Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67197

1The Hangzhou Iron & Steel Group and the Jinan

Iron & Steel Group notified the Department via

facsimile on July 28, 2001, and August 2, 2001,

respectively, that they had no shipments of the

subject merchandise during the POI. The

Department put this information on the

administrative record of this proceeding.

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31980 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–869]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From The

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from the

People’s Republic of China are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value, as provided in

section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination. Since we are postponing

the final determination, we will make

our final determination not later than

135 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Johnson or Richard Rimlinger, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5287 and (202)

482–4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statue and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (April 2001).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

structural steel beams from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 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 for

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’),

October 1, 2000, through March 31,

2001, are shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Background

On June 20, 2001, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Structural Steel

Beams from the People’s Republic of

China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,

Russia, South Africa, Spain, and

Taiwan (66 FR 33048). The Department

notified the U.S. Embassy in the PRC of

the initiation of this investigation on

June 12, 2001.

On July 9, 2001, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

structural steel beams from the PRC are

materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731–TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 17, 2001, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade &

Economic Cooperation with a letter

requesting that it forward the

questionnaire to all Chinese exporters of

structural steel beams who had

shipments during the POI. We also sent

courtesy copies of the antidumping

questionnaire to the following possible

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise named in the petition:

Chongqing Iron & Steel (Group Co. Ltd.),

Fushun Special Steel Co. Ltd.,

Guangzhou Iron & Steel Holdings Ltd.,

Hangzhou Iron & Steel Group Co., Hefei

Iron & Steel Co., Jinan Iron & Steel

Group, Lingyuan Iron & Steel Group Co.

Ltd., Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd

(‘‘Maanshan’’), Shanghai Pudong Iron &

Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., Taiyuan Iron &

Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., and Wuhan Iron

& Steel Group Co.

During the period August through

November 2001, the Department

received responses to sections A, C, and

D of the Department’s original and

supplemental questionnaires from

Maanshan. We received no other

responses to our questionnaire.1

On September 6, we requested

publicly-available information for

valuing the factors of production and

comments on surrogate-country

selection. We received comments from

Maanshan and from the Committee for

Fair Beam Imports (‘‘petitioners’’) on

November 29, 2001.

On September 25, 2001, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made

a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request on October 2, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

November 30, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from

the People’s Republic of China,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia,

South Africa, Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR

51639 (October 10, 2001).) On October

30, 2001, the petitioners made another

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for an

additional 19 days. We granted this

request on October 31, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

December 19, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Structural Steel Beams from the

People’s Republic of China, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa,

Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 56078

(November 6, 2001).)

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the

Act, on December 13, 2001, Maanshan

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register

and extend the provisional measures to

not more than six months. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2)

Maanshan accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

67198 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondent’s request and are

postponing the final determination until

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Suspension of liquidation will

be extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation covers

doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hotor cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed

or finished, having at least one

dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches

or more), whether of carbon or alloy

(other than stainless) steel, and whether

or not drilled, punched, notched,

painted, coated, or clad. These

structural steel beams include, but are

not limited to, wide-flange beams (‘‘W’’

shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes),

standard beams (‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes), and

M-shapes. All the products that meet

the physical and metallurgical

descriptions provided above are within

the scope of this investigation unless

otherwise excluded. The following

products are outside and/or specifically

excluded from the scope of this

investigation: (1) structural steel beams

greater than 400 pounds per linear foot,

(2) structural steel beams that have a

web or section height (also known as

depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural

steel beams that have additional

weldments, connectors, or attachments

to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings;

however, if the only additional

weldment, connector or attachment on

the beam is a shipping brace attached to

maintain stability during transportation,

the beam is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector, or attachment.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings 7216.32.0000,

7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060,

7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000,

7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000,

7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,

7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to

our regulations (see Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set

aside a period of time for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage and

encouraged all parties to submit

comments within 20 calendar days of

publication of the Initiation Notice (see

66 FR 33048–33049). Interested parties

submitted such comments by July 10,

2001. Additional comments were

subsequently submitted by interested

parties.

Pursuant to the Department’s

solicitation of scope comments in the

Initiation Notice, interested parties in

this and the concurrent structural steel

beams investigations request that the

following products be excluded from

the scope of the investigations: (1)

beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift

mast profiles.

With respect to the scope-exclusion

requests for the A913/65 beam and

forklift mast profiles, the interested

parties rely upon 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2)

and reason that, in general, these

products differ from the structural steel

beams covered by the scope of the

investigations in terms of physical

characteristics, ultimate uses, purchaser

expectations, channels of trade, manner

of advertising and display and/or price.

They also argue that these products are

not produced by the petitioners.

In considering whether these products

should be included within the scope of

the investigations, we analyzed the

arguments submitted by all of the

interested parties in the context of the

criteria enumerated in the court

decision Diversified Products Corp. v.

United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889

(CIT 1983) (‘‘Diversified’’). For these

analyses, we relied upon the petition,

the submissions by all interested

parties, the International Trade

Commission’s (‘‘ITC’’) preliminary

determination, and other information.

After considering the respondent’s

comments and the petitioners’

objections to the exclusion requests

regarding the A913/65 beam, we find

that the description of this grade of

structural steel beam is dispositive such

that further consideration of the criteria

provided in their submissions is

unnecessary. Furthermore, the

description of the merchandise

contained in the relevant submissions

pertaining to this grade of beam does

not preclude this product from being

within the scope of the investigations.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that the A913/65 beam does

not constitute a separate class or kind of

merchandise and, therefore, falls within

the scope as defined in the petition.

With respect to forklift mast profiles,

having considered the comments we

received from the interested parties and

the criteria enumerated in Diversified,

we find that the profiles in question,

being doubly-symmetric and having an

I-shape, fall within the scope of the

investigations. These profiles also meet

the other criteria included in the scope

language contained in the petition.

While the description by the interested

party requesting the exclusion indicates

some differences, such as in price,

between forklift mast profiles and

structural steel beams, these differences

are not sufficient to recognize forklift

mast profiles as a separate class or kind

of merchandise. However, given these

differences between forklift mast

profiles and structural steel beams, we

preliminarily determine that forklift

mast profiles should be separately

identified for model-matching purposes.

We also received a scope-exclusion

request by an interested party for

fabricated steel beams. This request was

subsequently withdrawn pursuant to an

agreement with the petitioners to clarify

the scope language by adding that

‘‘* * * beams that have additional

weldments, connectors or attachments

to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings are

outside the scope definition.’’ However,

‘‘* * * if the only additional weldment,

connector or attachment on the beam is

a shipping brace attached to maintain

stability during transportation, the beam

is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector or attachment.’’

Accordingly, we modified the scope

definition to account for this

clarification. See the ‘‘Scope’’ section

above.

We have addressed these scopeexclusion requests in detail in a

Memorandum to Louis Apple and

Laurie Parkhill, Directors, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Offices 2 and 3,

respectively, from The Structural Steel

Beams Teams Re: Scope Exclusion

Requests, dated December 19, 2001.

Period of Investigation

The POI is October 1, 2000, through

March 31, 2001.

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a non-market-economy (‘‘NME’’)

country in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805

(May 25, 2000), and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple

Juice Concentrate from the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April

13, 2000)). A designation as an NME

remains in effect until it is revoked by

the Department (see section 771(18)(C)

of the Act). The respondents in this

investigation have not requested a

revocation of the PRC’s NME status. We

have, therefore, preliminarily

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67199

determined to continue to treat the PRC

as an NME country.

When the Department is investigating

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1)

of the Act directs us to base the 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.

Furthermore, no interested party has

requested that we treat the structural

steel beams industry in the PRC as a

market-oriented industry and no

information has been provided that

would lead to such a determination.

Therefore, we have preliminarily

continued to treat the PRC as an NME.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of merchandise subject to

investigation in an NME country a

single rate, unless an exporter can

demonstrate that it is sufficiently

independent so as to be entitled to a

separate rate. Maanshan has provided

the requested company-specific

separate-rates information and has

indicated that there is no element of

government ownership or control. Based

on Maanshan’s claim, we considered

whether it is eligible for a separate rate.

The Department’s separate-rate test is

unconcerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/ border-type controls

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

minimum export prices), particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (Nov. 19, 1997); Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

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

1997); and Honey from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

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

1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China, 56

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

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

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

Under the separate-rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in

NME cases only if the NME respondents

can demonstrate the absence of both de

jure and de facto governmental control

over export activities. See Silicon

Carbide and Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of

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

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

Manshaan has placed on the record a

number of documents to demonstrate

absence of de jure control, including the

‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the People’s

Republic of China’’ and the ‘‘Company

Law of the People’s Republic of China.’’

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer

Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474

(October 24, 1995). We have no

information in this proceeding which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts, and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses.

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide. Therefore,

the Department has determined that an

analysis of de facto control is critical in

determining whether respondents are,

in fact, subject to a degree of

governmental control which would

preclude the Department from assigning

separate rates.

Maanshan asserted the following: (1)

There is no government participation in

setting export prices; (2) its managers

have authority to bind sales contracts;

(3) it does not have to notify any

government authorities of its

management selection, and (4) there are

no restrictions on the use of its export

revenue and it is responsible for

financing it own losses. Additionally,

Maanshan’s questionnaire response

does not suggest that pricing is

coordinated among exporters.

Furthermore, our analysis of

Maanshan’s questionnaire response

reveals no other information indicating

government control.

The petitioners in this case argue that,

because Maanshan is 63 percent owned

by a holding company which is, in turn,

wholly owned by the Anhui provincial

government, and because certain

managers of the holding company also

serve on the board of directors of

Maanshan, the respondent is ineligible

for a separate rate due to potential

government control. However, the

petitioners have not submitted any

specific evidence indicating that the

conditions for de facto control exist. As

stated in the Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587, ownership of the company by a

state-owned enterprise does not require

the application of a single rate.

Therefore, based on the information

provided, we preliminarily determine

that there is an absence of de facto

governmental control of Maanshan’s

export functions. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that the

respondent has met the criteria for the

application of a separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Rate

In NME cases, it is the Department’s

policy to make a rebuttal presumption

that all exporters located in the NME

comprise a single exporter under

common control, the ‘‘NME entity.’’ The

Department assigns a single NME rate to

the NME entity unless an exporter can

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate. All exporters were given the

opportunity to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. As

explained above, we received timely

Section A responses from Maanshan.

Our review of U.S. import statistics,

however, reveals that Maanshan did not

account for all imports of subject

merchandise into the United States from

67200 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

the PRC. For this reason, we

preliminarily determine that some PRC

exporters of structural steel beams failed

to respond to our questionnaire.

Consequently, we are applying adverse

facts available (see below) to determine

the single antidumping rate—the PRCwide rate-applicable to all other

exporters in the PRC based on our

presumption that those respondents

who failed to demonstrate entitlement

to a separate rate constitute a single

enterprise under common control by the

Chinese government. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR

25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRCwide rate applies to all entries of subject

merchandise except for entries from

Maanshan.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which 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 that

information is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all of

the requirements established by the

Department provided that 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. Section 776(a)(2)(B)

of the Act requires the Department to

use facts available when a party does

not provide the Department with

information by the established deadline

or in the form and manner requested by

the Department. In addition, section

776(b) of the Act provides that, if the

Department finds that an interested

party ‘‘has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with a request for information,’’ the

Department may use information that is

adverse to the interests of that party as

facts otherwise available. Adverse

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure

that the party does not obtain a more

favorable result by failing to cooperate

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at

870 (1994). Furthermore, ‘‘an affirmative

finding of bad faith on the part of the

respondent is not required before the

Department may make an adverse

inference.’’ Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

An adverse inference may include

reliance on information derived from

the petition, the final determination in

the investigation, any previous review,

or any other information placed on the

record. See section 776(b) of the Act.

However, section 776(c) provides that,

when the Department relies on

secondary information rather than on

information obtained in the course of a

review, the Department shall, to the

extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

that are reasonably at its disposal. The

SAA states that the independent sources

may include published price lists,

official import statistics and customs

data, and information obtained from

interested parties during the particular

investigation or review. See SAA at 870.

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. Id. As

noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

from Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391,

57392 (November 6, 1996), to

corroborate secondary information, the

Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

In the case of the single Chinese

enterprise, as explained above, some

exporters of the subject merchandise

failed to respond to the Department’s

request for information. Pursuant to

section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching

our preliminary determination, we have

used total facts available for the PRCwide rate because certain entities did

not respond. Also, the complete failure

of these exporters to respond to the

Department’s requests for information

constitutes a failure to cooperate to the

best of their ability. Therefore, pursuant

to section 776(b) of the Act, the

Department preliminarily finds that, in

selecting from among the facts available,

an adverse inference is appropriate.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available and using an

adverse inference, we reviewed the

information provided in the petition

and in the response submitted by

Maanshan. For export price, the petition

contained price quotations which the

petitioners obtained from a PRC

producer of subject merchandise. We

corroborated the petitioners’ price

quotations with data submitted by

Maanshan in its questionnaire response.

The price quotations fell within the

range of export prices reported by

Maanshan and are therefore reliable and

relevant.

For normal value, we attempted to

corroborate the petitioners’ factors-ofproduction data. However, due to

different reporting formats and factor

groupings by the petitioners and the

respondent, we were unable to reconcile

the two sets of factors of production for

corroboration purposes. Therefore, as

facts available we preliminarily used the

factors of production reported by

Maanshan and applied the valuations

which we used to calculate normal

value for Maanshan. Using this data we

calculated an all-PRC rate of 177.21

percent. See the Facts-Available

Decision Memo dated December 19,

2001, in Central Records for a

comprehensive explanation of how we

corroborated this rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

structural steel beams to the United

States by Maanshan were made at less

than fair value, we compared export

price to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export

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

this notice. In accordance with section

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

calculated weighted-average export

prices. We calculated weighted-average

NVs.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, we used export price (‘‘EP’’)

because the subject merchandise was

sold directly to unaffiliated customers

in the United States prior to importation

and because constructed export price

was not otherwise indicated. In

accordance with section

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

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NVs. We calculated EP based

on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight and brokerage and handling.

Because certain domestic charges, such

as those for foreign inland freight and

brokerage and handling, were provided

by NME companies, we valued those

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67201

charges based on surrogate rates from

India. See the Factors-of-Production

Valuation Memorandum, dated

December 19, 2001 (‘‘FOP

Memorandum’’).

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

When the Department is investigating

imports from an NME country, section

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,

in most circumstances, on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a surrogate market-economy country

or countries considered to be

appropriate by the Department. In

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

Act, the Department, in valuing the

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 the

surrogate factor values are discussed

under the NV section below.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka

and the Philippines are countries

comparable to the PRC in terms of

economic development. See

Memorandum from Jeffrey May to

Laurie Parkhill, dated August 31, 2001.

Customarily, we select an appropriate

surrogate based on the availability and

reliability of data from these countries.

For PRC cases, the primary surrogate

has often been India if it is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise. In

this case, we have found that India is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. We used India as the

primary surrogate country and,

accordingly, we have calculated NV

using Indian prices to value the PRC

producer’s factors of production, when

available and appropriate. We have

obtained and relied upon publicly

available information wherever

possible. See FOP Memorandum. In

accordance with 19 CFR

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final

determination in an antidumping

investigation, interested parties may

submit publicly available information to

value the factors of production within

40 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination.

2. Factors of Production

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 an 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. We used factors of production,

reported by respondent, for materials,

energy, labor, by-products, and packing.

We valued all the input factors using

publicly available published

information, as discussed in the

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ and ‘‘Factor

Valuations’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),

where a producer sources an input from

a market economy and pays for it in

market-economy currency, the

Department employs the actual price

paid for the input to calculate the

factors-based NV. See also Lasko Metal

Products v. United States, 437 F.3d

1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(‘‘Lasko’’). Therefore, where Maanshan

had market-economy inputs and paid

for these inputs in a market-economy

currency, we used the actual prices paid

for those inputs in our calculations.

3. Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by

respondents for the POI. To calculate

NV, the reported per-unit factor

quantities were multiplied by publicly

available Indian surrogate values

(except as noted below). In selecting the

surrogate values, we considered the

quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

including freight costs to make them

delivered prices. For a detailed

description of all surrogate values used

for respondents, see FOP Memorandum.

Citing Sebacic Acid from the People’s

Republic of China, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 65678 (December 15,

1997), Maanshan argued in its October

9, 2001, surrogate-value submission that

the Department should make deductions

from domestic prices to ensure that they

are exclusive of India’s central sales tax,

any state sales tax, and any governmentimposed statutory levies. However,

there were no instances in which we

had to use surrogate values that

included such taxes or levies.

We added to Indian import surrogate

values a surrogate freight cost using the

shorter of the reported distance from the

domestic supplier to the factory or the

distance from the nearest seaport to the

factory. This adjustment is in

accordance with the decision in Sigma

Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d

1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

For those Indian Rupee values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using wholesale

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics for

India. For those U.S. dollardenominated values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using producer

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics for the

United States.

Except as noted below, we valued

raw-material inputs using the weightedaverage unit import values derived from

the Monthly Trade Statistics of Foreign

Trade of India—Volume II—Imports

(‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’) for the time

period April 2000, through February

2001. Where POI-specific Indian Import

Statistics were not available, we used

Indian Import Statistics from an earlier

period (i.e., April 1, 1999, through

March 31, 2000). Although surrogatevalue data or sources to obtain such data

were provided by the respondent or the

petitioners, in some cases we found that

the Indian Import Statistics provided

more contemporaneous data.

Maanshan argued that, since it

generated its own electricity and

produced other energy material inputs

during the POI (argon, nitrogen and

oxygen) in sufficient quantities to cover

its needs in the manufacture of the

subject merchandise during the POR,

the Department should value these

inputs using factors of production for

items used by Maanshan in the

production of these inputs. The

petitioners argued that the Department

should reject Maanshan’s claim because

the Department would have to calculate

a number of additional factors to

evaluate each upstream factor of

production used in subject merchandise

correctly. Consistent with our approach

in Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From the People’s Republic of China, 66

FR 49632 (September 28, 2001), we

valued the respondent’s inputs through

the use of surrogate valuation, rather

than based on surrogate valuation of the

factors going into the production of

those inputs. The respondent’s

methodology would add needless

complications to our calculation of NV

and lead to potentially erroneous

results. Therefore, as the basis for

valuing electricity, we have relied on

the 1997 data published in the

International Energy Agency’s

publication, Energy Prices and Taxes,

67202 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

Third Quarter, 2000, and adjusted the

amount for inflation. As the basis for

valuing argon, nitrogen, and oxygen, we

have relied on 1999 data from UN Trade

Commodity Statistics (UNTCS), United

Nations. We also valued bentonite and

coal tar using the data from the UNTCS.

Furthermore, we used a website

(www.indiainfoline.com) providing

market prices for natural gas in 2000 to

calculate a percentage of Maanshanproduced gas to natural gas and derive

a surrogate value for gas. We valued

water based on data from the Asian

Development Bank’s Second Water

Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific

Region (published in 1997).

Maanshan purchased iron ore from

market-economy suppliers during the

POI, one of which was an affiliate. We

compared the price paid to the affiliated

supplier with the prices paid to the

unaffiliated market-economy suppliers

and found that the price from the

affiliated supplier was within the same

range as those from the unaffiliated

market-economy suppliers. Therefore,

we used the weighted-average price

reported by Maanshan.

The only input Maanshan reported for

packing was steel strap. We used Indian

Import Statistics data for the POI to

value this input.

To value truck rates, we used freight

costs based on price quotes obtained by

the Department in November 1999 from

trucking companies in India. For rail

transportation, we valued rail rates

using information published by the

Indian Railway Conference Association

in June 1998, as adjusted for inflation.

To value marine insurance and

brokerage and handling we used a

publicly summarized version of the

average value for marine insurance

expenses and brokerage and handling

expenses reported in Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod from India; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

and New Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 856

(January 6, 1999).

To value factory overhead, and

selling, general and administrative

expenses and profit, we used rates based

on financial information from an Indian

integrated steel producer, Tata, a

producer of subject merchandise whose

March 2000 financial statement was

provided by the petitioners in an

October 9, 2001, submission.

For labor, consistent with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC

regression-based wage rate at the Import

Administration’s home page, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised in May 2000

(see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The

source of the wage rate data on the

Import Administration’s web site is the

1999 Year Book of Labour Statistics,

International Labor Organization

(Geneva: 1999), Chapter 5B: Wages in

Manufacturing.

Verification

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

Act, we intend to verify all company

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 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 weightedaverage 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

percentage

margin

Maanshan Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd. ........................................ 159.60

China-Wide ............................... 117.21

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 to the Department no later

than seven days after the date of the

final verification report issued in this

proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

five days from the deadline date for case

briefs. A list of authorities used and an

executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. This summary should be

limited to five pages total, including

footnotes. In accordance with section

774 of the Act, we will hold a public

hearing, if requested, to afford interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal

briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be

held two days after the rebuttal brief

deadline date at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and 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

48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests

should contain: (1) The party’s name,

address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of

the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31981 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–838]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from Taiwan

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value, as

provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination. Since we are postponing

the final determination, we will make

our final determination not later than

135 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.