22168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

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).

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

calculations 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 calculations indicated that the

information in the petition has

probative value, as certain information

included in the margin calculations in

the petition is from public sources

concurrent with the relevant POI. For

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to further

corroborate the information in the

petition. We re-examined the EP and NV

data which formed the basis for the

margin in the petition in light of

information obtained during the

investigation and, to the extent

practicable, found that it has probative

value.

Accordingly, in selecting adverse facts

available with respect to Krakatau, the

Department determined to apply a

margin rate of 59.25 percent, the margin

published in the Department’s notice of

initiation.

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. 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

59.25 percent as the ‘‘all others’’ rate.

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 Indonesia 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. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PT Krakatau Steel ...................... 59.25

All Others .................................... 59.25

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of the proceedings in these

investigations in accordance with 19

CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

sales at LTFV determination. If our final

antidumping determination is

affirmative, the ITC will determine

whether the imports covered by that

determination 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 for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10849 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–834–806]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Kazakhstan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination in the less than fair value

investigation of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from

Kazakhstan.

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published a

notice of initiation of an antidumping

duty investigation of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from

Kazakhstan. This investigation covers

one producer of the subject

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22169

merchandise. The period of

investigation is April 1, 2000 through

September 30, 2000. The Department

preliminarily determines that certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products

from Kazakhstan are being, or are likely

to be, sold in the United States at less

than fair value, as provided in section

733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita H. Chen at 202–482–0409, or

Rick Johnson at 202–482–3818, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘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

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

The Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily

determines that certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products (‘‘hot-rolled

steel’’) from Kazakhstan 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,

infra.

Case History

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated an antidumping duty

investigation of hot-rolled steel from

Kazakhstan. 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) (‘‘Notice of

Initiation’’). The Department set aside a

period for all interested parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage. See

Notice of Initiation, at 77569. We

received no comments from any parties

in this investigation. The Department

did, however, receive comments

regarding product coverage in the

investigation of hot-rolled steel 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 ‘‘Corus’’), and Thomas

Steel Strip on December 26, 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 hotrolled steel investigations, providing an

opportunity to comment on the

Department’s proposed model matching

characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted 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 the Independent

Steelworkers Union (hereinafter

collectively referred to as ‘‘petitioners’’);

Corus, respondents in the Netherlands

investigation; Iscor Limited (‘‘Iscor’’),

respondent in the South Africa

investigation; and Zaporizhstal,

respondent in the Ukraine investigation.

The petitioners agreed with the

Department’s proposed characteristics

and hierarchy. Corus suggested adding a

product characteristic to distinguish

prime merchandise from non-prime

merchandise. Neither Iscor nor

Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to

either the list of product characteristics

or the hierarchy 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 hierarchy 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 C–5 (January 4, 2001).

On December 29, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative

preliminary determination that there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States was materially

injured by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise from Kazakhstan,

which was published on January 4,

2001. See Hot-Rolled Steel Products

from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 66 FR 805 (January 4, 2001)

(‘‘ITC Preliminary Determination’’).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued its antidumping duty

questionnaire to the Embassy of

Kazakhstan and to the only known

producer of subject merchandise, OJSC

Ispat Karmet (‘‘Ispat Karmet’’). The

Department received confirmation from

the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan that

Ispat Karmet is the sole company in

Kazakhstan that produces or exports

hot-rolled carbon steel to the United

States. On January 23, 2001, the

Department requested comments from

interested parties regarding surrogate

country selection, and information to

value factors of production. On

February 6, 2001, we received the

petitioners’ comments for surrogate

country selection. The Embassy of

Kazakhstan and Ispat Karmet submitted

no comments on surrogate country

selection. On March 23 and April 6,

2001, we received comments from the

petitioners regarding valuing factors of

production. On April 18, 2001, we

received comments from Ispat Karmet in

opposition to some of the petitioners’

suggested values for factors of

production.

On February 1, 2001, we received

Ispat Karmet’s Section A response to the

Department’s questionnaire (‘‘Section A

response’’). On February 14, March 12,

and April 4, 2001, we issued Section A

supplemental questions, Sections C and

D supplemental questions, and Sections

A, C and D second supplemental

questions to Ispat Karmet, respectively.

We received Ispat Karmet’s Sections C

and D response (‘‘Section C/D

response’’) on February 26, 2001, its

Section A supplemental response

(‘‘Supp. A response’’) on March 7, 2001,

its Sections C and D supplemental

response (‘‘Supp. C/D response’’) on

April 2, 2001, and its Sections A, C and

D second supplemental response (‘‘2d

Supp. response’’) on April 13, 2001.

On March 16, 2001, certain

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, LTV Steel Company, Inc.,

National Steel Corporation, and U.S.

Steel Group) (hereinafter collectively

‘‘Bethlehem, et al. ’’) requested that the

Department initiate a middleman

dumping investigation. On March 30,

2001, Ispat Karmet submitted comments

on the middleman dumping request,

22170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

arguing that the allegation is legally

defective because Bethlehem et al. have

not provided specific evidence that a

trading company is dumping. On April

6, 2001, Bethlehem, et al. submitted a

letter further asserting that they have

demonstrated that a middleman

dumping investigation is warranted, and

that Ispat Karmet’s opposition is

baseless. On April 10, 2001, Ispat

Karmet submitted a letter pointing out

alleged flaws in the middleman

dumping allegation. Because of the

complexity of the issue, the Department

has not yet determined the proper

course of action on the middleman

dumping allegation. Accordingly, we

will address the middleman dumping

issue in the final determination.

On March 21, 2001, Ispat Karmet

requested that the Department

determine that the hot-rolled steel

industry in Kazakhstan is a marketoriented industry (‘‘MOI’’), and

submitted basic information on the hotrolled steel industry in Kazakhstan. On

March 27, 2001, the petitioners

submitted comments on Ispat Karmet’s

MOI request, arguing that Ispat Karmet

failed to meet the conditions necessary

for establishing MOI status. On March

30, 2001, the Department issued a

supplemental questionnaire to Ispat

Karmet, requesting further information

on the hot-rolled steel industry in

Kazakhstan. That additional information

is due to be filed on April 30, 2001.

Consequently, we do not yet have

adequate information necessary to

analyze the issue for the preliminary

determination. As a result, we are

unable to make a determination on Ispat

Karmet’s MOI request for this

preliminary determination. We will

address the MOI issue in the final

determination.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products 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

lengths 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 these investigations.

Specifically included within the

scope of this investigation 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

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 of

this investigation:

• 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

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.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

April 1, 2000 through September 30,

2000.

Nonmarket Economy Country

The Department has treated

Kazakhstan as a non-market economy

(‘‘NME’’) country in all past

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22171

antidumping investigations and

administrative reviews. See, e.g.,

Titanium Sponge From the Republic of

Kazakhstan, 64 FR 66169 (November 24,

1999) (final admin. review); Ferrosilicon

From Kazakhstan and Ukraine, 58 FR

13050 (March 9, 1993) (final

determination); and Uranium From

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,

Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, 57

FR 23380 (June 3, 1992) (prelim.

determination). A designation as a NME

country remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department. See section

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. No party has

requested a revocation of Kazakhstan’s

NME status. Therefore, for this

preliminary determination, the

Department is continuing to treat

Kazakhstan as a NME country.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME country, normal

value (‘‘NV’’) is based on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a comparable market economy that is

a significant producer of comparable

merchandise, pursuant to section

773(c)(1) and (4) of the Act. The sources

of individual factor values are discussed

in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this

notice, infra.

Separate Rates

In a NME proceeding, the Department

presumes that all companies within the

country are subject to governmental

control. Thus, it is the Department’s

policy to assign all producers of subject

merchandise in a NME country a single

rate, unless a producer can demonstrate

that it is sufficiently independent so as

to be entitled to a separate rate.

Ispat Karmet is wholly foreign-owned.

Ispat Karmet reported that 100 percent

of its shares are held by Ispat Karmet

Holdings BV, which is located in the

Netherlands. Further, there is no

Kazakhstan ownership of Ispat Karmet.

Thus, because we have no evidence

indicating that it is under the control of

the Republic of Kazakhstan, a separate

rates analysis is not necessary to

determine whether it is independent

from government control. See Brake

Rotors from the People’s Republic of

China, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8,

2001) (prelim. results); Creatine

Monohydrate from the People’s

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105

(December 20, 1999) (final determ.).

Accordingly, we preliminarily have

determined a separate rate for Ispat

Karmet.

Kazakhstan-Wide Rate

As discussed, supra, in a NME

proceeding, the Department presumes

that all companies within the country

are subject to governmental control. The

Department assigns a single NME rate

unless a producer can demonstrate

eligibility for a separate rate. Ispat

Karmet has preliminarily qualified for a

separate rate. Furthermore, the

information on the record indicates that

Ispat Karmet accounted for all imports

of subject merchandise during the POI.

Since Ispat Karmet, the only known

Kazakhstan producer, responded to the

Department’s questionnaire, and we

have no evidence of any other

Kazakhstan producers of subject

merchandise during the POI, we have

calculated a Kazakhstan-wide rate for

this investigation based on the

weighted-average margin determined for

Ispat Karmet. This Kazakhstan-wide rate

applies to all entries of subject

merchandise except for entries of

subject merchandise exported by Ispat

Karmet.

Date of Sale

In reporting its U.S. sales, Ispat

Karmet stated that it ‘‘understands that

the Department’s current practice is to

rely on the invoice date as the date of

sale.’’ See Section C response, at 8. Ispat

Karmet initially stated that the ‘‘date of

invoice is the date on which all

essential terms of sale are finalized, i.e.,

quantity, unit price, and product mix,

and is the date on which Ispat Karmet

transfers title to the customer.’’ See

Section A response, at A–9. Yet in

elaborating on its sales process, Ispat

Karmet stated that it ‘‘negotiates each

sale individually and concludes the sale

by signing an addendum to an annual

sales agreement with an international

trader. The addendum establishes the

basic terms for individual transactions,

but Ispat Karmet does not transfer title

to the purchaser until the date shown on

the invoice. Ispat Karmet, therefore,

reports the invoice date as the date of

sale * * * ’’See Section C response, at

8.

As stated in 19 CFR 351.401(i), the

Department will normally use the date

of invoice as the date of sale. However,

as also stated in that regulatory

provision, the Department may use a

date other than the date of invoice if the

Department is satisfied that a different

date better reflects the date on which

the exporter or producer establishes the

material terms of sale.

In response to the Department’s

questionnaire regarding the types of

changes after the initial agreement, Ispat

Karmet explained that ‘‘(o)n occasion,

the delivery date may be extended

beyond the date specified in the original

addendum. However, we do not

normally experience any changes once

an addendum is finalized, other than

changes in quantity within the tolerance

limit.’’ Id. at A–9 and A–10. Ispat

Karmet stated that after initially

negotiating the annual contract, ‘‘Ispat

Karmet and the trader subsequently

negotiate an addendum for subsequent

shipments of merchandise, generally

covering the quantity to be shipped over

a one-or two-month period and

establishing the specific terms of those

shipments, such as quantity, technical

specifications, delivery, and packing.’’

See Supp. C/D response, at 2. However,

Ispat Karmet maintained that the

‘‘addendum is the preparatory

document for a sale, while the invoice

reflects the actual shipment of the

merchandise and the completion of the

sale.’’ Id.

From Ispat Karmet’s own response, it

appears that the material terms of the

sale are established with the addendum.

The information on the record indicates

a lack of any changes in the material

terms of sale between addendum and

invoice, aside from ‘‘variations within a

permissible tolerance range.’’ Id. at 3.

There appear to be no changes in price

or in quantity, outside of the

contractually agreed upon tolerances,

after the addendum is finalized. This

serves to confirm that the parties agree

to the material terms of sale at the

addendum stage. Therefore, for this

preliminary determination, the

Department is using the date of the

addendum as the date of sale, as it better

reflects the date on which the material

terms of the sale were established. We

intend to fully examine this issue at

verification and will incorporate our

findings, as appropriate, in our final

determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of hotrolled steel products from Kazakhstan

were made in the United States at LTFV,

we compared EP to a normal value

(‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘Export

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

this notice, infra.

Export Price

We used EP methodology for this

preliminary determination, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP

as the ‘‘the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be

sold) before the date of importation by

the producer or exporter of the subject

merchandise outside of the United

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States or to an unaffiliated

purchaser for exportation to the United

States * * *’’ Constructed export price

(‘‘CEP’’) methodology, in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act, was not

otherwise warranted based on the facts

22172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

on the record. All sales activities,

including negotiations, paperwork

processing and receipt of payment,

appear to be conducted in Kazakhstan.

See Section A response, at A–9 and A–

10; Supp. A response, at 5–6. Ispat

Karmet did report that when it ‘‘receives

a complaint from a customer, a member

of Ispat Karmet’s technical staff may

travel to the customer’s location to

inspect the product.’’ See Section C/D

response, at 4. However, this appears to

occur after importation to the United

States. Ispat Karmet identified Ispat

North America, Inc. as providing

‘‘general marketing services in the

United States to all steel plants in the

Ispat group, including Ispat Karmet.’’

See Section A response, at A–8.

However, Ispat Karmet reported that

‘‘(n) either Ispat North America nor any

other related party had any role in U.S.

sales during the period of

investigation.’’ See Section C/D

response, at 7. Ispat Karmet also stated

that all of its ‘‘sales to the U.S. market

during the POI were concluded directly

with its trading company customers.’’

See Section C response, at 7.

None of the customers to whom Ispat

Karmet sold subject merchandise to

during the POI were listed as affiliated

companies. See Supp. A response, at

Exhibit 3. Furthermore, Ispat Karmet

indicated that it knew that its reported

sales of subject merchandise were

destined for the United States at the

time of sale because in negotiating with

an international trader, Ispat Karmet

seeks ‘‘details of the end-customer and

the intended end application. Because

of this, Ispat Karmet’s sales have clearly

identified destinations.’’ See Section A

response, at A–9. Accordingly, pursuant

to section 772(a) of the Act, because

subject merchandise was sold to an

unaffiliated purchaser by Ispat Karmet

outside of the United States, with the

knowledge that the final destination of

subject merchandise was the United

States, we have determined these sales

to be EP transactions for purposes of

this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section

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

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NVs based on factors of

production. See Memorandum to

Edward C. Yang from Juanita H. Chen:

Factor Valuation Memorandum (April

13, 2001) (‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’).

We calculated EP based on the Free

Carrier At (‘‘FCA’’) rail prices charged to

unaffiliated customers. See Section C

response, at 10. We also made

adjustments from the starting price to

account for foreign inland freight. See

Memorandum to the File, from Juanita

H. Chen, Case Analyst: Preliminary

Determination Analysis for OJSC Ispat

Karmet (April 23, 2001) (‘‘Prelim.

Analysis Memo’’).

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine the

NV using a factors-of-production

methodology if: (1) The merchandise is

exported from a NME country; and (2)

the information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home-market

prices, third-country prices, or

constructed value under section 773(a)

of the Act.

Factors of production include: (1)

Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of

raw materials employed; (3) amounts of

energy and other utilities consumed;

and (4) representative capital costs,

including depreciation. We calculated

NV based on factors of production

reported by Ispat Karmet. See Factor

Valuation Memo; see also Prelim.

Analysis Memo. We valued all the input

factors using publicly available

information as discussed in the

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ and ‘‘Factor

Valuations’’ sections of this notice,

infra.

A. Surrogate Country

When the Department investigates

imports from a NME, section 773(c) of

the Act provides for the Department, in

most circumstances, to base NV on the

NME producers’ factors of production,

valued in a surrogate market economy

country or countries considered

appropriate by the Department. In

accordance with section 773(c)(4), the

Department, in valuing factors of

production, shall utilize, to the extent

possible, the prices or costs of factors of

production in one or more market

economy countries that are at a level of

economic development comparable to

the NME country and are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

The sources of individual factor values

are discussed, infra.

The Department’s Office of Policy has

determined that Algeria, Ecuador,

Egypt, Morocco, and the Philippines are

countries comparable to Kazakhstan in

terms of overall economic development.

See Memorandum to the File, from

Juanita H. Chen, Case Analyst: Selection

of Surrogate Country (March 26, 2001)

(‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’), at

Attachment I (policy memorandum from

Jeffrey May, dated January 12, 2001).

According to the available information

on the record, we have determined that

Egypt is an appropriate surrogate

country because it is at a comparable

level of economic development and is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. Furthermore, there is a

wide array of publicly available

information for Egypt. Therefore, we

have relied, where possible, on Egyptian

information in calculating NV by using

Egyptian prices to value Ispat Karmet’s

factors of production, when available

and where appropriate. We have

obtained and relied upon public

information wherever possible. See

Factor Valuation Memo. Where no

Egyptian values were available, we used

information from the Philippines,

another country chosen by the

Department’s Office of Policy as

comparable to Kazakhstan in terms of

overall economic development. Id.

In accordance with section

351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department’s

regulations, for the final determination

in an antidumping investigation,

interested parties may submit publicly

available information to value factors of

production within 40 days after the date

of publication of the preliminary

determination.

B. Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by Ispat

Karmet for the POI. See Factor

Valuation Memo. To calculate NV, we

multiplied the reported per-unit factor

quantities by publicly available

surrogate values from Egypt or, where

necessary, the Philippines.

In selecting surrogate values, we

considered the specificity, quality and

contemporaneity of the data. We

adjusted import prices by including the

cost of freight so that the import prices

were delivered prices. For those values

not contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted the values to account for

inflation using producer price indices,

as appropriate, published in the

International Monetary Fund,

International Financial Statistics (March

2001) (‘‘IMF’’).

We valued raw material inputs,

energy inputs, by-products and packing

materials using values from the

appropriate HTSUS category, and from

the World Bank website. See Factor

Valuation Memo, at 4–8. Pursuant to

section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations,

where it was possible to discern from

the record that a factor was purchased

from a market economy supplier and

paid for in a market economy currency,

we used the price paid to the market

economy supplier. See Factor Valuation

Memo, at 7; see also Lasko Metal

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442,

1445–46 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To value

labor, we used regression-based wage

rates, in accordance with section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations. See Factor Valuation Memo,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22173

at 8. We based the value of freight by

rail on public information used in the

August 31, 1999 analysis memorandum

for the preliminary results of the 1997–

1998 administrative review of titanium

sponge from Kazakhstan. Id.; see also

Titanium Sponge From the Republic of

Kazakhstan, 64 FR 48793, 48795

(September 8, 1999) (prelim. results). To

value overhead, selling, general and

administrative expenses, and profit, we

used public information reported in the

1998 financial statements of Alexandria

National Iron & Steel Co. (‘‘ANS Steel’’),

an Egyptian producer of hot-rolled steel.

See Factor Valuation Memo, at 8–9.

While we could not determine a

complete value for overhead using ANS

Steel’s financial statements, we could

determine a value for depreciation, a

part of overhead, and have used this

value for overhead.

For each of the surrogate values

selected for use in the Department’s

calculations, we adjusted the values for

inflation using appropriate price index

inflators when those values were not

from a period concurrent with the POI.

See Factor Valuation Memo, at 2.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

Act, we will verify all appropriate

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’) to

suspend liquidation of all imports of

subject merchandise 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 weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the

EP, as indicated below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins

are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percent

OJSC Ispat Karmet .................. 239.57

Kazakhstan-Wide ...................... 239.57

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed, within five days

of the date of publication of this notice,

to the parties in this investigation, in

accordance with section 351.224(b) of

the Department’s regulations.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

affirmative determination of sales at

LTFV. As 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 imports of hot-rolled steel from

Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

may be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than 50 days after the date of

publication of this notice, and rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be submitted no later

than five days after the time limit for

filing the case brief, pursuant to section

351.309(c) and (d) of the Department’s

regulations. 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.

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 the case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, any hearing will be held 57

days after publication of this notice at

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, at a time and location to be

determined. Parties should confirm by

telephone the date, time, and location of

the hearing two days before the

scheduled date.

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 date of publication of this

notice, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of

the Department’s regulations. 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. At the

hearing, each party may make an

affirmative presentation only on issues

raised in that party’s case brief, and may

make rebuttal presentations only on

arguments included in that party’s

rebuttal brief, pursuant to section

351.310(c) of the Department’s

regulations.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of this preliminary

determination (i.e. July 9, 2001).

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.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10850 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–791–809]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Campau or Maureen Flannery at

(202) 482–1395 or (202) 482–3020,

respectively; Office of Antidumping/

Countervailing Duty Enforcement VII,

Import Administration, 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 the

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HR products) from South

Africa 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 margin of

sales at LTFV is shown in the