[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8034-8039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4730]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8035]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-428-821]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Darzenta or William Crow, Office 
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-6320 or (202) 482-0116.

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 Rounds Agreements Act.

Preliminary Determination

    As explained in the memoranda from the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration dated November 22, 1995, and January 11, 1996, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has exercised its 
discretion to toll all deadlines for the duration of the partial 
shutdowns of the Federal Government from November 15 through November 
21, 1995, and December 16, 1995, through January 6, 1996. Thus, all 
deadlines in this investigation have been extended by 28 days, i.e., 
one day for each day (or partial day) the Department was closed. The 
revised deadline for this preliminary determination is February 23, 
1996.
    We preliminarily determine that large newspaper printing presses 
and components thereof (``LNPPs'') from Germany are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on July 20, 1995 (Notice 
of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Disassembled, 60 FR 38546 (July 27, 1995)(Initiation Notice)), the 
following events have occurred:
    On August 14, 1995, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) of its affirmative preliminary determination (see ITC 
Investigation No. 731-TA-736 and 737).
    On August 28, 1995, we presented Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire 1 to MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG and its U.S. 
affiliate MAN Roland Inc. (collectively ``MAN Roland''), and Koenig & 
Bauer-Albert AG and its U.S. affiliate KBA-Motter Corp. (collectively, 
``KBA''). See the ``Respondent Selection'' section of this notice. MAN 
Roland's responses to Section A were received on September 27, 1995 (as 
amended on September 29, 1995), October 4, 1995, and October 10, 1995. 
On September 25, 1995, KBA informed the Department that it would not be 
responding to the Department's questionnaire.

    \1\ Section A requests data concerning corporate organization, 
accounting practices, markets and merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 1995, at the request of Rockwell International 
Corporation (the petitioner), we postponed the preliminary 
determination to January 26, 1996. (See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determinations: Antidumping Investigation of Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled From Japan, 60 FR 54841, October 26, 1995.)
    On October 24, 1995, the petitioner alleged that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MAN Roland made below-
cost sales of the subject merchandise in Germany, and that these below-
cost sales must be excluded from the Department's calculation of profit 
for constructed value (``CV''). Because we determined the appropriate 
basis for normal value (``NV'') to be CV, we did not address 
petitioner's below-cost allegation. We did, however, solicit contract 
price and production cost data for MAN Roland's home market sales of 
subject merchandise in order to compute selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. (See ``Product Comparisons'' section 
of this notice.)
    The Department issued Sections C, D and E of its questionnaire \2\ 
to MAN Roland on October 27, 1995. Responses to these sections of the 
questionnaire were received on December 13, 1995. A supplemental 
questionnaire was not issued to MAN Roland on January 18, 1996. On 
January 30, 1996, MAN Roland submitted corrections to clerical errors 
contained in its December 13, 1995, Section D response. MAN Roland's 
responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire were received 
on January 31, and February 1, 1996. A revised U.S. sales listing was 
submitted on February 2, 1996.

    \2\ Section C requests data on sales to the United States. 
Section D requests data on the cost of production and constructed 
value. Section E requests data on the cost of further manufacturing 
or assembly performed in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period July 28, 1995 through January 23, 1996, the 
petitioner, MAN Roland and KBA filed comments requesting clarification 
of the scope of this investigation with respect to elements (i.e., 
parts or subcomponents) of covered components, and spare and 
replacement parts. Respondents in the concurrent investigation of LNPPs 
from Japan, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai 
Seisakusho, also submitted comments concerning scope. On January 23, 
1996, the petitioner clarified the scope to exclude used presses. See 
``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice. At the Department's 
request, on February 8, 1996, the parties filed comments on suspension 
of liquidation instructions.
    On February 2 and 9, 1996, the petitioner filed comments on issues 
to be resolved and methodologies to be employed in the preliminary 
determination. KBA and MAN Roland filed such comments on February 8 and 
12, 1996, respectively.

Facts Available

    KBA failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department, (2) fails to 
provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the 
antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Because 
KBA failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we must use 
facts otherwise available with regard to KBA.
    Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against 
a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See also Statement of 
Administrative Action, at 870. KBA's failure to reply to the 
Department's questionnaire demonstrates that KBA has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this 

[[Page 8036]]
investigation. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting 
among the facts otherwise available to KBA, an adverse inference is 
warranted. As facts otherwise available, we are assigning to KBA the 
margin stated in the notice of initiation, 46.40 percent.
    Section 776(c) provides that when the Department relies on 
secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. When analyzing the petition, the Department reviewed all of 
the data the petitioner had in calculating the estimated dumping 
margin. This estimated dumping margin was based on a comparison of the 
bid price for a sale of a LNPP system made by MAN Roland to an 
unrelated U.S. customer and the CV of that LNPP system. As a result of 
that analysis, the Department modified the CV methodology that the 
petitioner relied upon in calculating the estimated margin. On the 
basis of those modifications, the Department recalculated the estimated 
dumping margin and found it to be 46.40 percent. See Initiation Notice. 
The Department corroborated all of the secondary information from which 
the margin was calculated during our pre-initiation analysis of the 
petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this 
purpose at that time. For purposes of the preliminary determination, 
the Department reexamined the price information provided in the 
petition in light of information developed during the investigation, 
and found that it continues to be of probative value.

Respondent Selection

    The producers named in the petition were MAN Roland and KBA. On 
August 4, 1995, we contacted the U.S. Embassy in Bonn, Germany, 
requesting the identification of German producers and exporters of 
LNPPs to the United States, and the volume and value of subject 
merchandise they sold to the United States during the period January 1, 
1991 through May 31, 1995. On August 24, 1995, we received a reply 
cable with information concerning the U.S. sales activities of MAN 
Roland and KBA. The cable did not indicate that there were other German 
exporters of subject merchandise to the United States. In addition to 
this cable, we received a separate cable from the U.S. Embassy replying 
to the ITC's request for information on German manufacturers of subject 
merchandise. While this cable identified eight additional German 
manufacturers of various press technologies, it did not specify whether 
they were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.
    Based on the petition and the information received from the U.S. 
Embassy, we issued questionnaires to MAN Roland and KBA. We did not 
send any additional questionnaires, as no evidence on the record 
suggested that any other German manufacturer sold LNPPs in the United 
States during the specified period. (See Memorandum to The File Re: 
Questionnaire Recipients, dated August 28, 1995.)

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on February 23, 1996, 
MAN Roland, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until 60 days after the date of the scheduled final 
determination, which is equivalent to 135 days after the publication of 
an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b)(1995), because our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, the respondent accounts for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we are granting respondent's request and 
postponing the final determination.
    Section 733(d) of the Act provides that provisional measures may 
not remain in effect for more than four months. However, that provision 
of the Act also states that the Department may extend that period to 
six months at the request of exporters representing a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. No such explicit 
request was made in this case. However, we interpret the request of MAN 
Roland to extend the final determination in this investigation to 
contain an implied request to extend provisional measures in accordance 
with Section 733(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we have extended the 
period for provisional measures to six months.

Scope of Investigation

    As specified below, we have revised the scope since our notice of 
initiation to exclude used presses, in accordance with the petitioner's 
January 23, 1996, clarification. Furthermore, we have clarified the 
scope to include ``elements'' (otherwise referred to as ``parts'' or 
``subcomponents'') of an LNPP system, addition or component, which 
taken as a whole, constitute a subject LNPP system, addition or 
component used to fulfill an LNPP contract. See ``Scope Issues'' 
section of this notice concerning the treatment of elements in the 
scope. In addition, we have stipulated that spare or replacement parts, 
which are imported pursuant to an LNPP contract and are separately 
identified and valued in that contract, whether or not shipped in 
combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of 
the investigation. See February 23, 1996, Decision Memorandum to 
Richard Moreland from The Team Re: Scope Issues.
    The products covered by these investigations are large newspaper 
printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press 
components, whether assembled or unassembled, 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 complete systems, the scope of these investigations 
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, or a printing-unit 
cylinder;
    (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. 

[[Page 8037]]

    Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, 
press additions, and press components are typically shipped either 
partially assembled or unassembled. 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 investigation. Also included in the scope 
are elements of an LNPP system, addition or component, which taken as a 
whole, constitute a subject LNPP system, addition or component used to 
fulfill an LNPP contract.
    This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or 
replacement parts imported pursuant to an LNPP contract, which are not 
integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are 
separately identified and valued in an LNPP contract, whether or not 
shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the 
scope of this investigation. 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 investigations 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 investigations 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, 8524.51.30, 8524.52.20, 8524.53.20, 8524.91.00, 
8524.99.00 and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of these investigations is dispositive.

Scope Issues

    Since our initiation, we received numerous comments from interested 
parties in this investigation and the concurrent investigation 
involving Japan, requesting that the Department clarify the treatment 
of ``elements'' in the scope of the investigation.
    In general, respondents believe that if the imported elements do 
not constitute a complete, albeit unassembled, component, or are 
missing ``essential'' elements to function as one of the five 
components named in the scope, they would not be subject to the scope 
of this investigation and the concurrent investigation involving Japan. 
The petitioner believes that, because an imported LNPP press, addition 
or component will almost always contain elements, which, by themselves, 
are not subject to the scope, it is not practical to exclude these 
elements from the scope of the investigation in so far as they comprise 
an incomplete subject component. For a complete discussion of these 
comments, see February 23, 1996 Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from 
The Team Re: Scope Issues.
    As stated in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above, we 
interpret the scope to include those elements or collection of elements 
imported from a subject country in so far as they constitute any one of 
the five covered components which are, in turn, used to fulfill a 
contract for a LNPP press system, press addition or press component. 
Individual parts per se are not covered by the scope of these 
investigations unless taken as a whole they constitute a subject 
component used to fulfill an LNPP contract. This interpretation, 
however, raises a question: at what point do the elements imported from 
a subject country rise to the level of an LNPP component, addition or 
system subject to the scope of these investigations?
    The Department must decide on a reasonable and practicable approach 
in determining what constitutes a subject LNPP component, addition or 
system, and in so doing, establish the basis on which we will include 
elements in the scope. We are considering two alternative approaches 
for analyzing what governs the inclusion of parts or subcomponents, 
other than spare or replacement parts, within the scope of these 
investigations. One approach would consider, on a case-by-case basis, 
whether the imported parts or subcomponents when taken together are 
essentially an LNPP system, addition or component. This so-called 
``essence'' approach is of necessity subjective and turns on the 
question of how near the sum of the imported parts comes to comprising 
a complete LNPP system, addition or component. A second approach would 
consider the value of the imported parts or subcomponents relative to 
the total value of the finished LNPP component, addition or system in 
the United States. That is, we would determine that the imported parts 
or subcomponents would be within the scope if they comprised a certain 
minimum percentage of the value of the parts of a finished LNPP system, 
addition or component.
    Both of these approaches raise threshold questions. Because certain 
sales reported by respondents in both the German and Japanese 
investigations consist of imported elements from Germany or Japan, 
rather than a complete LNPP component, addition or system, acceptance 
of either of the two approaches will have implications as to which of 
the respondents' sales the Department will consider in its final 
determination. Therefore, we are presently soliciting comments from 
interested parties as to the merits of these approaches and/or others 
that may be relevant for use in the final determination. Interested 
party comments on this topic are due no later than May 1, 1996.

Period of Investigation (POI)

    The petitioner and MAN Roland filed comments during the period 
October 19 through 26, 1995, concerning the appropriate POI. On October 
27, 1995, we established the appropriate POI for MAN Roland to be July 
1, 1993 through June 30, 1995.
    As a result of changes to section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which 
codified the normal period within which sales made below the cost of 
production are to be analyzed, the Department modified the standard POI 
to cover a one year period. In this investigation, however, in order to 
capture sufficient and representative sales, the Department extended 
the POI to two years, instead of the normal one-year period, because of 
the nature of the LNPP industry, characterized by custom order sales 
and long term sales contracts. (See October 27, 1995 Memorandum to 
Richard W. Moreland from The Team Re: Establishing the Period of 
Investigation.)

Product Comparisons

    Although the home market was viable, in accordance with section 773 
of the Act, we based NV on CV because we determined that the particular 
market situation, which requires that the subject merchandise be built 
to each customer's specifications, does not permit proper price-to-
price comparisons. (See November 9, 1995, Memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland from The Team Re: Determining the Appropriate Basis for Normal 
Value.) 

[[Page 8038]]


Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether MAN Roland's sales of LNPPs to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared Constructed 
Export Price (``CEP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(ii), we calculated transaction-
specific CEPs (which in this case were synonymous with model-specific 
CEPs) for comparison to transaction-specific NVs because of the limited 
number of sales and the custom-made merchandise.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with subsections 772(b) and (d) of the Act, we 
calculated CEP for sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser by a 
seller affiliated with the producer/exporter that took place before 
importation and involved further manufacturing in the United States.
    We calculated CEP sales based on packed, delivered and/or installed 
prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where 
appropriate, for the following charges: inland freight to port in 
Germany, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, 
U.S. Customs duty and U.S. inland freight. We made corrections to 
respondent's data where the data reported in the U.S. sales listing 
conflicted with the data contained in support documentation submitted 
in its questionnaire responses.
    We also made deductions for post-sale warehousing, commissions, 
imputed credit, training, warranty and product liability. In 
calculating imputed credit, we took into account the unique nature and 
magnitude of the LNPP projects under investigation. These projects 
require substantial capital expenditures over an extended time period 
because of their size and their lengthy production process. Moreover, 
the projects generally call for the purchaser to provide scheduled 
progress payments prior to the completion of a given project. In 
consideration of these factors, we computed credit by applying an 
interest rate to the net balance of production costs incurred and 
progress payments made during the construction period. We imputed 
credit expenses for U.S. sales using the weighted-average U.S. short-
term interest rate reported for the POI because these sales were 
denominated in U.S. dollars.
    We also deducted those indirect selling expenses that related to 
economic activity in the United States. We recalculated these expenses 
based on sales revenues, rather than sales orders. We disallowed an 
adjustment for the warehousing income claimed for one sale because of 
insufficient evidence on the record to support respondent's claim that 
such an adjustment was warranted.
    We also deducted the value of spare and replacement parts, which 
are excluded from the scope of the investigation, where the value of 
these spare and replacement parts was separately identified in the 
contractual documentation governing the sale. In addition, for one 
sale, we deducted the value of the used equipment portion of the LNPP 
which is excluded from the scope of the investigation.
    We classified installation expenses, as well as special testing and 
start-up costs associated with the installation process, as part of 
further manufacturing in the United States because the U.S. 
installation process involves extensive technical activities on the 
part of engineers and installation supervisors, and the integration of 
subject and non-subject merchandise necessary for the operation of 
LNPPs. We also classified as part of further manufacturing costs, the 
cost of certain non-German items either shipped directly to the United 
States without further processing in Germany, or sourced in the United 
States, for integration into the overall LNPP during the installation 
process.
    Furthermore, we deducted the cost of any further manufacturing or 
assembly (including additional material and labor, installation, 
special testing and start-up costs). We recomputed the U.S. further 
manufacturer's reported general and administrative (``G&A'') expense 
rate using the cost of sales amount reported in its financial 
statements; and for one U.S. sale, we reduced the further manufacturing 
costs by the reported cost of used equipment. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

Normal Value/Constructed Value

    For the reasons outlined in the ``Product Comparisons'' section of 
this notice, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A 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 the 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.
    We relied on the respondent's CV amounts, except in the following 
specific instances wherein the reported costs were improperly valued:
    1. We excluded respondent's reported negative interest expense 
amounts for all sales;
    2. We excluded the multiple facility adjustment reported in cost of 
manufacturing (``COM'');
    3. For each uncompleted press, we applied to the submitted standard 
overhead costs the variance experienced by MAN Roland for the most 
recently completed fiscal year (July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995);
    4. We recalculated the time variance for manufacturing overhead 
costs based on the adjusted costs as computed in item 3 above;
    5. We recalculated product line research and development costs, and 
G&A expenses based on the full cost of each U.S. contract;
    6. In calculating the CV profit rate and selling expense rates, we 
adjusted the reported home market cost data for items 1 through 3 noted 
above;
    We also included in CV the costs of spare and replacement parts for 
those U.S. sales where the value of these parts could not be separately 
identified in the contractual documentation and therefore could not be 
excluded from CEP.
    For selling expenses, we used the average home market selling 
expense rate, calculated based on the selling expenses reported for 
home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, and applied 
this rate to the U.S. COM. We recalculated home market indirect selling 
expenses based on sales revenues, rather than sales orders.
    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 home market short-term interest rate reported for the POI since 
these sales were denominated in deutschemarks.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B), we added U.S. packing 
costs to a CV net of packing.

Price to CV Comparisons

    For CEP to CV comparisons, we deducted from CV the average home 
market direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the 
Act.

Currency Conversion

    Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to convert 
foreign 

[[Page 8039]]
currencies based on the dollar exchange rate in effect on the date of 
sale of the subject merchandise, except if it is established that a 
currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export 
sale. When a company demonstrates that a sale on forward markets is 
directly linked to a particular export sale in order to minimize its 
exposure to exchange rate losses, the Department will use the rate of 
exchange in the forward currency sale agreement. In this case, although 
MAN Roland reported that forward currency exchange contracts applied to 
certain U.S. sales, the record information was not sufficient to 
conclude that these contracts were directly linked to the particular 
sales in question. Therefore, for the purpose of the preliminary 
determination, we made currency conversions based on the official 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
    Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the 
daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' For this preliminary 
determination, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the 
daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. 
The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 
40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we 
substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.
    Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day 
adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. 
Such an adjustment period is required only when a foreign currency is 
appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted 
in this case, because the deutschemark generally remained constant 
against the U.S. dollar during the POI.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of LNPP systems, 
additions and components, whether assembled or unassembled, from 
Germany, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Furthermore, because we are still in the process of 
clarifying the definition of a subject LNPP system, addition or 
component, as explained in the ``Scope Issues'' section of this notice, 
we are also directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of 
entries of elements (parts or subcomponents) of components imported to 
fulfill a contract for an LNPP system, addition, or component, from 
Germany, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    In addition, in order to ensure that our suspension of liquidation 
instructions are not so broad as to cover merchandise imported for non-
subject uses, foreign producers/exporters and U.S. importers in the 
LNPP industry shall be required to provide certification that the 
imported merchandise would not be used to fulfill an LNPP contract. We 
will also request that these parties register with the Customs Service 
the LNPP contract numbers pursuant to which subject merchandise is 
imported. With respect to entries of LNPP spare and replacement parts, 
and used presses, from Germany, which are expressly excluded from the 
scope of the investigation, we will instruct the Customs Service not to 
suspend liquidation of these entries if they are separately identified 
and valued in the LNPP contract pursuant to which they are imported. 
The Customs Service will require a cash deposit or posting of a bond 
equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the 
export price as shown below. These suspension of liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                        margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG...............................        17.70
Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG...................................        46.40
All Others.................................................        17.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department has excluded the margin for KBA, which is based on 
adverse facts available, from the calculation of the All Others rate.
    The All Others rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for entries of merchandise produced by MAN Roland and KBA.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than May 16, 1996, and rebuttal briefs, no later than May 23, 
1996. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on June 4, 1996, time and place to be determined, at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the 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 the issues to be 
discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the 
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination by 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: February 23, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-4730 Filed 2-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P