63562 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

Other (one time).

Total Burden Hours: 817.

Rural Utility Service

Title: Water and Waste Disposal

Programs Guaranteed Loans.

OMB Control Number: 0572–NEW.

Summary of Collection: The Rural

Utilities Service (RUS) is authorized by

the Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development Act to make loans to

public agencies, nonprofit corporations,

and Indian tribes for the development of

water and waste disposal facilities

primarily servicing rural residents. The

guaranteed loan program encourages

lender participation and provides

specific guidance in the processing and

servicing of guaranteed loans.

Need and Use of the Information:

Rural Development’s field offices will

collect information from applicants/

borrowers, lenders, and consultants to

determine eligibility, project feasibility

and to ensure borrowers operate on a

sound basis and use loan funds for

authorized purposes. There are agency

forms required as well as other

requirements that involve certifications

from the borrower, lenders, and other

parties. Failure to collect proper

information could result in improper

determinations of eligibility, use of

funds and or unsound loans.

Description of Respondents: Business

or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 15.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 858.

Forest Service

Title: Application for the Senior

Community Service Employment

Program.

OMB Control Number: 0596–0099.

Summary of Collection: The Senior

Community Service Employment

Program (SCSEP) is administered in

conjunction with Title V of the Older

Americans Act of 1965, as amended.

The Secretary of Labor administers this

program in order to foster and promote

useful part-time opportunities in

community services activities for

unemployed low-income persons who

are age 55 or older. The Forest Service

(FS) participates as one of 10 national

sponsors under a grant agreement from

the Department of Labor and operates

the SCSEP in 40 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Through the

SCSEP the vast majority of applications

become self-reliant and independent of

welfare programs and have upgraded

their skills and transitioned into the

regular labor market. The FS will collect

information using form FS 1800–21b

‘‘Application for Senior Community

Service Employment Program.’’

Need and Use of the Information: FS

will collect the following information:

identification data (name, address, and

birth date); eligibility information

(number in family, income and

signature); applicant’s disposition

(family income level determination,

eligibility determination, community

service assignment determination); and

other information such as age, sex,

education level, ethnic group, his/her

veteran and handicapped position. The

information will also be used to provide

the administrative office within the

Department of Labor data on the

program’s enrollment. If the FS does not

collect the above data from each person

applying to the SCSEP, participant

eligibility determination could not be

legally made and the Forest Service

could forfeit its right to remain a viable

program sponsor.

Description of Respondents:

Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 6,500.

Frequency of Responses:

Recordkeeping; Reporting: Other (initial

application).

Total Burden Hours: 1,083.

Nancy B. Sternberg,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–27218 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–830]

Coumarin From the People’s Republic

of China: Notice of Extension of Time

Limit for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for preliminary results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Hoadley, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–0666.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

On February 9, 1995, the Department

of Commerce published an antidumping

duty order on coumarin from the

People’s Republic of China (60 FR

7751). The Department received

requests to conduct an administrative

review of this antidumping duty order.

The review was initiated on March 30,

2000 for Jiangsu Native Produce Import

& Export Corp. (Jiangsu) at the request

of petitioner (65 FR 16875), and on June

2, 2000 for Netchem Inc. (Netchem) at

the request of Netchem (65 FR 35320).

On July 31, 2000, Jiangsu submitted a

letter to the Department stating that it

would no longer participate in the

review. This antidumping duty

administrative review covers the period

of February 1, 1999 through January 31,

2000.

Because of the complexity of certain

issues, it is not practicable to complete

this review within the time limit

mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act. Therefore, in accordance with that

section, the Department is extending the

time limit for the preliminary results to

no later than February 28, 2001 (See

Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman

to Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time

Limit, October 12, 2000).

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Barbara E. Tillman,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 00–27302 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From

Mexico: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Dduty 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, Columbian Home Products,

LLC (formerly General Housewares

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices 63563

Corporation), the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cookware from Mexico. This

review covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and

Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A.

de C.V., manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States and the period December 1, 1998,

through November 30, 1999 (thirteenth

review period).

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dinah McDougall or Rebecca Trainor,

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)

482–3773 or (202) 482–4007,

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’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On October 10, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register, 51 FR

36435, the final affirmative antidumping

duty determination on certain

porcelain-on-steel (POS) cookware from

Mexico. We published an antidumping

duty order on December 2, 1986, 51 FR

43415.

On December 14, 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

December 1, 1998, through November

30, 1999 (the POR), 64 FR 69693. The

Department received a request for an

administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de

C.V. (Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte

America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from

Columbian Home Products, LLC (CHP),

formerly General Housewares

Corporation (GHC) (hereinafter, the

petitioner). We published a notice of

initiation of the review on January 26,

2000, 65 FR 4228.

On January 12, 2000, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Cinsa and ENASA. We

issued supplemental questionnaires on

May 16, and June 19, 2000. On March

13, 2000, June 5, 2000, and July 5, 2000,

we received responses to the original

questionnaire and to our two

supplemental questionnaires. On July

14, 2000, the respondents filed a

database containing December 1998

home market sales data, which the

respondents claimed had been

unintentionally omitted from their prior

data submissions. We conducted

verification of Cinsa/ENASA’s

antidumping duty questionnaire

responses from July 17, 2000 through

July 28, 2000, and issued our report on

September 27, 2000, (see Memorandum

to the File: Sales and Cost of Production

Verification).

On August 7, 2000, we requested that

the respondents submit revised home

market sales, U.S. sales, and CV/COP

databases to reflect certain verification

findings. See letter dated August 7,

2000, and memo to the file dated August

21, 2000, on file in Room B–099 of the

Commerce Department. On October 3,

2000, we returned respondents’ July 14

and August 11, 2000 submissions

because they contained certain home

market sales information that was

untimely filed. See letter to David

Amerine dated October 3, 2000, on file

in room B–099 of the Commerce

Department. In accordance with the

Department’s request in that letter, the

respondents submitted revised

databases on October 5, 2000. The

Department is conducting this review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are porcelain-on-steel cookware,

including tea kettles, which do not have

self-contained electric heating elements.

All of the foregoing are constructed of

steel and are enameled or glazed with

vitreous glasses. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00.

Kitchenware currently classifiable

under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30

is not subject to the order. Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Reimbursement

During the eleventh review period

(December 1, 1996 through November

30, 1997), the Department found that

Cinsa and ENASA’s U.S. affiliate, Cinsa

International Co. (CIC), had been

reimbursed for the payment of

antidumping duties on entries of subject

merchandise made during the fifth and

seventh review periods and liquidated

during the eleventh review period.

Based on this reimbursement, the

Department established a rebuttable

presumption that CIC would also be

reimbursed for its eleventh review

entries. Cinsa and ENASA failed to

rebut that presumption in the eleventh

review, but did rebut the presumption

during the twelfth review, i.e., the most

recent prior review. See Porcelain-OnSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068

(May 10, 2000). For this reason, and

because there has been no new

indication of reimbursement since the

transfer made during the eleventh

review period, the Department has not

adopted any presumption of

reimbursement as to entries made

during this thirteenth review period.

Facts Available

In accordance with section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have

determined that the use of partial

adverse facts available is appropriate for

Cinsa and ENASA in this case, because

they did not report certain home market

sales in a timely manner. In our January

12, 2000, questionnaire, we instructed

the respondents to report all home

market sales made during the POR, as

well as those made three months prior

to, and two months after, the POR. We

reiterated this request in our June 19,

2000 supplemental questionnaire, and

instructed the respondents to revise

their databases to include all applicable

sales. In their July 5, 2000,

supplemental questionnaire response,

Cinsa and ENASA stated that they had

complied with this request. On July 14,

2000, three days before the beginning of

verification, the respondents submitted

for the record the December 1998 home

market sales data for Cinsa and ENASA,

which they stated had been erroneously

omitted from their prior data

submissions. On October 3, 2000, we

returned to the respondents their

submissions of July 14, 2000 and August

11, 2000, containing the December 1998

sales data that we determined to be new

factual information untimely filed. The

respondents resubmitted their sales

data, excluding the December 1998 sales

information, on October 5, 2000.

63564 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that, when selecting the facts available,

adverse inferences may be used when a

party has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s requests for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at

868–870 (1994) (SAA). For the U.S.

sales that would have matched to

Cinsa’s and ENASA’s December 1998

home market sales, we have applied an

adverse assumption, because Cinsa and

ENASA did not act to the best of their

ability in responding to the

Department’s repeated requests that

they provide complete home market

sales data by the questionnaire

deadlines. As partial facts available, we

have applied margins calculated for

Cinsa and ENASA in previous segments

of the proceeding to their U.S. sales that

would otherwise have matched to the

December 1998 home market sales.

These margins are 17.47 percent for

Cinsa, calculated in the less-than-fairvalue investigation, and 61.66 percent

for ENASA, calculated in the 10th

administrative review. They are the

highest calculated margins in any

segment of the proceeding that have not

been doubled as a result of a finding of

reimbursement. See Porcelain-on-Steel

Cookware from Mexico: Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value Investigation, 51 FR 36435

(October 10, 1986) and Porcelain-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 43594

(August 13, 1998). For a detailed

discussion of our treatment of these

sales, see the October 16, 2000

Memorandum to the File: Calculation

Memo for the Preliminary Results

(Preliminary Results Calculation Memo)

on file in room B–099 of the Commerce

Department.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary

information used for facts available by

reviewing independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. Information

from a prior segment of the proceeding,

such as the prior review margins for

Cinsa and ENASA that we are using

here, constitute secondary information.

The SAA provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value. SAA at 870. As explained in

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan;

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6,

1996), to corroborate secondary

information, the Department will

examine, to the extent practicable, the

reliability and relevance of the

information used.

Unlike other types of information,

such as input costs or selling expenses,

there are no independent sources from

which the Department can derive

calculated dumping margins; the only

source for margins is administrative

determinations. In an administrative

review, if the Department chooses as

facts available a calculated dumping

margin from a prior segment of the

proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin for

that time period, because it was

calculated in accordance with the

statute.

With respect to the relevance aspect

of corroboration, however, the

Department will consider information

reasonably at its disposal as to whether

there are circumstances that would

render a margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996),

where the Department disregarded the

highest dumping margin as best

information available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin.

There is no evidence of circumstances

indicating that the margins we are using

as facts available in this review are not

appropriate. For example, we have

expressly declined to use the margins

from the eleventh review, which were

doubled because of the reimbursement

finding. Therefore, the requirements of

section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of POS

cookware by Cinsa and ENASA to the

United States were made at less than

normal value, we compared constructed

export price (CEP) to the normal value,

as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export

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

this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the CEPs of

individual U.S. transactions to the

weighted-average normal value of the

foreign like product where there were

sales made in the ordinary course of

trade at prices above the cost of

production (COP), as discussed in the

‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section,

below.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered

by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared

U.S. sales to sales made in the home

market within the contemporaneous

window period, which extends from

three months prior to the U.S. sale until

two months after the sale. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market made in the

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade. In making the product

comparisons, we compared individual

cookware pieces with identical or

similar pieces, and cookware sets to

identical or similar sets. Within these

groupings, we matched foreign like

products based on the physical

characteristics reported by the

respondents in the following order:

Quality, gauge, cookware category,

model, shape, wall shape, diameter,

width, capacity, weight, interior coating,

exterior coating, grade of frit (a material

component of enamel), color,

decoration, and cover, if any.

Constructed Export Price

We calculated CEP in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act, because

the subject merchandise was first sold

by CIC after importation into the United

States. We based CEP on packed prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

billing adjustments, discounts, rebates,

U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and

Mexican brokerage and handling

expenses, and U.S. duty in accordance

with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.402(a). We made further

deductions, where appropriate, for

credit, commissions, and indirect

selling expenses that were associated

with economic activities occurring in

the United States, pursuant to section

772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.402(b). For those sales for which the

payment date was not reported, we

calculated credit based on the average

number of days between shipment and

payment using the sales for which

payment information was reported. We

made an adjustment for profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices 63565

Act. As a result of our verification

findings, we deleted canceled sales from

the U.S. sales database, recalculated

U.S. duties, and adjusted the entered

value for certain sales. See the

Preliminary Results Calculation Memo

for further detail.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, we based normal

value on the price (exclusive of valueadded tax) at which the foreign like

product was first sold for consumption

in the home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, as

noted below.

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, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative (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 LOT

different from export price or CEP, 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 affects

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 a 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 comparability, we

adjust normal value under section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset

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 (November 19, 1997).

In this review, Cinsa and ENASA had

only CEP sales. They reported that

comparison-market and CEP sales were

made at different LOTs, and that

comparison-market sales were made at a

more advanced LOT than were sales to

CIC in the United States. The

respondents requested that the

Department make a CEP offset in lieu of

a LOT adjustment, as they were unable

to quantify the price differences related

to sales made at the different LOTs.

Cinsa and ENASA reported three

channels of distribution in the home

market: (1) Direct sales to customers

from the Saltillo plant, (2) sales shipped

from their Mexico city warehouse, and

(3) sales shipped to supermarkets and

discount stores. In analyzing the data in

the home market sales listing by

distribution channel and sales function,

we found that the three home market

channels are all handled by Cinsa’s and

ENASA’s affiliated distributer,

COMESCO, and did not differ

significantly with respect to selling

functions. Similar services were offered

to all or some portion of customers in

each channel. Based on this analysis, we

find that the three home market

channels of distribution comprise a

single LOT.

All CEP sales were made through the

same distribution channel: By the

Mexican exporter to CIC, the U.S.

affiliated reseller, which then sold the

merchandise directly to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. The

same selling functions/services were

provided by Cinsa and ENASA to all

customers in this distribution channel.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that all CEP sales constitute a single

LOT in the United States.

To determine whether sales in the

comparison market were at a different

LOT than CEP sales, we examined the

selling functions performed at the CEP

level, after making the appropriate

deductions under section 772(d) of the

Act, and compared those selling

functions to the selling functions

performed in the home-market LOT.

In the comparison market, Cinsa and

ENASA sold subject merchandise to

their affiliated distributor, COMESCO,

which then resold the POS product to

unaffiliated customers. In the United

States, Cinsa sold its and ENASA’s

subject merchandise to its affiliate, CIC,

which then sold the subject

merchandise directly to unaffiliated

purchasers. Therefore, we compared the

selling functions and the level of

activity associated with Cinsa’s sales to

CIC with the sales by COMESCO to

unaffiliated purchasers in the Mexican

market. We found that several of the

functions performed in making the

starting-price sale in the comparison

market either were not performed in

connection with sales to CIC (e.g.,

market research, order solicitation, after

sale services/warranties, and

advertising), or were only performed to

a small degree in connection with sales

to CIC (e.g., inventory maintenance),

thus supporting respondents’ contention

that different LOTs exist between

comparison-market and CEP sales.

These differences also support the

respondents’ assertion that the

comparison-market merchandise is sold

at a more advanced LOT (see the

Preamble to the Department’s

Regulations, 62 FR 27295, 27371 (May

19, 1997) (‘‘Each more remote level

must be characterized by an additional

layer of selling activities, amounting in

the aggregate to a substantially different

selling function.’’) Furthermore, many

of the same selling functions that are

performed at the comparison-market

LOT are performed, not at the CEP LOT,

but by the respondents’ U.S. affiliate.

Based on this analysis, we preliminarily

conclude that the comparison-market

and CEP channels of distribution are

sufficiently different to determine that

two different LOTs exist, and that the

comparison-market sales are made at a

more advanced LOT than are the CEP

sales.

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.

Because there is only one LOT in the

home market, it is not possible to

determine if there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

sales on which normal value is based

63566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices

and comparison market (i.e., home

market) sales at the LOT of the export

transaction. Thus, the data available do

not provide an appropriate basis to

calculate an LOT adjustment. Therefore,

we made a CEP offset to normal value.

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

the Act, we calculated the CEP offset 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.

Cost of Production Analysis

The Department disregarded certain

sales made by Cinsa and ENASA for the

period December 1, 1997, through

November 30, 1998 (the most recently

completed review of Cinsa and ENASA),

pursuant to a finding in that review that

sales failed the cost test (see Porcelainon-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 320068

(May 10, 2000)). Thus, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,

there are reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that respondents Cinsa and

ENASA 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 investigations to determine

whether the respondents made homemarket sales during the POR at prices

below their COP within the meaning of

section 773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP on a productspecific basis, based on the sum of

Cinsa’s and ENASA’s cost of materials

and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home-market

SG&A and packing costs in accordance

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

Because Cinsa and ENASA reported

monthly costs, we created an annual

average COP on a product-specific basis.

We relied on COP information

submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except

in the following instances where it was

not appropriately quantified or valued:

(1) Enamel frit prices from an affiliated

supplier did not approximate fair

market value prices; therefore, we

increased Cinsa’s and ENASA’s enamel

frit prices to account for the portion of

the reported cost savings to affiliated

parties which was not due to marketbased savings; (2) we excluded Cinsa’s

and ENASA’s negative interest expense.

See the Preliminary Results Calculation

Memo for further details.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average,

per-unit COP figures for the POR to

home market sales of the foreign like

product, as required by 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. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP

(net of selling expenses) to the home

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, rebates, discounts,

and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where

twenty percent or more of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales where such sales were found to be

made at prices which would not permit

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time (in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act).

The results of our cost tests for Cinsa

and ENASA indicated for certain home

market models, less than twenty percent

of the sales of the model were at prices

below COP. We therefore retained all

sales of these models in our analysis

and used them as the basis for

determining normal value. Our cost

tests also indicated that for certain other

home market models more than twenty

percent of home market sales within an

extended period of time were at prices

below COP 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

of these models from our analysis and

used the remaining sales as the basis for

determining normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For both respondents, we calculated

normal value based on the value-added

tax-exclusive, home market gross unit

price and deducted, where appropriate,

inland freight, discounts, and rebates in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.401. We made a

deduction for credit expenses, where

appropriate, pursuant to section

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

351.410(c). We also deducted

commissions and the lesser of

comparison-market indirect selling

expenses and the indirect selling

expenses deducted from CEP (the CEP

offset) pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). For

those comparison-market sales for

which the payment date was not

reported, we calculated credit based on

the average number of days between

shipment and payment using the sales

for which payment information was

reported. We made adjustments to

normal value for differences in packing

expenses. We also made adjustments to

normal value, where appropriate, for

differences in costs attributable to

differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In

accordance with our verification

findings, we deleted canceled sales from

the home market database, and

recalculated inventory carrying costs

and credit expenses. See the

Preliminary Calculation Memo for

further details.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A 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 this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margins for

the period December 1, 1998, through

November 30, 1999, are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin (percent)

Cinsa ........................................................................................................................................................ 12/1/98–11/30/99 1.99

ENASA ..................................................................................................................................................... 12/1/98–11/30/99 6.99

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices 63567

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. 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

37 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, 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

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 this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the final results of this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties. We will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis. For assessment purposes, we

intend to calculate importer-specific

assessment rates for the subject

merchandise by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

sales examined and dividing this

amount by the total entered value of the

sales examined.

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

this administrative review, as provided

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

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those established in

the final results of this review; (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 less-thanfair-value (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 29.52

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV normal value

investigation. These requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

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 this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

is published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.221.

Dated: October 12, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–27078 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an

Amended Export Trade Certificate of

Review, Application No. 84–11A12.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

Northwest Fruit Exporters (‘‘NFE’’) on

June 11, 1984. Notice of issuance of the

Certificate was published in the Federal

Register on June 14, 1984 (49 FR 24581).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of

Export Trading Company Affairs,

International Trade Administration,

(202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free

number) or E-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21)

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

issue Export Trade Certificates of

Review. The regulations implementing

Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325

(1999).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of the

certification in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 84–00012, was issued to NFE on

June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14,

1984) and previously amended on May

2, 1988 (53 FR 16306, May 6, 1988);

September 21, 1988 (53 FR 37628,

September 27, 1988); September 20,

1989 (54 FR 39454, September 26,

1989); November 19, 1992 (57 FR 55510,

November 25, 1992); August 16, 1994

(59 FR 43093, August 22, 1994);

November 4, 1996 (61 FR 57850,

November 8, 1996); October 22, 1997

(62 FR 55783, October 28, 1997);

November 2, 1998 (63 FR 60304,

November 9, 1998); and October 20,

1999 (64 FR 57438, October 25, 1999).

NFE’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended to:

1. Add each of the following

companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the

Certificate within the meaning of