Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62695

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

names and position titles of the

members of the DPRB are set forth

below by organization:

Chief of Staff and Chief Financial

Officer and Assistant Secretary for

Administration

Roger W. Baker, Chief Information

Officer

John S. Gray, III, Director, Office of

Business Liaison

K. David Holmes, Jr., Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Security

Raul Perea-Henze, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Administration

General Counsel

Barbara S. Fredericks, Assistant General

Counsel for Administration

Mary M. Street, Deputy General Counsel

Economics and Statistics

Administration (ESA)

James L. Price, Deputy Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

James K. White, Under Secretary for

Management

William G. Barron, Jr., Deputy Director,

Bureau of the Census

Marvin D. Raines, Associate Director for

Field Operations, Bureau of the

Census

J. Steven Landefeld, Director of Bureau

of Economic Analysis

Cynthia Z. F. Clark, Associate Director

for Methodology and Standards,

Bureau of the Census

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate

Administrator for

Telecommunications and Information

Applications

John F. Sopko, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Administration

International Trade Administration

Jonathan C. Menes, Director, Office of

Trade and Economic Analysis, Trade

Development

Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Director,

Import Administration

Stephen P. Jacobs, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Agreements Compliance,

Market Access and Compliance

Elizabeth Sears, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, U.S. & Foreign Commercial

Service

Linda Cheatham, Chief Financial Officer

and Director of Administration

Leslie R. Doggett, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Tourism Industries,

Trade Development

Edward J. Casselle, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Africa, Market Access

and Compliance

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Susan B. Fruchter, Counselor to the

Under Secretary; Director, Office of

Policy and Strategic Planning

William B. Wheler, Director, Office of

Legislative Affairs

Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant

Administrator, National Marine

Fisheries Service

Rear Admiral Evelyn J. Fields, Director,

Office of Marine and Aviation

Operations; Director, NOAA

Commissioned Corps

John Jones, Deputy Assistant

Administrator, National Weather

Service

Stewart S. Remer, Deputy Chief

Administrative Officer, Office of

Finance and Administration

Mary Glackin, Deputy Assistant

Administrator, National

Environmental Satellite and Data

Information Service

Bureau of Export Administration

Eileen M. Albanese, Director, Office of

Exporter Services

Steven Goldman, Director, Office of

Chemical and Biological Controls and

Treaty Compliance

Dexter M. Price, Director, Office of

Antiboycott Compliance

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Deborah Jefferson,

Executive Secretary, DPRB.

[FR Doc. 00–26806 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–821]

Large Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, from

Germany: Preliminary Results and

Rescission in Part of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and Final

Determinations of Scope Inquiries

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

respondent MAN Roland

Druckmaschinen AG and the petitioner

Goss Graphic Systems, Inc., the

Department of Commerce is conducting

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on large

newspaper printing presses and

components thereof, whether assembled

or unassembled, from Germany. These

reviews cover MAN Roland

Druckmaschinen AG and Koenig &

Bauer AG, manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. The periods of review for Koenig

& Bauer AG are September 1, 1997,

through August 31, 1998, and

September 1, 1998, through August 31,

1999. The period of review for MAN

Roland Druckmaschinen AG is

September 1, 1998, through August 31,

1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have not been made below normal value

for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service not to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3), the Department of

Commerce is rescinding these reviews

in part as to Koenig & Bauer AG because

we verified that it made no sales or

shipments of subject merchandise

during the review periods. In addition,

we determine that certain LNPP parts

imported by KBA North America Inc.

Web Press Division from Germany

during the period 1998 through 1999,

pursuant to contracts for the sale of

LNPP systems to Dayton Newspapers,

Inc. and Fayetteville Publishing

Company, are outside the scope of the

order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger, Barbara WojcikBetancourt, or Kate Johnson, Office 2,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import

Administration-Room B099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4136, 482–0629, or 482–4929,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (April 1999).

62696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices

1The administrative review of KBA includes the

period September 1, 1998–August 31, 1999, as well

as the deferred period September 1, 1997–August

31, 1998.

Background

On July 23, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register, 61 FR

38166, the final affirmative antidumping

duty determination on large newspaper

printing presses and components

thereof, whether assembled or

unassembled (LNPP), from Germany.

We published an antidumping duty

order on September 4, 1996 (61 FR

46623).

On July 21, 1997, the Department

published Scope Inquiry Instructions

and Revision of Suspension of

Liquidation Procedures for Entries of

LNPP Elements Outside the Scope of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 38975

(Scope Inquiry Instructions).

During 1997, 1998, and 1999, KBA

North America Inc. Web Press Division

(KBA NA), an importer of LNPP

elements (i.e., parts and

subcomponents) from Germany, filed

several scope inquiries pursuant to the

procedures the Department developed

subsequent to the issuance of the

antidumping duty order (see Scope

Inquiry Instructions, 62 FR at 38975).

On September 30, 1998, Goss Graphic

Systems, Inc. (the petitioner) requested

that the Department defer for one year

the initiation of its review of entries by

Koenig & Bauer AG (KBA) subject to the

above-referenced order covering the

period September 1, 1997, to August 31,

1998. On October 29, 1998, we granted

the petitioner’s request and deferred this

review accordingly. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests

for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of

Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 58009

(October 29, 1998).

On September 9, 1999, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice advising of the

opportunity to request an administrative

review of this order for the period

September 1, 1998, through August 31,

1999 (64 FR 48980). The Department

received requests for an administrative

review of KBA 1 and MAN Roland

Druckmaschinen AG and its U.S.

affiliate MAN Roland Inc. (collectively

MAN Roland). We published a notice of

initiation of these reviews, including the

deferred review, on November 4, 1999

(64 FR 60161).

On November 24, 1999, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to the two

respondents. We received responses

during the period December 1999

through January 2000. We issued

supplemental questionnaires in March,

April and June 2000. We received

responses during the period April

through July 2000.

On March 13, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results in these reviews

until September 29, 2000. See

Postponement of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 65 FR 13364.

On June 1 and 2, 2000, the petitioner

alleged, based on shipment manifest

data, that KBA NA may have failed to

report all of its German parts

importations for its U.S. press sales that

were the subject of several scope inquiry

requests in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Specifically, it alleged that KBA NA

may have imported printing units of

German origin, but never requested a

scope ruling for these parts prior to

importation. The petitioner requested

that the Department send a

supplemental questionnaire soliciting

additional information on this issue.

On June 6, 2000, KBA responded to

the petitioner’s allegations arguing that

the merchandise at issue was not of

German origin. On June 14, 2000, we

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

KBA NA soliciting additional

information on this topic. We received

a response to this supplemental

questionnaire on June 21, 2000.

The Department conducted

verification of KBA’s responses during

the period June 26 through August 4,

2000, pursuant to section 782(i) of the

Act. In August and September 2000, the

Department issued its verification

reports.

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews 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 these reviews 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 (RTP), 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 these reviews. 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 these reviews, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62697

2See Memoranda From The Team to Richard

Moreland dated December 22, 1997, and January 27,

1998; Memoranda From The Team to Maria H.

Tildon dated June 17, 1998, and August 4, 1998;

Memoranda From The Team To Holly A. Kuga

dated December 30, 1998, January 14, 1999, and

February 1, 1999.

not shipped in combination with

covered merchandise, are excluded from

the scope of these reviews. 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.

Further, these reviews cover 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 these reviews

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

these reviews is dispositive.

Final Scope Rulings for KBA NA

In separate preliminary scope inquiry

segments of the proceeding, the

Department preliminarily determined,

pursuant to the special procedures

developed subsequent to the issuance of

the antidumping duty order (see Scope

Inquiry Instructions, 62 FR at 38975),

that various LNPP parts or

subcomponents for the production of a

LNPP system sold to Dayton

Newspapers, Inc. and to Fayetteville

Publishing Company were found to be

outside the scope of the order, and

subsequently instructed the Customs

Service to suspend preliminarily

liquidation of these parts or

subcomponents at a zero deposit rate.2

The Department stated in its

preliminary scope ruling memoranda

that it would make final determinations

with respect to KBA’s LNPP parts

importations in the context of an

administrative review, if one was

requested, for a period which captured

entries of the merchandise at issue and

the completion (i.e., production,

assembly and installation) of the LNPP

components of which they are a part.

Thus, the Department determined, in

the context of these administrative

reviews, that various LNPP parts or

subcomponents for the production of a

LNPP system sold to Dayton

Newspapers, Inc. and to Fayetteville

Publishing Company are outside the

scope of the order because, when taken

altogether, they constitute less than 50

percent of the cost of manufacture of the

major LNPP components of which they

are a part. With respect to petitioner’s

allegation that KBA NA may have

inported printing units of German

origin, we verified that these printing

units were not of German origin. See

Memorandum From Peter Scholl and

Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper on

Verification of the Cost of

Manufacturing of Koenig and Bauer

Mo ̈dling-Mo ̈dling, Austria, dated

September 15, 2000. For complete

analysis, see Recommendation

Memorandum—Final Ruling on

Requests by KBA NA for Exclusion of

Certain LNPP Parts from the Scope of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, from

Germany, dated September 29, 2000.

Recission in Part of Reviews

In its December 22, 1999, Section A

questionnaire response, KBA stated that

KBA NA did not import and KBA did

not export subject merchandise to the

United States during the periods of

review. The Department verified that

neither KBA nor KBA NA made sales or

shipments of subject merchandise

during the review periods. (See

Memorandum For The File From

Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt and Kate

Johnson on Verification of the

Questionnaire Responses of Koenig &

Bauer AG and KBA North America Inc.

Web Press Division in the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled of Unassembled, from

Germany, dated August 25, 2000 at

pages 6–8). Therefore, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are

rescinding in part these reviews of the

antidumping duty order on LNPPs from

Germany with respect to KBA.

Product Comparisons

Although MAN Roland’s home market

was viable, in accordance with section

773 of the Act and our normal practice

in this proceeding and in the

companion proceeding involving Japan,

we based normal value on constructed

value because we determined that, even

though the general product

characteristics of LNPP systems are

comparable enough for them to be

considered a foreign like product, the

physical differences in the subcomponent specifications between

LNPPs sold in the United States and the

home market are so great that

meaningful price-to-price comparisons

cannot be made. 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 (October 12, 1999), 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 (February 15, 2000)

and Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Large Newspaper

Printing Presses and Components

Thereof: Whether Assembled or

Unassembled, from Germany, 61 FR

8035, 8037 (March 1, 1996), followed in

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, from

Germany, 61 FR 38166 (July 23, 1996)

(Final Determination).

Home Market Sales Used To Calculate

Constructed Value Profit and Selling

Expenses

On June 23, 2000, the petitioner

submitted a letter stating that Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries, Inc. (MHI), a

respondent in the companion Japan

case, 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 home

market sales from MAN Roland and

from Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., the

other respondent in the companion

Japan case.

Upon analysis of the home market

sales on the record for MAN Roland as

well as the respondents in the

companion Japan case, we determined

that the appropriate universe of home

market sales used to calculate

constructed value profit and selling

expenses should comprise all sales

made during the period beginning with

three months prior to the respondent’s

62698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices

3Each of the respondents in the Japan

administrative review and MAN Roland in the

Germany administrative review shipped/entered

only one LNPP into the United States during the

POR that was completely assembled and installed.

U.S. sale (June 1997),3 and then the nine

subsequent months, including the

month of sale (March 1, 1997-February

28, 1998). See the September 29, 2000,

memorandum from the team to Richard

W. Moreland on Universe of Home

Market Sales Used to Calculate Profit

and Selling Expenses for Constructed

Value for further discussion.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether MAN Roland’s

sale of a LNPP to the United States was

made at less than normal value, we

compared constructed export price

(CEP) to the normal value, as described

below.

Constructed Export Price and Further

Manufacturing

MAN Roland

We calculated CEP, in accordance

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

Act, for MAN Roland’s period of review

(POR) sale because the contract

governing the U.S. sale was executed in

the United States by MAN Roland’s

affiliated U.S. sales agent and the

affiliated U.S. sales agent coordinated

rigging and installation support, which

we have classified as further

manufacturing.

We calculated CEP based on the

packed, installed price to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States. We made

deductions for the following charges:

foreign inland freight charges; combined

German inland insurance, marine

insurance and U.S. inland insurance

expenses; German handling, ocean

freight, U.S. handling and U.S. inland

freight expenses; U.S. brokerage; and

U.S. Customs duty (including harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees). Although MAN Roland

reported international movement

expenses in U.S. dollars, a review of

source documents indicated that the

expenses were actually incurred in

German currency. Accordingly, we used

the expenses incurred in German

currency for purposes of the preliminary

results. We also made deductions for

commissions, imputed credit, warranty,

direct training expenses, and other

direct selling expenses. We deducted

further those indirect selling expenses

that related to economic activity in the

United States.

In addition, we deducted the cost of

further manufacturing or assembly,

including installation expenses. 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–

17 (CIT 1998) (Mitsubishi).

Further, we made an adjustment for

CEP profit in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

The Department disregarded certain

sales made by MAN Roland during the

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

pursuant to the results of a cost test.

Thus, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that MAN Roland made sales in the

home market at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise in the

current review period. As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether MAN Roland made

home market sales during the POR at

prices below its COP within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We compared the COP figures to

home market sales of the foreign like

product, as required under section

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

whether these sales were made at prices

below the COP. In determining whether

to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

whether: (1) within an extended period

of time, such sales were made in

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.

The results of our cost test for MAN

Roland 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 from our

analysis the sales that failed the cost test

and used the remaining above-cost sales

as the basis for determining selling

expenses and profit.

Normal Value

Constructed Value

MAN Roland

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated constructed value

based on the sum of MAN Roland’s cost

of materials, fabrication, selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and U.S. packing costs as reported in

the U.S. sales database. In accordance

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

SG&A and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by MAN Roland

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the home market.

In accordance with section 773(e)(3)

of the Act, we added the U.S. packing

costs to a constructed value net of

packing.

Price-to-Constructed Value Comparison

For the CEP to constructed value

comparison, we deducted from

constructed value the weighted-average

home market imputed credit expenses,

pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

We imputed credit expenses for

constructed value using the weightedaverage, German-currency-based, shortterm interest rate reported for the POR,

since home market sales were

denominated in German currency.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine normal value

based on sales in the comparison market

at the same level of trade (LOT) as the

export price or CEP transaction. The

normal value LOT is that of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or,

when normal value is based on

constructed value, as is the case in these

reviews, that of the sales from which we

derive SG&A expenses and profit. For

export price, the U.S. LOT is also the

level of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from the exporter to an

unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to an affiliated importer,

after the deductions required under

section 772(d) of the Act.

To determine whether normal value

sales are at a different LOT than export

price 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. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference in

LOT involves the performance of

different selling activities and is

demonstrated to affect price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which normal

value is based and comparison-market

sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make an LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal

value 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 normal

value and CEP affects price

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Notices 62699

comparability, we adjust normal value

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

(the CEP offset provision). The CEP

offset is calculated as the lesser of the

following:

1. The indirect selling expenses on

the comparison market sale, or

2. The indirect selling expenses

deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales of Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining LOTs 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 LOT

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 LOT analysis, as

articulated by the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

In its questionnaire response, MAN

Roland reported that sales to the

unaffiliated customers were made at the

same level of trade in both the United

States and the home market. However,

MAN Roland contends that, in the event

that the Department classifies its U.S.

sale as a CEP sale, then a LOT

adjustment is appropriate to account for

the differences between the actual LOT

of the home market sales and the

constructed LOT of the U.S. sale.

As discussed above, we have

determined that MAN Roland’s U.S. sale

under review is properly classified as a

CEP sale. To determine whether sales in

the comparison market were at a

different LOT than CEP sales, we

normally examine the selling functions

performed at the CEP level, after making

the appropriate deductions under

section 772(d) of the Act, and compare

those selling functions to the selling

functions performed in the home market

LOT. However, despite our requests,

MAN Roland did not submit sufficient

information pertaining to selling

functions in the U.S. market for

purposes of this review. Accordingly,

we were unable to perform a LOT

analysis on MAN Roland’s sales.

Therefore, we did not make a LOT

adjustment to normal value.

Currency Conversion

We made a currency conversion, in

accordance with section 773A(a) of the

Act, based on the official exchange rate

in effect on the date of the U.S. sale as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of these reviews, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margin for

the 1998–1999 POR is:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period Margin

MAN Roland .... 9/1/98–8/31/99 0.00

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties to this

proceeding within five days of the

publication date of this notice. See 19

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. See 19

CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from

interested parties and rebuttal briefs,

limited to the issues raised in the

respective case briefs, may be submitted

not later than 30 days and 35 days,

respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs

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.

The Department will issue the final

results of these administrative reviews,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs or at

the hearing, if held, not later than 120

days after the date of publication of this

notice.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1) The party’s name, address and

telephone number; (2) the number of

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be

discussed.

Assessment Rates

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appropriate

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service upon completion of

these reviews. The final results of these

reviews shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

final results of these reviews and for

future deposits of estimated duties.

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). For

assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate 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.

With regard to KBA NA’s entries of

LNPP parts in 1998 and 1999 pursuant

to contracts for the sale of LNPPs to

Dayton Newspapers Inc. and

Fayetteville Publishing Company,

which were determined to be outside

the scope of the order, we will instruct

the Customs Service to liquidate these

entries without regard to antidumping

duties.

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 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

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

these administrative reviews, as

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

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company (MAN Roland) will

be that established in the final results of

these reviews, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de

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