22180 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

exercise control of Saldanha’s assets.

Furthermore, both companies produce

the subject merchandise. See the public

version of Memo to File, ‘‘CrossOwnership of Iscor, Ltd., in Saldanha

Steel Ltd.,’’ dated April 13, 2001 (case

number C–791–810), which has been

placed on the record of this

investigation. In light of these facts, and

because Iscor’s and Saldanha’s refusal to

cooperate in this investigation has

impeded our analysis of this issue, the

Department infers that there is

significant potential for the

manipulation of prices or production

between these two companies within

the meaning of section 351.401(f)(2) of

the Department’s regulations. Thus, we

preliminarily determine, in accordance

with 351.401(f)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, that Saldanha and Iscor

should be treated as a single entity for

purposes of this antidumping

proceeding, and have determined one

dumping margin for this single entity.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify information

to be used in making our final

determination.

All Others

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-average dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis margins, or are

determined entirely under section 776

of the Act, the Department may use any

reasonable method to establish the

estimated ‘‘all others’’ rate for exporters

and producers not individually

investigated. This provision

contemplates that we weight-average

margins other than facts available

margins to establish the ‘‘all others’’

rate. Where the data do not permit

weight-averaging such rates, the SAA, at

873, provides that we may use other

reasonable methods. Because the

petition contained only an estimated

price-to-CV dumping margin, which the

Department adjusted for purposes of

initiation, there are no additional

estimated margins available with which

to create the ‘‘all others’’ rate. Therefore,

we applied the published margin of 9.28

percent as the ‘‘all others’’ rate.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of HR products

from South Africa that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication in the Federal Register. We

will instruct the Customs Service to

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated preliminary

dumping margin indicated in the chart

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The preliminary weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Margin

(percent)

Exporter/Manufacturer:

Highveld ................................ 9.28

Iscor/Saldanha ...................... 9.28

All Others .............................. 9.28

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 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. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

several HR products cases, the

Department may schedule a single

hearing to encompass all those cases.

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 participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide 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 no later than 75

days after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) 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.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10851 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–814]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Handley or Charles Riggle at

(202) 482–0631 and (202) 482–0650,

respectively; AD/CVD, Enforcement,

Office 5, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

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 Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HRS) from Argentina are

being, or are likely to be sold, in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22181

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

On November 13, 2000, the

Department received a petition on hotrolled carbon steel flat products from

Argentina filed in proper form by

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin

Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV

Steel Company, Inc., National Steel

Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel

Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group (a unit

of USX Corporation), Weirton Steel

Corporation, and Independent

Steelworkers Union. On November 16,

2000, the United Steel Workers of

America joined as co-petitioners in this

case.

This investigation was initiated on

December 4, 2000. See Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Argentina, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the

People’s Republic of China, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 (December 12,

2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the

initiation of these investigations, the

following events have occurred.

The Department set aside a period for

all interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. See

Initiation Notice at 77569. We received

no comments from any parties in this

investigation. The Department did,

however, receive comments regarding

product coverage in the concurrent

investigation of HRS products from the

Netherlands. In that investigation we

received comments from Duracell

Global Business Management Group on

December 11, 2000, from Energizer on

December 15, 2000, from Bouffard Metal

Goods, Inc., and Truelove & Maclean,

Inc., on December 18, 2000, from Corus

Staal BV and Corus Steel U.S.A., Inc.

(collectively referred to as Corus), from

Thomas Steel Strip Corporation on

December 27, 2000, and from Rayovac

Corporation on March 12, 2001.

On December 22, 2000, the

Department issued a letter to interested

parties in all of the concurrent HRS

antidumping investigations, providing

an opportunity to comment on the

Department’s proposed model matching

characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by: The

petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus,

respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited, respondent in the South Africa

investigation (January 3, 2001); and

Zaporizhstal, respondent in the Ukraine

investigation (January 3, 2001).

Petitioners agreed with the

Department’s proposed characteristics

and hierarchy of characteristics. Corus

suggested adding a product

characteristic to distinguish prime

merchandise from non-prime

merchandise. Neither Iscor nor

Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to

the either the list of product

characteristics proposed by the

Department or the hierarchy of those

product characteristics but, rather,

provided information relating to its own

products that was not relevant in the

context of determining what

information to include in the

Department’s questionnaires. For

purposes of the questionnaires

subsequently issued by the Department

to the respondents, no changes were

made to the product characteristics or

the hierarchy of those characteristics

from those originally proposed by the

Department in its December 22, 2000

letter. With respect to Corus’ request,

the additional product characteristic

suggested by Corus, to distinguish prime

merchandise from non-prime

merchandise, is unnecessary. The

Department already asks respondents to

distinguish prime from non-prime

merchandise in field number 2.2 ‘‘Prime

vs. Secondary Merchandise.’’ See the

Department’s Antidumping Duty

Questionnaire, at B–7 and C–7 (January

4, 2001). These fields are used in the

model match program to prevent

matches of prime merchandise to nonprime merchandise. After careful review

of the comments received, we made no

changes to the model matching

characteristics and hierarchy proposed

in the Department’s letter.

On December 28, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) preliminarily determined that

there is a reasonable indication that

imports of the products subject to this

investigation are threatening or

materially injuring an industry in the

United States producing the domestic

like product. See Hot-Rolled Steel

Products from Argentina, China, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805

(January 4, 2001).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros

SA (Acindar) and Siderar Saic (Siderar),

the mandatory respondents in this case.

On January 16, 2001, Siderar notified

the Department that it would not be

responding to the Department’s

questionnaire due to the burdens

involved in submitting a response. It

provided no further elaboration, nor did

it suggest alternatives to the

Department’s requirements pursuant to

section 782 (c) of the Act. On January

17, 2001, the Government of Argentina

also notified the Department that

Siderar would not be participating in

the investigation. On January 17, 2001,

Acindar informed the Department that it

did not sell the subject merchandise to

the United States during the period of

investigation (POI) and, therefore, had

no sales to report. Upon reviewing U.S.

Customs data, the Department

confirmed that Acindar did not sell the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI and as such any

future exports from Acindar will be

subject to the ‘‘all-others’’ rate.

Period of Investigation

The POI for this investigation is

October 1, 1999 through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., November 2000).

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain HRS of a

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal and whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other non-metallic

substances, in coils (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers),

regardless of thickness, and in straight

length, of a thickness of less than 4.75

mm and of a width measuring at least

10 times the thickness. Universal mill

plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a

width exceeding 150 mm, but not

exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness

of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and

without patterns in relief) of a thickness

not less than 4.0 mm is not included

within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the

scope are vacuum degassed, fully

stabilized (commonly referred to as

interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength

low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the

substrate for motor lamination steels. IF

steels are recognized as low carbon

steels with micro-alloying levels of

elements such as titanium or niobium

(also commonly referred to as

columbium), or both, added to stabilize

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA

steels are recognized as steels with

micro-alloying levels of elements such

as chromium, copper, niobium,

vanadium, and molybdenum. The

substrate for motor lamination steels

contains micro-alloying levels of

elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the

scope of this investigation, regardless of

22182 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),

are products in which: (i) Iron

predominates, by weight, over each of

the other contained elements; (ii) the

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by

weight; and (iii) none of the elements

listed below exceeds the quantity, by

weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical

and chemical description provided

above are within the scope of this

investigation unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, by

way of example, are outside or

specifically excluded from the scope:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in

which at least one of the chemical

elements exceeds those listed above

(including, e.g., American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

specifications A543, A387, A514, A517,

A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute

(AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with

a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and

A736.

• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS

AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM

specification (sample specifications:

ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in

coils, which are the result of having

been processed by cutting or stamping

and which have assumed the character

of articles or products classified outside

chapter 72 of the HTSUS.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the HTSUS

at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.

Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products covered by this investigation,

including vacuum degassed fully

stabilized, high strength low alloy, and

the substrate for motor lamination steel

may also enter under the following tariff

classification numbers: 7225.11.00.00,

7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50,

7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00,

7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00,

7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60,

7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00,

7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00,

7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00.

Subject merchandise may also enter

under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00,

7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00,

7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

Facts Available

1. Application of Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party (A) withholds

information requested by the

Department, (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadline, or in the

form or manner requested, (C)

significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D) provides information that cannot be

verified, the Department shall use,

subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the

Act, facts otherwise available in

reaching the applicable determination.

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,

the Department shall not decline to

consider submitted information if all of

the following requirements are met: (1)

The information is submitted by the

established deadline; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability; and (5)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference, if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information. See, e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20

(October 16, 1997). Finally, section

776(b) of the Act states that an adverse

inference may include reliance on

information derived from the petition.

See also Statement of Administrative

Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994).

In accordance with section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, for the reasons

explained below, because Siderar failed

to respond to our questionnaire, we

preliminarily determine that the use of

total adverse facts available is warranted

with respect to Siderar. See the April

23, 2001 memorandum Application of

Facts Available for Siderar Saic on file

in the Central Records Unit, Room B–

099 of the main Commerce Department

Building.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may use an

inference adverse to the interests of a

party that 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

870 (1994) (SAA). Failure by Siderar to

respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire constitutes a

failure to act to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,

within the meaning of section 776 of the

Act. Because Siderar failed to act to the

best of its ability, the Department has

determined that, in selecting among the

facts otherwise available, an adverse

inference is warranted in selecting the

facts available for this company.

Consistent with Department practice,

we assigned Siderar the highest margin

alleged in the amendment to the

petition, i.e., 44.59 percent. See

Initiation Notice.

2. Selection and Corroboration of Facts

Available

Section 776(b) of the Act states that an

adverse inference may include reliance

on information derived from the

petition. See also SAA at 829–831.

Section 776(c) of the Act 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22183

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value (see SAA at

870). The SAA also states that

independent sources used to corroborate

such evidence may include, for

example, published price lists, official

import statistics and Customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation (see SAA at 870).

We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis of the petition, to the extent

appropriate information was available

for this purpose. See Import

Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist, dated December 4,

2000, for a discussion of the margin

calculation in the petition. In addition,

in order to determine the probative

value of the margin in the petition for

use as adverse facts available for

purposes of this determination, we

examined evidence supporting the

calculation in the petition. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, to the extent practicable, we

examined the key elements of the export

price (EP) and normal value (NV)

calculations on which the margin in the

petition was based. Our review of the EP

and NV calculation indicated that the

information in the petition has

probative value, as certain information

(e.g., international freight and customs

duties) included in the margin

calculation in the petition is from public

sources concurrent, for the most part,

with the POI.

We compared the export prices

contained in the petition with U.S.

Census values for the same HTS

category and found the export prices

suggested in the petition to be

reasonable and, therefore, corroborated

for purposes of calculating a facts

available margin. With respect to the NV

data included in the margin calculations

of the petition, we were able to

corroborate the reasonableness of these

data through the use of multiple

sources. See the April 23 memorandum

titled Application of Facts Available for

Siderar Saic.

All-Others Rate

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-average dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis margins, or are

determined entirely under section 776

of the Act, the Department may use any

reasonable method to establish the

estimated ‘‘all-others’’ rate for exporters

and producers not individually

investigated. Our recent practice under

these circumstances has been to assign,

as the ‘‘all-others’’ rate, the simple

average of the margins in the petition.

We have done so in this case.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing Customs to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

HRS from Argentina that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct Customs to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the amount by which

the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in

the chart below. We will adjust the

deposit requirements to account for any

export subsidies found in the

companion countervailing duty

investigation. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Siderar Saic (Siderar) ............... 44.59

All Others .................................. 40.60

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs must be submitted no later

than 35 days after the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal

briefs must be filed within five business

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.

Public versions of all comments and

rebuttals should be provided to the

Department and made available on

diskette.

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. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

more than one HRS case, the

Department may schedule a single

hearing to encompass all cases. 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 within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide 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 in this investigation no

later than 75 days after the date of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to 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.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10852 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–865]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Bertrand, Carrie Blozy, or

Doreen Chen, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3207, (202) 482–0165, and (202)

482–0193, respectively.