to an unaffiliated customer

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62703

in the United States. We made

deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight to port in Japan, foreign

brokerage and handling, Japanese export

insurance, international freight

expenses, marine insurance, U.S.

Customs duty, U.S. brokerage and

handling, and unloading expenses, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for warranty,

imputed credit, direct training expenses,

and U.S. indirect selling expenses,

including other indirect selling

expenses incurred by TKS and its U.S.

affiliate associated with economic

activity occurring in the United States,

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

the Act. We calculated an imputed

credit expense using the same

methodology as discussed above for

MHI.

In addition, we deducted the cost of

any further manufacturing or assembly,

including testing and technical service

expenses in accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Act. We classified

testing and technical service expenses

as part of further manufacturing,

because the U.S. installation process

involves extensive technical activities

on the part of engineers and installation

supervisors (see Mitsubishi).

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit, to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by TKS and its affiliate on their sales of

the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

Normal Value

As noted above under the ‘‘Normal

Value Comparisons’’ section of this

notice, we based NV on CV in

accordance with section 773 of the Act

because we determined that the unique,

custom-built nature of each LNPP sold

does not permit proper price-to-price

comparisons, even though the home

market was viable for both respondents.

Cost of Production Analysis and

Constructed Value

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there are reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect MHI and TKS made

sales in the home market at prices below

their cost of production (COP) in this

review because the Department

disregarded certain sales made by MHI

and TKS during the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation and during the

previous administrative reviews

pursuant to a finding that sales were

made below cost. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing

Presses and Components Thereof,

Whether Assembled or Unassembled,

From Japan, 61 FR 38139, 38145 (July

23, 1996); and LNPP Preliminary 1997–

1998, 64 FR at 55246 followed in LNPP

Final 1997–1998. As a result, the

Department initiated investigations to

determine whether the respondents

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their COP within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for G&A and

financial expenses, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We compared the COP figures to

home market prices of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. On a contractspecific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, and packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether such

sales were made: (1) in substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of

the Act.

The results of our cost tests for both

MHI and TKS indicated that certain

home market sales were at prices below

COP within an extended period of time,

were made in substantial quantities, and

would not permit the full recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

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

the Act, we therefore excluded the

below-cost sales from our analysis and

used the remaining above-cost sales as

the basis for determining selling

expenses and profit.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and U.S. packing costs. In accordance

with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based

SG&A expenses and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by each

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

Company-specific calculations are

discussed below.

A. MHI

We relied on MHI’s reported COP and

CV amounts, except in the following

instances in which the costs were not

appropriately quantified or valued:

1. We revised the calculation of the

G&A expense rate by including pension

expenses and past service costs in the

numerator of the calculation.

2. We further revised the calculation

of the G&A expense rate by dividing the

weighted-average of unconsolidated

G&A expenses by the unconsolidated

cost of goods sold from MHI’s financial

statements for the fiscal years ended

March 31, 1999, and March 31, 2000.

3. We revised the calculation of the

financial expense rate to exclude offsets

from short-term interest income earned

on accounts receivable.

4. We recalculated the financial

expense rate (revised as noted above)

using the weighted-average expenses

and cost of sales from MHI’s

consolidated financial statements for the

fiscal years ended March 31, 1999, and

March 31, 2000.

5. We recalculated the calculation of

the sundry expense rate using the

weighted-average expenses and cost of

sales from MHI’s unconsolidated

financial statements for the fiscal years

ended March 31, 1999, and March 31,

2000.

6. We added the cost for spare parts

to CV.

See the September 29, 2000,

memorandum from Michael P. Harrison

to Neal Halper entitled ‘‘Constructed

value calculation adjustments for the

preliminary determination’’ for further

discussion.

For CEP to CV comparisons, where

appropriate, we deducted imputed

credit, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

We calculated imputed credit for CV

purposes in accordance with the

methodology explained in the

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ section of

this notice. We imputed credit expenses

for CV using the weighted-average, yenbased, short-term interest rate reported

for the POR, since home market sales

were denominated in yen.

We made a CEP offset adjustment to

NV, as explained below, in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, by

deducting the home market indirect

selling expenses, including indirect

training, warranty, and technical service

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales.

Where applicable, we offset any home

market commission using the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

62704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices

the U.S. sale remaining after the

deduction for the CEP offset, up to the

amount of the home market

commission, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.410(e).

B. TKS

We relied on TKS’s reported COP and

CV amounts except that we revised the

total cost of manufacturing to reflect the

fixed overhead costs recorded in the

company’s normal books and records for

the fiscal period when manufacturing

took place. See the September 29, 2000,

memorandum from LaVonne Jackson to

Neal Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of

Production and Constructed Value

Calculation Adjustments for the

Preliminary Determination’’ for further

discussion.

For CEP to CV comparisons, where

appropriate, we deducted imputed

credit, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

We calculated imputed credit for CV

purposes in accordance with the

methodology explained in the

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ section of

this notice. We imputed credit expenses

for CV using the weighted-average, yenbased, short-term interest rate reported

for the POR, since home market sales

were denominated in yen.

We also made a CEP offset adjustment

to NV, as explained below, in

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act, by deducting the home market

indirect selling expenses, up to the

amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on U.S. sales.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as the export price

(EP) or CEP transaction. The NV level of

trade is that of the starting-price sales in

the comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive SG&A expenses and

profit. For EP, the level of trade is also

that of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from exporter to importer. For

CEP, it is the level of the constructed

sale from the exporter to the importer,

after the deductions required under

section 772(d) of the Act.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we examine stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer in the comparison market. If

the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level of

trade 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 CEPoffset 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 (Nov. 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining levels of trade for CEP

transactions after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden.) The

Department believes, however, that its

practice is in full compliance with the

statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered

final judgement in Borden on the level

of trade issue. See Borden Inc. v. United

States, Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op.

99–50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The

government has filed an appeal of

Borden which is pending before the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice

of adjusting CEP under section 772(d)

prior to starting a level of trade analysis,

as articulated by the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

Both MHI and TKS claimed that they

made home market sales at only one

level of trade (i.e., direct sales to end

users), which is more advanced than the

level of trade in the U.S. market (i.e.,

CEP sales to the U.S. affiliate).

According to MHI and TKS, the level of

trade in the home market is not

comparable to the CEP level of trade

because the majority of the selling

functions with respect to their U.S. sales

were performed by their U.S. affiliates at

a more remote level of trade than those

selling functions relating to their home

market sales. The respondents also

claimed that the selling functions

between the two markets differ even

further once the applicable selling

expenses are deducted from the CEP

starting price. Therefore, both MHI and

TKS requested that the Department

grant them a CEP offset under section

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

In order to determine whether NV was

established at a different LOT than CEP

sales, we examined stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chains of distribution between

the respondents and their home market

customers. We compared the selling

functions performed for home market

sales with those performed with respect

to the CEP transaction, exclusive of

economic activities occurring in the

United States, pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act, to determine if the

home market level of trade constituted

a different and more advanced stage of

distribution than the CEP level of trade.

Both respondents reported that they

sold through one channel of distribution

in the home market, and through a

different channel in the United States.

In Japan, MHI and TKS sold subject

merchandise directly to unaffiliated

customers, while in the United States,

they both sold the subject merchandise

through their affiliates, MLP U.S.A., Inc.

and TKS (U.S.A.), respectively, who

then sold the subject merchandise

directly to unaffiliated purchasers.

We compared the selling functions

and the level of activity in each

distribution channel for each

respondent, and found that several of

the functions performed in the

comparison market either were not

performed in connection with the U.S.

sale at the export level of trade, or were

performed at a significantly lower level

of activity on the part of MHI or TKS.

Moreover, as we have determined that

installation expenses incurred on the

U.S. sales should be treated as further

manufacturing expenses, the CEP after

deduction for all expenses under section

772(d) of the Act reflects an uninstalled

LNPP. Supporting this contention is the

fact that many of the same selling

functions that are performed at the

comparison market level of trade are

performed not at the export level of

trade, but by the respondents’ U.S.

affiliates. Based on this analysis, we

conclude that the comparison market

and U.S. channels of distribution and

the sales functions associated with each

are sufficiently different so as to

constitute two different levels of trade,

and we find that the comparison market

sales are made at a more advanced level

of trade than are CEP sales. Because

MHI and TKS made sales in the home

market at only one level of trade, the

difference in the level of trade cannot be

quantified. Further, we do not have

information which would allow us to

examine pricing patterns based on the

respondents’ sales of other products,

and there are no other respondents or

other record information on which such

an analysis could be based.

Accordingly, because the data available

do not form an appropriate basis for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62705

making a level of trade adjustment, but

the level of trade in the home market is

at a more advanced stage of distribution

than the level of trade of the CEP, we

have made a CEP offset to NV in

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions, in

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

Act, 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

September 1, 1998, through August 31,

1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd .. 3.88

Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd ........ 0.00

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the 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 not later than 30

days after the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than 35 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

case briefs, within 120 days of the

publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. For

assessment purposes, we calculated an

importer-specific assessment rate for the

subject merchandise by dividing the

dumping margin calculated for the U.S.

sale examined by the total entered value

of the sale examined. Pursuant to 19

CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate without

regard to antidumping duties all entries

for any importer for whom the

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less

than 0.50 percent). The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service.

Cash Deposit Instructions

The following cash 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

this administrative review, as provided

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

cash deposit rates for MHI and TKS will

be those established in the final results

of this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash

deposit rate will be zero; (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 58.69

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during these review

periods. 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: September 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25790 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 101200E]

Pacific Fishery Management Council;

Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council’s (Council) Highly

Migratory Species Plan Development

Team (HMSPDT) will hold a work

session which is open to the public.

DATES: The work session will be

Tuesday, November 14, 2000, 8 a.m. to

5 p.m.; Wednesday, November 15, 2000,

8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday,

November 16, 2000, from 8 a.m. until

business for the day is completed.

ADDRESSES: The work session will be

held in the large conference room at

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science

Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive,

Room D-203, La Jolla, CA 92038-0271;

telephone: (619) 546-7000.

Council address: Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth

Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management

Council; (503) 326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

primary purpose of the work session is

to continue development of the draft

fishery management plan (FMP) for

highly migratory species (HMS).

Specific agenda topics may include:

species landed by HMS gears, bycatch

species, data collection species,

management issues and options,

research and data collection programs,

and review of draft FMP sections.

Management measures that may be

adopted in the FMP for HMS fisheries

off the West Coast include permit and

reporting requirements for commercial

and recreational harvest of HMS

resources, time and/or area closures to

minimize gear conflicts or bycatch,

adoption or confirmation of state

regulations for HMS fisheries, and

allocations of some species to

noncommercial use. The FMP is likely

to include a framework management

process to add future new measures,

including the potential for collaborative

management efforts with other regional

fishery management councils with

interest in HMS resources. It would also

include essential fish habitat and habitat

areas of particular concern, including