22194 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners in these investigations are

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, the Independent Steelworkers Union,

and the United Steelworkers of America

(collectively the petitioners). Weirton Steel

Corporation is not a petitioner in the investigation

involving (HRS) from the Netherlands.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10853 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–806]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Riker or Charles Riggle at

(202) 482–0186, (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 the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000.)

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HRS) from Romania are being,

or are likely to be, sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the Suspension of Liquidation

section of this notice.

Case History

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,1 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 investigation of

hot-rolled carbon steel 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, and from

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

Inc. (collectively referred to as Corus),

from Thomas Steel Strip Corporation on

December 26, 2000, and from Rayovac

Corporation on March 12, 2001.

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 are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States producing the domestic

like product. 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).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

the government of Romania, the

mandatory respondent in this case. We

also sent copies of the questionnaire to

Gavazzi Steel and Sidex S.A. (Sidex),

both of whom had been identified as

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise by the petitioners. On

January 30, 2001, we received a letter

from Sidex stating that Gavazzi Steel, a

producer of the subject merchandise in

Romania, did not sell the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (POI) and

that only HRS produced by Sidex was

exported to the United States during the

POI. On February 1 and February 26,

2001, we received questionnaire

responses from Sidex, Sidex Trading,

SRL, Sidex International, Plc (jointly,

the Sidex Exporters),

Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI), Metanef,

S.A. (Metanef) and Metagrimex, S.A.

(Metagrimex). We issued supplemental

questionnaires to Sidex and the Sidex

Exporters, MEI, Metanef and

Metagrimex on March 12, 2001, and

received responses on March 31, 2001.

On February 1, 2001, we invited

interested parties to provide comments

on the surrogate country selection and

publicly available information for

valuing the factors of production. We

received comments from both the

petitioners and the respondents

regarding surrogate country selection on

February 6, 2001. Between February 6

and April 11, 2001, the petitioners and

the respondents submitted additional

comments regarding issues they

believed the Department should

consider for the purposes of the

preliminary determination.

On April 11, 2001, counsel for Sidex

and the Sidex Exporters, Metanef, MEI

and Metagrimex submitted a letter from

the Embassy of Romania which stated

that Gavazzi Steel made no exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI.

Period of Investigation

The POI for HRS from Romania is

April 1, 2000 through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

two 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 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22195

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:

• 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.

Nonmarket Economy Status

The Department has treated Romania

as a non-market-economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

investigations. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Small Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless, Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania,

65 FR 39125 (June 23, 2000). A

designation as a NME remains in effect

until it is revoked by the Department

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

On January 3, 2001, we received a

letter from the Romanian

Undersecretary of State requesting

market economy status. In response, the

Department issued a letter outlining the

proper form and procedures for making

a request for market economy status. See

Letter from Gary Taverman to the

Government of Romania (January 5,

2001). There has been no further

communication from the Romanian

government on this issue.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME, 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.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of subject merchandise

subject to investigation in a NME

country a single rate unless an exporter

can demonstrate that it is sufficiently

independent so as to be entitled to a

separate rate. For purposes of this

‘‘separate rates’’ inquiry, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under the

test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,

1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in 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

this test, exporters in NME countries are

entitled to separate, company-specific

margins when they can demonstrate an

absence of government control over

exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact

(de facto).

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control includes the

following: (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.

De facto absence of government

control with respect to exports is based

on the following four criteria: (1)

Whether the export prices are set by or

subject to the approval of a government

authority; (2) whether each exporter

retains the proceeds from its sales and

makes independent decisions regarding

the disposition of profits or financing of

losses; (3) whether each exporter has

autonomy in making decisions

regarding the selection of management;

and (4) whether each exporter has the

authority to negotiate and sign

contracts. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587.)

We have determined, according to the

criteria identified in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide, that the evidence of

record demonstrates an absence of

22196 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

2We note that an issue has been raised as to

whether it is appropriate to assign a margin to any

Romanian company other than Sidex, becasue the

evidence on the record may suggest that Sidex has

a more direct role in U.S. sales of HRS than is

typically seen in NME cases. This issue will be

examined closely at verification.

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to exports by

Metagrimex, Metanef, MEI and the

Sidex Exporters. In the case of

Metagrimex, that company was

established as a privately-owned

limited-liability trading company after

Romania began its extensive

privatization program in 1990; the

company has never been state-owned

nor controlled by provincial or local

governments. In the case of Metanef and

MEI, although these companies were

previously state-owned, they have since

become privately-held trading

companies in accordance with

legislative enactments decentralizing

the companies’ control. Moreover, a

review of the corporate governance rules

of each of these three companies

indicates that they are only limited by

their respective articles of incorporation

and bylaws. Specifically, the

information on the record shows that

MEI, Metagrimex and Metanef are

autonomous in selecting their

management, negotiating and signing

contracts, setting their own export

prices, and retaining their own profits.2

In the case of Sidex and the Sidex

Exporters, although Sidex remains

primarily state-owned, the record

evidence indicates that the government

exercises no control over the daily

operations of the company, and that the

company operates independently in the

selling of the subject merchandise. In

the case of Sidex, we note that one of

the seven directors of the company is a

government official. Otherwise, Sidex

and the Sidex Exporters appear to

operate independent of government

control with respect to the selection of

their management, negotiating and

signing contracts, setting their own

export prices and retaining their own

profits.

For a complete discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that Metagrimex, Metanef, MEI and the

Sidex Exporters are entitled to separate

rates, see the April 23, 2001,

memorandum, Assignment of Separate

Rates for Respondents in the

Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Romania, which is on file

in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room

B–099 of the main Commerce

Department Building.

Romania-Wide Rate

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters comprise a single entity under

common government control, the ‘‘NME

entity.’’ Therefore, the Department

assigns a single NME rate to the NME

entity, unless an exporter can

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate. If all exporters, accounting for all

exports of subject merchandise to the

United States during the POI,

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate, the Department will calculate an

‘‘all others’’ rate as it does in market

economy cases. However, if record

evidence suggests that all exporters have

not responded to at least the

Department’s initial shipment

information query, the Department will

rely on its presumption that there is an

additional entity under government

control and will assign a country-wide

rate to the NME entity. Such is the

situation in this investigation.

Specifically, we have been unable to

confirm through a comparison of the

reported data to public sources, that no

other company exported HRS to the

United States during the POI.

In an effort to confirm that all sales of

HRS from Romania were indeed

accounted for in the reported sales

volumes for each of the respondents in

this investigation, we compared the

total sales quantity for all four

respondents to total imports of HRS

from Romania as reported by the U.S.

Customs Service. According to the U.S.

Customs Service, total imports of HRS

from Romania during the POI were

significantly higher than the total sales

quantity reported to the Department by

the four respondents. See Memorandum

to the File from Valerie Ellis Regarding

IM–145 data for POI Imports from

Romania (April 19, 2001). Given this,

we believe that additional exporters of

the subject merchandise exist that have

not responded to the Department’s

questionnaire.

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). Section 776(b) of the

Act also provides 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).

The SAA, at 870, and section

351.308(c)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, clarify that information

from the petition is ‘‘secondary

information.’’ If the Department relies

on secondary information as facts

available, section 776(c) of the Act

provides that the Department shall, to

the extend practicable, corroborate such

information using independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA

further provides that corroboration

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value. However, where corroboration is

not practicable, the Department may use

uncorroborated information.

On January 4, 2001, we sent an

antidumping questionnaire to the

Government of Romania requesting that

they transmit the questionnaire to all of

the companies in Romania who produce

or export the subject merchandise to the

United States. There is no record

evidence as to whether or not they did

so. Although we received questionnaire

responses from the exporters named in

the petition, as well as from additional

trading companies not named in the

petition, as discussed above, Customs

data indicate that these exporters do not

account for all exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the POI. As a result, the Department

presumes that there is an additional

NME entity that has not responded to

our questionnaire and determination of

a country-wide rate is appropriate.

Because the information necessary to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22197

calculate a country-wide rate is not

available on the record, we have

determined the country-wide rate based

on the facts available, pursuant to

section 776(a)(1) of the Act. In addition,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we

are using an adverse inference in

selecting among the facts otherwise

available because the NME entity failed

to cooperate to the best of its ability by

not responding to the Department’s

questionnaire. As adverse facts

available, we have assigned a rate of

88.62 percent, the highest rate contained

in the petition, as the Romania-wide

rate.

To corroborate the petition rate of

88.62 percent, we examined the basis of

the rate contained 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 and normal value calculations on

which the petition margin calculation

was based. The U.S. price in the petition

was based on import average unit

values. Based on a comparison of the

U.S. Census Bureau’s official IM–145

import statistics with the average unit

values in the petition, we find the

export price suggested in the petition to

be consistent with those statistics. The

normal value was based on a factors of

production analysis using public

information, reasonably available to the

petitioners, to value the factors. The

petitioners estimated the factors of

production by using a U.S. company’s

experience in manufacturing a like

product during the first nine months of

2000. Where appropriate, the factors

were adjusted for known differences

using publicly available UN Commodity

Trade Statistics. We compared the

factors used by the petitioners in the

petition to the factors provided by the

respondents and find them to be similar.

In addition, the information used to

value the factors comes from public,

published sources. For these reasons,

we find the petition rate used as adverse

facts available to be corroborated for the

purposes of this investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Metagrimex,

Metanef, MEI and the Sidex Exporters to

the United States were made at LTFV,

we compared the export price (EP) to

the NV, as described in the Export Price

and Normal Value sections of this

notice, below. In accordance with

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

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Export Price

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the Sidex Exporters,

Metagrimex, Metanef and MEI sold the

merchandise directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation, and CEP methodology was

not otherwise indicated.

1. The Sidex Exporters

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Galati prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant to the port of embarkation and

brokerage and handling in Romania.

Because domestic brokerage and

handling and inland freight were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for

further discussion.)

2. Metanef

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Galati prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant to the port of embarkation and

brokerage and handling in Romania. As

with the Sidex Exporters, because

domestic brokerage and handling and

inland freight were provided by NME

companies, we based those charges on

surrogate rates from Egypt. (See the

Normal Value section for further

discussion.)

3. Metagrimex

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Galati prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant to the port of embarkation and

brokerage and handling in Romania. As

with the Sidex Exporters and Metanef,

because domestic brokerage and

handling and inland freight were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for

further discussion.)

4. MEI

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Galati prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant to the port of embarkation and

brokerage and handling in Romania. As

with the other Romanian companies,

because domestic brokerage and

handling and inland freight were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for

further discussion.)

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 market

economy 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 initially

determined that the Philippines, the

Dominican Republic and El Salvador are

the countries most comparable to

Romania in terms of overall economic

development. We subsequently

included Egypt, Ecuador and Algeria

among the countries which are

economically comparable to Romania

because Egypt’s per-capita GNP and

overall economic development were

also similar to that of Romania. See the

January 22 and March 30, 2001

memoranda from Jeff May, Director,

Office of Policy to Gary Taverman,

Director, Office 5, AD/CVD

Enforcement.

According to the information on the

record, we have determined that Egypt

is a significant producer of products

comparable to the subject merchandise

among the above-referenced potential

surrogate countries, and provides the

necessary factor price information for

most of the factors of production.

Accordingly, where possible, we have

calculated NV using Egyptian prices to

value the Romanian producer’s factors

of production. We have obtained and

relied upon publicly available

information whenever possible. Where

we did not have reliable Egyptian

values, we used values for inputs from

the Philippines, which, to a lesser

degree, produces comparable products

to the subject merchandise, as well.

Where the producer purchased factor

inputs from a market-economy supplier

in significant quantities and paid in a

convertible currency, we used the actual

prices paid to value all of the input.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by Sidex,

the company in Romania that produced

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, for

the exporters that sold hot-rolled carbon

steel flat products to the United States

22198 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

during the POI. To calculate NV, the

reported unit factor quantities were

multiplied by publicly available

Egyptian and, where necessary,

Philippine values.

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices to

make them delivered prices. We added

to surrogate values a surrogate freight

cost using the distance from the seaport

to the factory or the reported distance

from the domestic supplier to the

factory, whichever distance was shorter.

This adjustment is in accordance with

the Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.

1997). For those freight values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using consumer

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

We valued material inputs and

packing material by Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) number, using imports

statistics from the UN Commodity Trade

Statistics for 1998. Where a material

input was purchased in a marketeconomy currency from a marketeconomy supplier, we valued all of the

input at the actual purchase price in

accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of

the Department’s regulations. For a

complete analysis of surrogate values,

see the April 23, 2001 memorandum,

Factors of Production Valuation for

Preliminary Determination (Valuation

Memorandum), on file in the CRU.

We valued labor using the method

described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value electricity, we used the

electricity rates for Egypt reported in the

January 2000 Middle East and North

Africa Region Infrastructure

Development Unit publication Republic

of Yemen Comprehensive Development

Review (Phase I) Power and Energy

Sector Report.

We based our calculation of

depreciation, selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit from the financial statements of

Alexandria National Iron and Steel

Works, an Egyptian producer of

products comparable to the subject

merchandise. We were unable to

calculate an appropriate overhead ratio

from any of the information on the

record.

To value truck and rail freight rates,

we used a 1999 rate, adjusted for

inflation, provided by the Egyptian

Consulting House, a member of AGN

International. For barge transportation,

we valued barge rates using an Egyptian

rate from an Egyptian freight forwarder

for steel coil and coal in bulk from

Alexandria to Hulwan, Egypt, as

adjusted for inflation.

For brokerage and handling, we used

a 1999 rate provided by a trucking and

shipping company located in

Alexandria, Egypt. For further details,

see Valuation Memorandum.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise from

Romania entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice 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.

Exporter/manufacturer Margin

(percent)

Sidex Trading, SRL & Sidex International, Plc .............................. 22.97

Metanef, S.A ................................. 32.36

Metagrimex, S.A ........................... 33.40

Metalexportimport,S.A .................. 25.60

Romania-Wide .............................. 88.62

The Romania-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

producers that are identified

individually above.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant portion of

exports of the subject merchandise or, if

in the event of a negative determination,

a request for such postponement is

made by the petitioners. The

Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by

the respondents for postponement of a

final determination be accompanied by

a request for extension of provisional

measures from a four-month period to

not more than six months.

On April 11, 2000, we received a

request from the respondents for

postponement of the final determination

and an extension of the provisional

measures. Because the preliminary

determination in this case is affirmative,

the requesting respondents account for

a significant percent of the exports to

the United States and there is no

compelling reason to deny the

respondents’ request, we have extended

the deadline for issuance of the final

determination in this case until the

135th day after the date of publication

of this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

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 by 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

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224,

the Department will disclose to the

parties the details of its antidumping

calculations. Case briefs will be due two

weeks after the issuance of the final

verification report in conjunction with

this investigation. 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22199

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.

As noted above, the final

determination will be issued within 135

days after the date of publication of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

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. 01–10854 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–817]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelica Mendoza or Nancy Decker at

(202) 482–3019 and (202) 482–0196,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 8, Group III, 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) from Thailand are being

sold, 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 is shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping investigations of

HR products from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation:

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).

The petitioners in this investigation are

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV Steel

Company, Inc., National Steel

Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (a Unit of

USX Corporation), Gallatin Steel

Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., Nucor

Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc.,

Weirton Steel Corporation, and

Independent Steelworkers Union. Since

the initiation of this investigation 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,

nowever, receive comments regarding

product coverage in the investigation of

hot-rolled carbon steel products from

the Netherlands. In that investigation

we received comments from Duracell

Global Business Management Group on

December 11, 2000, from Eveready

Battery Co., Inc., on December 15, 2000,

from Bouffard Metal Goods, Inc., and

Truelove & Maclean, Inc., on December

18, 2000, and from Corus Staal BV and

Corus Steel U.S.A., Inc., and Thomas

Steel Strip Corporation on December 27,

2000.

On December 22, 2000, the

Department issued a letter to interested

parties in all of the concurrent HR

products antidumping investigations,

providing an opportunity to comment

on the Department’s proposed model

matching characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by:

petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus

Staal BA and Corus Steel USA Inc.,

(Corus), respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited (Iscor), 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

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 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. These

fields are used in the model match

program to prevent matches of prime

merchandise to non-prime merchandise.

On December 28, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination on imports of subject

merchandise from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. On January 4,

2001, the ITC published its preliminary

determination that there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of the subject

merchandise from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. See Hot-Rolled

Steel Products from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805–02

(January 4, 2001).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued all sections of its antidumping

duty questionnaire to Sahaviriya Steel

Industries Public Co., Ltd. (SSI), Siam