Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21319

to the POI using the electricity-specific

price index published by the Reserve

Bank of India.

We valued grinding services provided

by a subcontractor using the factors of

production reported for this company,

because we were unable to obtain a

surrogate value for its services.

Specifically, we valued the labor and

electricity factors of production using

the same sources noted above. In

addition, we added amounts for factory

overhead, depreciation, SG&A expenses,

and interest expenses derived from the

financial statements of Southern

Magnesium and Chemicals Ltd., an

Indian magnesium metal producer. This

information was supplied by the

petitioners in the petition. Because

these financial statements showed a

loss, we calculated a profit ratio using

the 1998/1999 financial aggregates and

ratios data published by the Economic

Intelligence Service and the Centre for

Monitoring Indian Economy. This

information was supplied by

Minmetals/CNNMIT in its February 13,

2001, surrogate value submission. For

further discussion, see the April 23,

2001, concurrence memorandum from

the team.

To value plastic bags, plastic wrapper,

and wooden pallets (i.e., the packing

materials reported by the respondent),

we used import values from the Monthly

Statistics.

To determine factory overhead,

depreciation, SG&A expenses, and

interest expenses, and profit for the

finished product, we relied on rates

derived from the financial statements

noted above.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we intend to verify all information

relied upon in making our final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of any

entries of pure magnesium from PRC

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date on

which this notice is published in the

Federal Register. We will instruct the

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated in the chart below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import and Export/China

National Nonferrous Metals Industry Trading Group Corp ......... 8.76

PRC-wide ........................................ 305.56

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

producers that are identified

individually above.

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.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties in this

proceeding within five days of the

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR

351.224(b).

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 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 1870, within 30

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 issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10684 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–813]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:

Pure Magnesium From the Russian

Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2001.

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.

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 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that pure

magnesium from the Russian Federation

(Russia) is not being, nor is likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in section

733(b) of the Act.

21320 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

1The meaning of this term is the same as that

used by the American Society for Testing and

Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards:

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Pure Magnesium

from Israel, the Russian Federation, and

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR

68121 (Nov. 14, 2000) (Notice of

Initiation)), the following events have

occurred:

On December 1, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary

injury determination in this case. See

ITC Investigation No. 731–TA–895–897

(December 2000).

Also on December 1, 2000, the

petitioners in this case (i.e., the

Magnesium Corporation of America

(Magcorp) and the United Steel Workers

of America, Locals 482 and 8319)

requested that the Department modify

the scope of this investigation to

exclude certain magnesium products

that are prepared solely for use as a

desulfurizer in steel-making from the

scope of the investigation. On December

4, 2000, we received comments on the

scope of the investigation from ESM

Group, Inc. (ESM), a U.S. manufacturer

of magnesium powder and desulfurizing

reagents. In its submission, ESM

requested that the Department should

exclude from the scope: (1) Magnesiumbased reagents, in accordance with the

petitioners’ intention not to capture

such products; and (2) pure magnesium

in granular form, because it is a separate

class or kind of merchandise from

magnesium ingots. For further

discussion, see the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ and ‘‘Comments on

Scope’’ sections of the notice, below.

On December 11, 2000, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to the Trade

Representative of the Russian

Federation in the United States and

requested that the Trade Representative

forward the questionnaire to all

companies which manufactured and/or

exported the subject merchandise

during the period of investigation (POI).

We also sent courtesy copies of the

questionnaire to all companies which

were identified in the petition as

possible exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise during the POI.

The letters provided to the Trade

Representative and those companies

identified in the petition as producers

and/or exporters of pure magnesium set

out the deadlines for responses to the

different sections of the questionnaire.

In January 2001, the Department

received responses from two U.S.

trading companies which are exporters

of Russian magnesium (i.e., Greenwich

Metals Inc. (Greenwich) and Interlink

Metals, Inc. (Interlink)), and two

Russian producers/exporters of

magnesium (i.e., Avisma Titanium

Magnesium Works (Avisma) and

Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW)).

In January, February, and March 2001,

we issued supplemental questionnaires

to Avisma, Greenwich, and SMW and

received responses to these

supplemental questionnaires during

January, February, and March 2001.

Also in January 2001, the Department

requested that Interlink provide

additional information concerning the

proper date of sale for its U.S. sales. On

January 24, 2001, we received a

response to this supplemental

questionnaire. In addition, we received

comments from the petitioners and

SMW regarding the appropriate date of

sale in this case. Based on this

information, we concluded that

Interlink had no sales of subject

merchandise during the POI.

Consequently, we have not analyzed

Interlink’s response for purposes of this

investigation. See the ‘‘Period of

Investigation’’ section of the notice,

below, for further discussion.

On January 19, 2001, the Department

invited interested parties to comment on

surrogate country selection and to

provide publicly available information

for valuing the factors of production. We

received responses to this letter from the

petitioners, Avisma, and Interlink on

February 9, 2001. Each of these parties

filed rebuttal comments on surrogate

country and surrogate value information

on February 20, 2001.

On March 1, 2001, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.205(e), the petitioners made a

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request and, on March 6, 2001,

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than April

23, 2001. See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium

From Israel, the Russian Federation,

and the People’s Republic of China and

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty

Determination With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium

From Israel, 66 FR 14546 (Mar. 13,

2001).

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes imports of pure magnesium

products, regardless of chemistry, form,

or size, including, without limitation,

ingots, raspings, granules, turnings,

chips, powder, and briquettes.

The scope of this investigation

includes: (1) Products that contain at

least 99.95 percent primary magnesium,

by weight (generally referred to as

‘‘ultra-pure’’ magnesium); (2) products

that contain less than 99.95 percent but

not less than 99.8 percent pure

magnesium, by weight (generally

referred to as ‘‘pure’’ magnesium); (3)

chemical combinations of pure

magnesium and other material(s) in

which the pure magnesium content is

50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8

percent, by weight, that do not conform

to an ‘‘ASTM Specification for

Magnesium Alloy’’1 (generally referred

to as ‘‘off-specification pure’’

magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures

of pure magnesium and other material(s)

in which the pure magnesium content is

50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8

percent, by weight, except that mixtures

containing 90 percent or less pure

magnesium, by weight, when mixed

with lime, calcium metal, calcium

silicon, calcium carbide, calcium

carbonate, carbon slag coagulants, and/

or fluorspar, are excluded.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS). Although

the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Comments on Scope

In accordance with our regulations,

we set aside a period of time for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage and encouraged all parties to

submit such comments within 20

calendar days of publication of the

Notice of Initiation. See Notice of

Initiation, 65 FR at 68123. On December

1, 2000, the petitioners requested that

the Department clarify that the scope of

this investigation excludes finished

mixtures containing pure magnesium

and/or off-specification pure

magnesium prepared solely for use as a

desulfurizer in steel-making, unless

such mixtures contain only minimal

amounts of non-magnesium materials in

order to circumvent an antidumping

order. On December 4, 2000, ESM

submitted a letter supporting the

petitioners’ position that magnesiumbased reagents should not be included

in the scope of the Department’s

investigation. On January 30, 2001, the

petitioners submitted proposed

language to further clarify their intent

with respect to the scope of this

investigation. Based on this submission,

we have revised the scope to exclude

reagent magnesium.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21321

In its December 4 submission, ESM

also argued that pure magnesium ingot

and granular magnesium constitute

separate classes or kinds of merchandise

and that the Department should exclude

granular magnesium from the scope of

the investigation. However, because (1)

the respondents only sold pure

magnesium ingot during the POI, and

(2) we have made a preliminary finding

of no sales at less than fair value, we

have not addressed this issue for

purposes of the preliminary

determination. In the event that we

make an affirmative final determination,

we will consider this issue then.

On April 10, 2001, Rossborough

Manufacturing Co., L.P., requested that

the Department amend the scope of this

investigation to exclude certain

additional reagent mixtures and imports

of granular magnesium used for making

reagent mixtures. Rossborough’s

submission was filed too late to be given

proper consideration for purposes of the

preliminary determination, but we will

consider these issues for the final

determination.

Period of Investigation

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the

POI for an investigation involving

merchandise from a non market

economy is the two most recent fiscal

quarters prior to the month of the filing

of the petition (i.e., October 2000).

Therefore, in this case, the POI is April

1, 2000, through September 30, 2000.

Both Interlink and SMW requested

that the Department extend the POI to

cover shipments of pure magnesium

made pursuant to long-term contracts

signed in the fourth quarter of 1999 and

the first quarter of 2000. Pursuant to 19

CFR 351.204(b)(1), the Department may

examine merchandise sold during any

additional or alternate period that the

Department concludes is appropriate.

However, based on the arguments and

evidence presented on this issue, the

Department does not believe it is

appropriate to extend the POI in this

investigation. Thus, we have continued

to use the six-month period defined by

19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). For further

discussion, see the March 23, 2001,

memorandum from Christopher Priddy

to Richard W. Moreland entitled ‘‘Date

of Sale for Long-Term Contracts and

Period of Investigation.’’

Nonmarket Economy Country Status for

Russia

The Department has treated Russia as

a nonmarket economy (NME) country in

all past antidumping duty investigations

and administrative reviews. See, e.g.,

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel

Products from the Russian Federation,

64 FR 38626 (July 19, 1999); Titanium

Sponge from the Russian Federation:

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 64 FR 1599 (Jan.

11, 1999); Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from the Russian Federation, 62 FR

61787 (Nov. 19, 1997); Notice of Final

Determination of Sale at Less Than Fair

Value: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium from the Russian

Federation, 60 FR 16440 (Mar. 30, 1995)

(Magnesium from Russia Original

Investigation Final Determination). A

designation as a NME remains in effect

until it is revoked by the Department.

See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME country, section

773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base

normal value (NV) on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a comparable market economy that is

a significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The sources of individual

factor prices are discussed under the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.

No party in this investigation has

requested a revocation of Russia’s NME

status. We have, therefore, preliminarily

continued to treat Russia as a NME.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of subject merchandise in

an NME country a single rate, unless an

exporter can demonstrate that it is

sufficiently independent so as to be

entitled to a separate rate. Avisma and

SMW have submitted separate rates

information in their section A

responses, have stated that there is no

element of government ownership or

control, and have requested a separate,

company-specific rate.

Regarding Greenwich, this exporter is

located in a market-economy country

and is not affiliated with a Russian

producer or exporter. Consequently, we

do not need to perform a separate rates

test for Greenwich, and we are

calculating a separate rate for it in

accordance with our practice. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From

the People’s Republic of China, 61 FR

19026, 19027 (Apr. 30, 1996).

The Department’s separate rate test is

unconcerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/ border-type controls

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and

minimum export prices), particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (Nov. 19, 1997); Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (Nov. 17,

1997); and Honey from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (Mar. 20,

1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

From the People’s Republic of China, 56

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified by

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Under the separate rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in

NME cases only if the NME respondents

can demonstrate the absence of both de

jure and de facto governmental control

over export activities. See Silicon

Carbide and Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl

Alcohol From the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1998).

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

Regarding Avisma and SMW, these

companies have placed on the record a

number of documents to demonstrate

absence of de jure control, including: (1)

The Federal Law on Joint Stock

Companies (Nov. 24, 1995); (2) the

Russian Federation Federal Act on State

Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity

(July 7, 1995) (amended as Federal Law

No. 32-FZ (Feb. 10, 1999)); (3) the

President of the Russian Federation’s

Decree No. 721 (July 1, 1992); and (4)

the Russian Federation Civil Code (Oct.

21, 1994) at Articles 49 and 50.

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary

21322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

2The Department’s findings in the preliminary

determinations of these proceedings were

unchanged in the final determinations. See Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products From the Russian

Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (Feb. 4, 2000)

(Russian Cold-Rolled Final Determination) and

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium

Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 42669,

42671 (July 11, 20000).

3The Department’s findings in the preliminary

determinations of these proceedings were

unchanged in the final determinations. See Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products From the Russian

Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (Feb. 4, 2000)

(Russian Cold-Rolled Final Determination) and

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium

Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 fr 42669,

42671 (July 11, 2000).

4This was unchanged in the final determination.

See Magnesium from Russia Original Investigation

Final Determination, 60 FR 16442.

5 ‘‘CFR,’’ an official INCO Term for international

trade and shipping, denotes that the seller is

responsible for the cost of the freight expenses to

the named port of destination but is not responsible

for insurance expenses.

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled

Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the

Russian Federation, 64 FR 61261, 61268

(Nov. 10, 1999); see also Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the

Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1142

(Jan. 7, 2000).2 We have no new

information in this proceeding

Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1142 (Jan. 7,

2000).3 We have no new information in

this proceeding which would cause us

to reconsider this determination.

According to Avisma and SMW, pure

magnesium exports are not affected by

export licensing provisions or export

quotas. Avisma and SMW claim to have

autonomy in setting the contract prices

for sales of pure magnesium through

independent price negotiations with

their foreign customers without

interference from the Russian

government. Based on the assertions of

Avisma and SMW, we preliminarily

determine that there is an absence of de

jure government control over the pricing

and marketing decisions of Avisma and

SMW with respect to these companies’

pure magnesium export sales.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts, and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses.

Avisma and SMW have asserted the

following: (1) Each company establishes

its own export prices; (2) each company

negotiates contracts without guidance

from any governmental entities or

organizations; (3) each company makes

its own personnel decisions; and (4)

each company retains the proceeds of its

export sales and uses profits according

to its business needs. Additionally,

Avisma’s and SMW’s questionnaire

responses indicate that companyspecific pricing during the POI does not

suggest coordination among exporters.

This information supports a preliminary

finding that there is an absence of de

facto governmental control of the export

functions of these companies.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that Avisma and SMW have

met the criteria for the application of

separate rates.

Russia-Wide Rate

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers located in the

NME comprise a single exporter under

common government control, the ‘‘NME

entity.’’ The Department assigns a single

NME rate to the NME entity unless an

exporter can demonstrate eligibility for

a separate rate.

Information on the record of this

investigation indicates that Avisma and

SMW were the only Russian producers

and/or exporters of the subject

merchandise with sales or shipments to

the United States during the POI. Based

upon our examination and clarification

of Customs data, we have determined

that there are no other Russian

producers and/or exporters of the

subject merchandise and consequently

none which were required to respond to

the Department’s questionnaire. See the

memorandum from Christopher Priddy

to the file entitled ‘‘Examination of

Customs Data for Pure Magnesium

Russian Imports During the Period of

Investigation’’ dated April 23, 2001. For

this reason, we have not assigned a

Russia-wide rate in this investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Avisma,

Greenwich, and SMW to or within the

United States were made at LTFV, we

compared the export price (EP) or the

constructed export price (CEP), as

appropriate, to NV based on an NME

analysis, as described below. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs and CEPs to the NVs.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

A. Avisma

For Avisma, we used EP methodology

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation and CEP methodology was

not otherwise appropriate. We made no

deduction from the starting price to

account for either export taxes paid by

Avisma to the Russian government or

export procedure fees because (a) the

actual amounts paid are an internal

expense within an NME country and (b)

there is no quantifiable good or service

factor for which a surrogate value can be

determined. See Notice of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determinations: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From the Russian

Federation, 59 FR 55427, 55430 (Nov. 7,

1994) (Pure and Alloy Magnesium from

Russia).4

We calculated EP based on packed

CFR5 prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for inland freight from

the factory to the port of export, foreign

brokerage and handling, third-country

freight, third-country warehousing,

ocean freight, and marine insurance, in

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

the Act. We valued Avisma’s movement

provided by NME suppliers using South

African freight rates; for those freight

services provided by market-economy

companies, we used the actual prices

which Avisma paid to the freight

supplier in our EP calculation. For

further discussion of our use of

surrogate data in an NME proceeding, as

well as selection of South Africa as the

appropriate surrogate country, see the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice,

below.

B. Greenwich

For Greenwich, we used CEP

methodology in accordance with section

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

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States took place after importation. In

accordance with our practice, we

excluded trial shipments from our

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21323

analysis for purposes of the preliminary

determination because they were made

in small quantities. See, e.g., Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products

from Japan, 64 FR 8291, 8295 (Feb. 19,

1999). For further discussion, see

‘‘Preliminary Determination of

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure

Magnesium from the Russian Federation

Concurrence Memorandum’’

(Concurrence Memorandum) dated

April 23, 2001.

We calculated CEP based on ex-dock,

ex-warehouse, CIF, or delivered prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We deducted from the starting

price amounts for foreign inland freight

from the Russian plant to the reseller’s

warehouse, foreign inland freight in the

country of exportation, foreign

brokerage and handling, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. warehousing, U.S. inland

insurance, U.S. terminal charges, and

U.S. customs brokerage fees and duties

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

of the Act. We valued Greenwich’s

movement expenses provided by NME

suppliers using South African freight

rates; for those freight services provided

by market-economy companies, we used

the actual prices which Greenwich paid

to the freight supplier in our CEP

calculation.

We made additional deductions from

CEP for credit expenses, and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs and other

indirect selling expenses, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We

recalculated credit expenses for one sale

for which Greenwich had not received

payment as of the date of its last

questionnaire response. As the date of

payment for this sale, we used the date

of the preliminary determination.

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

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at CEP. We calculated the CEP profit

ratio for Greenwich based on the

financial data reported in its income

statement for the year ended June 30,

2000.

C. SMW

For SMW, we used CEP methodology

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because sales to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States took place after importation. We

made no deduction from the starting

price to account for either export taxes

paid by SMW to the Russian

government or export procedure fees

because (a) the actual amounts paid are

an internal expense within an NME

country and (b) there is no quantifiable

good or service factor for which a

surrogate value can be determined. See

Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Russia,

59 FR at 55430. We calculated CEP

based on ex-dock, ex-warehouse, CIF or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we adjusted the starting

price for billing adjustments. We also

deducted from the starting price

amounts for foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling, foreign

inland insurance, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S.

warehousing, U.S. terminal charges,

U.S. customs brokerage fees and duties,

and U.S. warehousing, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We

valued SMW’s movement provided by

NME suppliers using South African

freight rates; for those freight services

provided by market-economy

companies, we used the actual prices

which SMW paid to the freight supplier

in our CEP calculation. With respect to

ocean freight and marine insurance, we

note that SMW used a freight forwarder

located in Russia to ship certain of its

products. Because SMW was unable to

establish that the expenses incurred for

these transactions were set by a marketeconomy supplier in a market-economy

currency, we have not used them for

purposes of the preliminary

determination. Rather, we have based

the amount of these expenses on the

amounts incurred by SMW on its other

transactions arranged by freight

forwarders located in a marketeconomy. For further discussion, see

Concurrence Memorandum.

We made additional deductions for

credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, in accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act. We based the

amount for indirect selling expenses

incurred by SMW’s U.S. affiliate on

facts available because SMW did not

report these expenses on a POI-basis,

despite requests in two supplemental

questionnaires that it do so. As facts

available, we used the total indirect

selling expense amount reported by

SMW, which represents all indirect

expenses incurred during 2000. For

further discussion, see Concurrence

Memorandum.

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

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at CEP. We calculated the CEP profit

ratio using the financial data reflected

on the income statement of a South

African producer of zinc. For further

discussion of the financial statements of

this surrogate producer, see the ‘‘Normal

Value’’ section of this notice, below.

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME country, and (2) are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise. The Department has

determined that Poland, Venezuela,

South Africa, Turkey, Colombia, and

Tunisia are countries comparable to

Russia in terms of overall economic

development. See the January 12, 2001,

memorandum from Jeffrey May to Louis

Apple.

According to the available

information on the record, we have

determined that South Africa meets the

statutory requirements for an

appropriate surrogate country for

Russia. For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we have selected South

Africa as the surrogate country, based

on the quality and contemporaneity of

the currently available data.

Accordingly, we have calculated NV

using South African values for Russian

producers’ factors of production except,

as noted below, in certain instances

where an input was sourced from a

market economy country and purchased

with a market-economy currency. We

have obtained and relied upon publicly

available information wherever

possible.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by

Avisma and SMW for the POI. To

calculate NV, the reported per-unit

factor quantities were multiplied by

publicly available South African

surrogate values.

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued Russian factors of production, in

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the

Act. Factors of production include, but

are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor

required; (2) quantities of raw materials

employed; (3) amounts of energy and

other utilities consumed; and (4)

representative capital cost, including

depreciation. In examining surrogate

values, we selected, where possible, the

publicly available value which was: (1)

An average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the POI or most

contemporaneous with the POI; (3)

product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.

21324 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

For a more detailed explanation of the

methodology used in calculating various

surrogate values, see the ‘‘Preliminary

Determination Factors Valuation

Memorandum from the Team to the

File,’’ dated April 23, 2001. In

accordance with this methodology, we

valued the factors of production as

follows:

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the availability, quality,

specificity, and contemporaneity of the

data. As appropriate, we adjusted input

prices by including freight costs to make

them delivered prices. We added to

South African surrogate values a

surrogate freight cost using the shorter

of the reported distance from the

domestic supplier to the factory or the

distance from the nearest seaport to the

factory. This adjustment is in

accordance with the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in

Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117

F. 3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Where a producer did not report the

distance between the material supplier

and the factory, we used as facts

available the longest distance reported

(i.e., the distance between the Russian

seaport and the producer’s location). To

value rail freight rates, we used a rate

for aluminum slabs or ingots provided

by Spoornet, a South African rail

company. As we were unable to identify

a surrogate value for freight by truck, we

valued trucking freight expenses using

the surrogate value for rail freight. For

those values not contemporaneous with

the POI, we adjusted for inflation using

producer price indices or wholesale

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

We valued the following inputs using

United Nation’s Harmonized System

import data for South Africa: sodium

chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium

flouric (flourspar), barium chloride,

potassium chloride, potash, and shaped

timber/sawn wood.

We valued technical salt, sulphur,

and slag using data from the World

Trade Atlas of the South African

Revenue Service. We valued carnallite

concentrate using a price quote

provided by a South African raw

dolomite producer, and we multiplied

the dolomite price quote by a factor of

20 as an estimated value for dehydrated

carnallite. We valued sulfuric acid using

United Nations commodity trade

statistics for imports. The surrogate

value for petroleum coke was based on

an average of data obtained from the

World Trade Atlas of the South African

Revenue Service and United Nations

commodity trade statistics. We valued

magnesium scrap using Customs Union

trade import statistics for aluminum

scrap. We valued boric acid using data

from the U.S. Geological Survey.

We valued both natural gas and heavy

oil using data from the International

Energy Agency. We valued electricity

using the 1999 average electricity rate

charged to industrial users by Eskom, a

South African electric utility company.

We valued the following packing

materials using data from the World

Trade Atlas of the South African

Revenue Service: nails, tape, labels,

wire, thermo-shrinking bags, and silica

gel. The surrogate value for steel strips/

metal straps was based on United

Nations Commodity Trade Statistics. We

used the Monthly Abstract of Trade

Statistics from the Republic of South

Africa in order to value polyethylene

film/plastic.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To determine factory overhead, SG&A

expenses, and profit, we relied on rates

derived from the 1998 financial

statements of Zinc Corporation of South

Africa, a South African producer of

comparable merchandise.

Based on the information submitted

by Avisma and SMW, we have

determined that chlorine gas and

potassium chloride flux are by-products.

Because they are by-products, we

subtracted the sales revenue of chlorine

gas and potassium chloride flux from

the estimated production costs of pure

magnesium. This treatment of byproducts is consistent with generally

accepted accounting principles. See

Cost Accounting: A Managerial

Emphasis (1991) at pages 539–544. We

used a South African price quote to

value chlorine and United Nation’s

Harmonized System data to value

potassium chloride.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions, in

accordance with section 773A(a) of the

Act, based on the official exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we intend to verify all information

relied upon in making our final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

Because the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins for all the

examined companies are 0.00 percent,

we are not directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of entries

of pure magnesium from Russia.

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, pursuant to

section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will

determine within 75 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties in this

proceeding within five days of the

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR

351.224(b).

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 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 1870, within 30

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 within 75 days of

this preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21325

1The meaning of this term is the same as that

used by the American Society for Testing and

Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards:

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10685 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–508–809]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure

Magnesium from Israel

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Matney or Andrew Covington,

Office 1, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1778, or (202)

482–3534, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351

(April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that pure

magnesium from Israel is being sold, or

is 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 are shown in the

Suspension of Liquidation section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of

initiation of this investigation in the

Federal Register (see Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations: Pure

Magnesium from Israel, the Russian

Federation, and the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 68121 (November 14,

2000) (Initiation Notice)), the following

events have occurred:

On December 1, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) preliminarily determined that

there is a reasonable indication that

imports of pure magnesium from Israel

are materially injuring the United States

industry. See 65 FR 77910 (December

13, 2000). On December 4, 2000, the

Department requested comments from

interested parties regarding the criteria

to be used for model matching purposes.

The parties submitted comments on our

proposed model matching criteria on

December 8, 2000. On December 12,

2000, the Department issued an

antidumping questionnaire to Dead Sea

Magnesium (DSM).

DSM submitted its initial responses to

the questionnaire on January 25 and

February 1, 2001. The petitioners in this

case (i.e., the Magnesium Corporation of

America (Magcorp) and the United Steel

Workers of America, Locals 482 and

8319) filed comments on the

questionnaire responses on February 12,

2001. After analyzing the initial

responses and the petitioners’

comments, we issued a supplemental

questionnaire to DSM on February 22,

2001. We received DSM’s response to

this supplemental questionnaire on

March 15, 2001.

On February 8, 2001, the petitioners

requested that the Department initiate

an investigation of sales below the cost

of production (COP) for DSM. On

February 20, 2001, based on our review

of the petitioners’ below cost allegation,

we initiated a cost investigation for

DSM and requested that DSM respond

to Section D of the antidumping

questionnaire concerning COP and

constructed value (CV) (see

Memorandum dated February 20, 2001,

to Senior Office Director Susan

Kuhbach, which is on file in Import

Administration’s Central Records Unit

(Cost Initiation Memo)). DSM filed its

Section D response on March 21, 2001.

On April 2, 2001, we issued a Section

D supplemental questionnaire to DSM.

DSM submitted supplemental section D

information on April 10 and 16, 2001.

On March 1, 2001, the petitioners

made a timely request for a

postponement of the preliminary

determination pursuant to section

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. On March 6,

2001, the Department postponed the

preliminary determination until no later

than April 23, 2001 (see Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From

Israel, the Russian Federation, and the

People’s Republic of China and

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty

Determination With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium

From Israel, 66 FR 14546 (March 13,

2001) (Postponement Notice)).

Scope of the Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes imports of pure magnesium

products, regardless of chemistry, form,

or size, including, without limitation,

ingots, raspings, granules, turnings,

chips, powder, and briquettes.

Pure magnesium includes: (1)

Products that contain at least 99.95

percent primary magnesium, by weight

(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra-pure’’

magnesium); (2) products that contain

less than 99.95 percent but not less than

99.8 percent pure magnesium, by weight

(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’

magnesium); and (3) chemical

combinations of pure magnesium and

other material(s) in which the pure

magnesium content is 50 percent or

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by

weight, that do not conform to an

‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium

Alloy’’ 1 (generally referred to as ‘‘offspecification pure’’ magnesium); and (4)

physical mixtures of pure magnesium

and other material(s) in which the pure

magnesium content is 50 percent or

greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by

weight, except that mixtures containing

90 percent or less pure magnesium, by

weight, when mixed with lime, calcium

metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide,

calcium carbonate, carbon slag

coagulants, and/or fluorspar, are

excluded.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS). Although

the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Comments on Scope

In accordance with our regulations,

we set aside a period of time for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage and encouraged all parties to

submit such comments within 20

calendar days of publication of the

Initiation Notice (see 65 FR at 68123).

On December 1, 2000, the petitioners

requested that the Department clarify

that the scope of this investigation

excludes finished mixtures containing

pure magnesium and/or offspecification pure magnesium prepared

solely for use as a desulfurizer in steelmaking, unless such mixtures contain

only minimal amounts of nonmagnesium materials in order to

circumvent an antidumping order. On