66398 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to Cheryl

Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork

Management Branch, Support Services

Division, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP

0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.,

Washington, DC 20250. All responses to

this notice will be summarized and

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will also

become a matter of public record.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

John Rosso,

Acting Administrator, Rural BusinessCooperative Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31618 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–873 and A–791–815]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Ferrovanadium

From the People’s Republic of China

and the Republic of South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Manning or Chris Brady at (202)

482–5253 and (202) 482–4406,

respectively; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation of Investigations

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, as

amended (the Act), by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are references to the

provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351

(2000).

The Petition

On November 26, 2001, the

Department received a petition filed in

proper form by the Ferroalloys

Association Vanadium Committee and

its members: Bear Metallurgical

Company, Shieldalloy Metallurgical

Corporation, Gulf Chemical &

Metallurgical Corporation, U.S.

Vanadium Corporation, and CS Metals

of Louisiana LLC (collectively, the

petitioners). The Department received

information supplementing the petition

on December 7, 2001.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of ferrovanadium from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) and

the Republic of South Africa (South

Africa) are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value within the meaning of section 731

of the Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring, or are threatening to

materially injure, an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed this petition on behalf

of the domestic industry because they

are interested parties as defined in

sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the

Act and have demonstrated sufficient

industry support with respect to each of

the antidumping investigations that they

are requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Determination of Industry

Support for the Petition section below).

Scope of Investigations

The scope of these investigations

covers all ferrovanadium produced in

the PRC and South Africa, regardless of

grade, chemistry, form, shape or size.

Ferrovanadium is an alloy of iron and

vanadium that is used chiefly as an

additive in the manufacture of steel. The

merchandise is commercially and

scientifically identified as

ferrovanadium. The scope of this

investigation specifically excludes

vanadium additives other than

ferrovanadium, such as nitrided

vanadium, vanadium-aluminum master

alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium

oxides, vanadium waste and scrap, and

vanadium-bearing raw materials such as

slag, boiler residues and fly ash.

Merchandise under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) headings are

specifically excluded:

• 2850.00.2000 Hydrides, nitrides,

azides, silicides and borides, whether or

not chemically defined, other than

compounds which are also carbides of

heading 2849: * * * Of vanadium.

• 8112.40.3000 Beryllium, * * *

vanadium * * *, and articles of these

metals, including waste and scrap:

* * * Vanadium: Waste and scrap

• 8112.40.6000 Beryllium, * * *

vanadium * * *, and articles of these

metals, including waste and scrap:

* * * Vanadium: Other

Ferrovanadium is classified under

HTSUS heading 7202.92.00. Although

the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

Department’s written description of the

scope of this investigation remains

dispositive.

During our review of the petitions, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting

aside a period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by January 7,

2002. Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory definition regarding domestic

like product (see section 771(10) of the

Act), they do so for different purposes

and pursuant to their separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the like product, such

differences do not render the decision of

either agency contrary to the law.1

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66399

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

2 In EMD from Ireland, the Department explained

the circumstances in which it would alter the

normal POI. Specifically, the Department explained

that expansion of the POI may be warranted in

cases where the normal POI does not reflect the

sales practices of the firms subject to investigation,

including the following situations: (1) Where sales

were made pursuant to long-term contracts; (2)

where distortions would have occurred as a result

of ‘‘seasonally-affected sales;’’ (3) where there are

special order or customized sales; and (4) where

sales activity was unusually depressed resulting in

too few sales for an adequate investigation. See

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Ireland: Final

Determination of No Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

54 FR 8776 (Mar. 2, 1989). Additionally, in Pure

Magnesium from the Russian Federation, certain

respondents requested that the Department extend

the POI to cover shipments of pure magnesium

made pursuant to long-term contracts signed prior

to the POI. However, based on the arguments and

evidence presented on this issue, the Department

believed it was not appropriate to extend the POI

in this investigation and continued to use the sixmonth period defined by 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1) for

proceedings involving non-market economies. See

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not

Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the

Russian Federation, 66 FR 21319, 21321 (Apr. 30,

2001), followed in Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium

From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347, 49348

(Sept. 27, 2001).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

In this petition, petitioners do not

offer a definition of domestic like

product distinct from the scope of these

investigations. Thus, based on our

analysis of the information presented to

the Department by petitioners, and the

information obtained and received

independently by the Department, we

have determined that there is a single

domestic like product, which is defined

in the Scope of Investigations section

above, and have analyzed industry

support in terms of this domestic like

product.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) at least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. Information contained in the

petition demonstrates that the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for over 50 percent of

total production of the domestic like

product. Therefore, the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petitions account for at least 25 percent

of the total production of the domestic

like product, and the requirements of

section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. See the

Import Administration AD Investigation

Checklist, dated December 17, 2001

(Initiation Checklist) (public version on

file in the Central Records Unit of the

Department of Commerce, Room B–

099). Furthermore, because the

Department received no opposition to

the petitions, the domestic producers or

workers who support the petitions

account for more than 50 percent of the

production of the domestic like product

produced by that portion of the industry

expressing support for or opposition to

the petitions. See Initiation Checklist.

Thus, the requirements of section

732(c)(4)(A)(i)(ii) are met.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that the petition was filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act. See Initiation Checklist.

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which the Department has based

its decision to initiate these

investigations. The sources of data for

the deductions and adjustments relating

to home market price, U.S. price,

constructed value (CV) and factors of

production (FOP) are detailed in the

Initiation Checklist.

The anticipated period of

investigation (POI) for the PRC, a nonmarket economy (NME) country is April

1, 2001 through September 30, 2001,

while the anticipated POI for South

Africa, a market economy country, is

October 1, 2000 through September 30,

2001. The petitioners requested that the

Department, pursuant to section

351.204(b)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, extend the POI for South

Africa to include October 2001, thus

creating a thirteen-month POI.

According to the petitioners, the

Department should grant this extension

because of ‘‘particularly aggressive

pricing’’ by South African producers

during October 2001.

We have denied the petitioners

request for a thirteen-month POI.

Although the petitioners are correct that

section 351.204(b)(1) does provide the

Department the authority to examine

any period it considers appropriate, in

practice we have departed from the

normal POI in relatively few instances

either before or after the passage of the

URAA.2 The Department’s regulations

provide for a twelve-month POI in

market economy cases, and without

sufficient demonstration that the

Department’s analysis would be

improved by expanding the POI, we

analyze sales made during this period.

For purposes of this initiation, we find

that the petitioners have not sufficiently

demonstrated that use of the extended

POI would improve the Department’s

analysis. Indeed, upon examination of

the three U.S. price quotes from October

2001, we note that one of the quotes is

actually higher than the price quote

from within the POI. Furthermore,

although the other two prices are below

the price quote from within the POI, we

do not find this level of pricing by

South African producers to be

significantly more aggressive than the

level of pricing experienced during the

POI. Because there is no evidence in the

petition to demonstrate that expanding

the POI would otherwise improve our

analysis, thereby warranting an

extension of the POI, we will utilize the

normal POI of October 1, 2000, through

September 30, 2001, for this

investigation.

Regarding an investigation involving a

NME, the Department presumes, based

on the extent of central government

control in a NME, that a single dumping

margin, should there be one, is

appropriate for all NME exporters in the

given country. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In the

course of the investigation of

ferrovanadium from the PRC, all parties

will have the opportunity to provide

relevant information related to the issue

of the PRC’s status and the granting of

separate rates to individual exporters.

People’s Republic of China

Export Price

The petitioners identified the

following three companies as producers

and/or exporters of ferrovanadium from

the PRC: Chengde Xinghua Vanadium

Chemical Company Ltd., Jinzhou

Ferroalloy (Group) Company Ltd., and

Panzhihua Iron & Steel Group. To

calculate export price (EP), petitioners

provided (1) Price quotes from U.S.

importers and/or distributors to

unaffiliated U.S. customers for sales of

Chinese ferrovanadium, and (2) the

average unit value (AUV) calculated

from import statistics released by the

66400 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices

Census Bureau. Petitioners calculated

the AUV using the quantity and value

of imports during the POI of

ferrovanadium from the PRC, entered

under HTSUS 7202.92.00.

The price quotes provided by the

petitioners are from a time period prior

to the POI for the PRC. Because it is the

Department’s preference to use U.S.

price data originating during the POI,

we did not consider these price quotes

as a basis for EP.

Based on information contained in the

petition, the Department believes that

HTSUS 7202.92.00 is the category under

which all imports of ferrovanadium

likely enter and the possibility of a

misclassification by the U.S. Customs

Service is minimal because non-subject

merchandise is entered the United

States under different HTSUS

subheadings. See supplement to the

petition (supplemental petition), dated

December 7, 2001, at 3–6. Moreover, the

Department believes that the AUV

provides a better basis for initiation

because the AUV is an average price

covering the entire POI, while the

reported price quotes are from a period

of time before the POI for the PRC. As

a result, we relied on the AUV to

calculate EP. The petitioners used the

‘‘customs value’’ of the merchandise

and the contained weight of vanadium

in its AUV calculation. According to the

definition provided by the ITC’s Trade

Data Web, the ‘‘customs value’’ does not

include international freight or marine

insurance.

The petitioners calculated a net U.S.

price by deducting from the AUV

foreign inland freight and foreign

brokerage and handling. See Initiation

Checklist.

Normal Value

The petitioners assert that the PRC is

an NME country and no determination

to the contrary has yet been made by the

Department. In previous investigations,

the Department has determined that the

PRC is an NME. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value (Re-Bars from China), 66 FR

33522 (June 22, 2001), and Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Foundry Coke

Products from the People’s Republic of

China (Foundry Coke from China), 66

FR 39487 (July 31, 2001). In accordance

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the

presumption of NME status remains in

effect until revoked by the Department.

The presumption of NME status for the

PRC has not been revoked by the

Department and, therefore, remains in

effect for purposes of the initiation of

this investigation. Pursuant to section

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, because the

PRC’s status as an NME remains in

effect, the petitioners determined the

dumping margin using an FOP analysis.

For normal value (NV), the petitioners

based the FOP, as defined by section

773(c)(3) of the Act, on the consumption

rates of one U.S. ferrovanadium

producer, adjusted for known

differences in production efficiencies on

the basis of available information. The

petitioners assert that information

regarding the Chinese producers’

consumption rates is not available, and

have therefore assumed, for purposes of

the petition, that producers in the PRC

use the same inputs in the same

quantities as the petitioners use, except

where a variance from the petitioners’

cost model can be justified on the basis

of available information. Based on the

information provided by the petitioners,

we believe that the petitioners’ FOP

methodology represents information

reasonably available to the petitioners

and is appropriate for purposes of

initiating this investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act,

the petitioners assert that South Africa

is the most appropriate surrogate

country for the PRC, claiming that South

Africa is: (1) A market economy; (2) a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise; and (3) at a level of

economic development comparable to

the PRC in terms of per capita gross

national product (GNP). The

Department’s regulations state that it

will place primary emphasis on per

capita GNP in determining whether a

given market economy is at a level of

economic development comparable to

the NME country. In recent

antidumping cases involving the PRC,

the Department identified a group of

countries at a level of economic

development comparable to the PRC

based primarily on per capita GNP. This

group includes India, Pakistan,

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines,

and Egypt. None of these countries are

significant producers of ferrovanadium.

The petitioners assert that there is no

other product that can be considered

‘‘comparable’’ with ferrovanaduim. See

supplemental petition, at 6–10. Based

on information reasonably available to

the Department, we have accepted this

claim for purposes of initiation. Since

the recent surrogate countries for the

PRC do not produce ferrovanadium or

products comparable to ferrovanadium,

another surrogate country must be

chosen.

Where the countries normally

considered at a level of economic

development similar to that of the

country in question do not produce

comparable merchandise, the

Department’s practice is to find the most

comparable surrogate country that is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The petitioners submit

that South Africa is the most

appropriate surrogate market economy

for purposes of this investigation

because it is a significant producer of

ferrovanadium and, among the countries

that produce ferrovanadium, it is at a

level of economic development closest

to the PRC.

Based on the information provided by

the petitioners, we believe that the

petitioners’ use of South Africa as a

surrogate country is appropriate for

purposes of initiating this investigation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act, petitioners valued FOP,

where possible, on reasonably available,

public surrogate data from South Africa.

Materials were valued based on South

African import values, as published by

World Trade Atlas. With respect to

vanadium pentoxide, however, the

petitioners asserted that South African

import data are problematic because

these data are dominated by imports

into South Africa from Australia. The

petitioners provided evidence

indicating that one of the South African

producers, Xstrata, imports large

quantities of vanadium pentoxide from

a related party in Australia. The

petitioners argue that the per-unit price

derived from South African import data

is unreliable because these data include

transfer prices between Xstrata and its

affiliate. To support this claim, the

petitioners calculated the per-unit price

for vanadium pentoxide based upon

South African import data and

Australian export data, and found that

the unit price from South African

import data is approximately 40 percent

lower than the unit price from

Australian export data.

Although this price difference could

result from several factors, such as

differences in the value basis of the data

reported by the governments of South

Africa and Australia or the time lag

between export from Australia and entry

into South Africa, we find that, for

purposes of initiation, the existence of

transfer prices accounting for a large

portion of the data from which the perunit price is calculated is a valid reason

to exclude Australian imports from the

surrogate value.

To avoid this possible distortion, the

petitioners recommend that the

Department exclude imports of

vanadium pentoxide from Australia

when calculating the surrogate value for

this input. We agree with this

recommendation. However, because

only a very small quantity of vanadium

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66401

pentoxide entered from non-Australian

countries during the months of the

anticipated POI of the PRC case, the unit

value resulting from these data, for this

time period, is aberrational. In contrast,

during the longer POI for the South

Africa case, there are enough imports

from countries other than Australia to

calculate a non-aberrational per-unit

value. Therefore, we used the per-unit

price derived from South African import

statistics, excluding imports from

Australia and covering the period

October 2000 through September 2001,

as the surrogate value to be used for this

input.

Labor was valued using the

Department’s regression-based wage rate

for the PRC, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3). Electricity was valued

using South African electricity prices

for industrial consumers published by

the U.S. Department of Energy. For

overhead, selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit, the petitioners applied rates

derived from the public fiscal year 2000

financial statements of a South African

ferrovanadium producer that petitioners

believe to be representative of

ferrovanadium producers in South

Africa. All surrogate values which fell

outside the POI were adjusted for

inflation through the use of an inflation

adjustment factor that was calculated

using South African price data, as

published by the International Monetary

Fund’s International Financial

Statistics. Based on the information

provided by the petitioners, we believe

that the surrogate values represent

information reasonably available to the

petitioners and are acceptable for

purposes of initiating this investigation.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

NV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 91.64

percent.

South Africa

Export Price

The petitioners identified the

following three companies as producers

and/or exporters of ferrovanadium from

South Africa: Highveld Steel &

Vanadium Corporation Ltd., Vametco

Minerals Corporation, and Xstrata SA

(Pty) Ltd. To calculate EP, the

petitioners provided (1) four price

quotes from U.S. importers and/or

distributors to unaffiliated U.S.

customers for sales of South African

ferrovanadium, and (2) the AUV

calculated from import statistics

released by the Census Bureau.

Petitioners calculated the AUV using

the quantity and value of imports during

the POI of ferrovanadium from the

South Africa, entered under HTSUS

7202.92.00.

In the petitioners’ discussion

concerning the AUV it calculated for

imports of South African

ferrovanadium, the petitioners noted

that a large portion of imports from

South Africa are shipments made by

Xstrata to its related U.S. importer.

Consequently, the petitioners state that

the prices serving as the foundation of

the AUV do not accurately reflect arm’s

length prices to unaffiliated purchasers.

The petitioners supported this assertion

by calculating the AUV of imports into

the United States from South Africa and

comparing the result to the AUV

calculated from South African export

data for exports of subject merchandise

to the United States. The petitioners

found that the AUV calculated from

U.S. import data is approximately onethird higher than the AUV calculated

from South African export data.

According to the petitioners, this large

price differential indicates the existence

of transfer price manipulation by Xstrata

and its related U.S. importer.

Although this price differential could

result from several factors, such as

differences in the value basis of the data

reported by the Census Bureau and the

South African government or the time

lag between export from South Africa

and entry into the United States, we

find that the existence of transfer prices

accounting for a large portion of the data

from which the AUV is calculated is a

valid reason to reject the AUV as the

basis of EP.

The petitioners also provided four

price quotes for sales of South African

ferrovanadium from U.S. importers and/

or distributors to unaffiliated customers

in the United States. We note that one

of the price quotes is from within the

POI, while the three other price quotes

are from after the POI for South Africa.

Because it is the Department’s

preference to use U.S. price data

originating during the POI, we did not

consider the price quotes from outside

the POI. For purposes of initiation, we

relied upon the price quote from within

the POI. This price quote was for a sale

of South African ferrovanadium, from a

U.S. distributor to an unaffiliated U.S.

customer, on a packed and delivered

basis.

The petitioners calculated a net U.S.

price by deducting from the starting

price foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, ocean freight,

U.S. customs duty and fees, unloading

and handling fees, repackaging costs,

U.S. inland freight, and a U.S.

distributor mark-up. See Initiation

Checklist.

Normal Value

The petitioners were unable to obtain

specific sales or offers for sale of

ferrovanadium in South Africa.

However, the petitioners provided an

affidavit from a source familiar with the

ferrovanadium market in South Africa

that states that South African producers

typically set their home market sales

prices no higher than the published

London Metal Bulletin (LMB) low price

for ferrovanadium. Because the home

market price charged by these

companies is no higher than this

benchmark, the petitioners claim that

the LMB low price is a conservative

number as a reasonable approximation

of home market prices.

Although the petitioners provided

information that the LMB prices are a

reasonable approximation of home

market prices, they also provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of ferrovanadium in the home market

were made at prices below the fully

absorbed cost of production (COP),

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-cost investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of the cost of

manufacture (COM), SG&A expenses,

and packing. The petitioners calculated

COM based on their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce ferrovanadium in the United

States and South Africa using publicly

available data. To determine

depreciation and SG&A expenses, the

petitioners used the public

unconsolidated fiscal year 2000

financial statements of a South African

ferrovanadium producer that the

petitioners believe to be representative

of ferrovanadium producers in South

Africa. To determine interest expenses,

the petitioners relied upon amounts

reported in the public consolidated

fiscal year 2000 financial statements of

the same South African ferrovanadium

producer. Based upon the comparison of

the published LMB low prices to the

calculated COP of the product, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made at prices below the COP,

within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating a countrywide cost investigation. See Initiation of

Cost Investigation section below. See

Initiation Checklist. 

Based on the cost data discussed

above, petitioners found that the

published LMB low prices were below

66402 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices

COP. Therefore, pursuant to sections

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act,

the petitioners based NV for sales in

South Africa on constructed value (CV).

The petitioners calculated CV using the

same COM, SG&A, interest, and packing

expenses used to compute South

African home market COP. Consistent

with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the

petitioners included in CV an amount

for profit. The petitioners relied upon

amounts reported in the same South

African ferrovanadium producer’s

public unconsolidated fiscal year 2000

financial statements to determine the

amount for profit.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

CV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 116

percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigation

As noted above, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, the petitioners

provided information demonstrating

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in the home market of South

Africa were made at prices below the

fully absorbed COP and, accordingly,

requested that the Department conduct

a country-wide sales-below-COP

investigation in connection with the

requested antidumping investigations

for this country. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), submitted

to the U.S. Congress in connection with

the interpretation and application of the

URAA, states that an allegation of sales

below COP need not be specific to

individual exporters or producers. SAA,

H. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d

Session, at 833(1994). The SAA, at 833,

states that ‘‘Commerce will consider

allegations of below-cost sales in the

aggregate for a foreign country, just as

Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value

on a country-wide basis for purposes of

initiating an antidumping

investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

’reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ’Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the LMB low prices for

ferrovanadium to the COP for South

African producers, we find the existence

of ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that sales of foreign like

product in South Africa were made at

prices below their respective COPs

within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating the

requested country-wide cost

investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of ferrovanadium from the

PRC and South Africa are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitioners allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. Individually, the

volume of imports from the PRC and

South Africa, using the latest available

data, exceeded the statutory threshold of

seven percent for a negligibility

exclusion. Therefore, when cumulated,

the volumes for these two countries also

exceed the threshold. See section

771(24)(A)(ii) of the Act. Petitioners

contend that the industry’s injured

condition is evidenced in the declining

trends in operating profits, decreased

U.S. market share, and price

suppression and depression. The

allegations of injury and causation are

supported by relevant evidence

including U.S. Customs import data,

domestic consumption, and pricing

information. We have assessed the

allegations and supporting evidence

regarding material injury and causation,

and have determined that these

allegations are properly supported by

accurate and adequate evidence and

meet the statutory requirements for

initiation. See Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based on our examination of the

petition on ferrovanadium, and the

petitioners’ response to our

supplemental questionnaire clarifying

the petition, we find that the petition

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. See Initiation Checklist.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of

ferrovanadium from the PRC and South

Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless this deadline is extended,

we will make our preliminary

determinations no later than 140 days

after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of the PRC and South

Africa. We will attempt to provide a

copy of the public version of the

petition to each exporter named in the

petition, as appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

January 10, 2002 whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

ferrovanadium from the PRC and South

Africa are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination for any country will

result in the investigation being

terminated with respect to that country;

otherwise, these investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: December 17, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31643 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–825]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Final Results of Administrative

Antidumping Review: Oil Country

Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe,

From Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Lindsay or Thomas Gilgunn,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0780

and (202) 482–4236, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: