[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67213-67217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31988]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-791-811]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams 
From South Africa

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 
South Africa 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. Because 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: J. David Dirstine, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce 
(``Department's'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 
351 (April 2001).

Background

    Since the initiation of this investigation (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 (June 20, 2001)) (``Initiation 
Notice''), the following events have occurred.
    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 South Africa are 
materially injuring the United States industry (see Certain Structural 
Steel Beams From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan (66 FR 37050 (July 
16, 2001)).
    On July 20, 2001, we selected the largest producer/exporter of 
structural steel beams from South Africa as a mandatory respondent in 
this proceeding. For further discussion, see Memorandum to Laurie 
Parkhill, Director Office 3, from The Team Re: Respondent Selection 
dated July 20, 2001. We subsequently issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation, Ltd. 
(``Highveld''), on July 20, 2001.
    During the period August through November 2001, the Department 
received responses to sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's 
original and supplemental questionnaires from Highveld.
    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).)
    On October 3, 2001, the petitioners requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation with respect to Highveld. We 
initiated such an investigation on October 29, 2001. (See Memorandum to 
Richard W. Moreland from Laurie Parkhill Re: Initiation of Cost 
Investigation, dated October 29, 2001, for further details.)

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 14, 2001, 
Highveld 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)(2)(ii), because (1) Our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) Highveld accounts for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling 
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 hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed

[[Page 67214]]

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 scope-exclusion 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 period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2000, through 
March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from South 
Africa to the United States were made at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), we compared the export price (``EP'') or constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the 
``Export Price,'' ``Constructed 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 weighted-average EPs and 
CEPs to weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the Highveld in the home market during 
the POI that fit the description in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise made in the home market. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar

[[Page 67215]]

foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following 
order of importance: form; shape/size (section depth); strength/grade; 
and coating.
    With respect to home-market sales of non-prime merchandise made by 
Highveld during the POI, in accordance with our past practice, we 
excluded these sales from our preliminary analysis based on the limited 
quantity of such sales in the home market and the fact that no such 
sales were made to the United States during the POI. (See, e.g., Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 
(July 9, 1993).)

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or 
producer outside the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, based on the facts of record. We 
based EP on the packed delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for inland 
freight expense from plant/warehouse to port of exit in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See Antidumping Duty Investigation on 
Structural Steel Beams from South Africa--Preliminary Determination 
Analysis Memorandum for Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation, Ltd., 
from J. David Dirstine to File, dated December 19, 2001 (Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum).

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter.
    We based CEP on the packed FOB or CIF prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price-billing 
errors. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, domestic inland freight (i.e., inland freight expense from 
plant/warehouse to port of exit), ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, U.S. wharfage fees, U.S. 
survey fees, U.S. truck loading fees, U.S. inland freight expenses 
(i.e., freight from port to warehouse), and warehousing expenses. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 
deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses 
(e.g., imputed credit costs) and indirect selling expenses (e.g., 
inventory carrying costs).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Highveld and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales. 
See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home-market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.405(b)(2). Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home-
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was viable for the respondent.

B. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of a sales-below-cost allegation submitted by 
the petitioners on October 3, 2001, we found that there were reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of structural steel beams in 
the home market were made at prices below their cost of production 
(``COP''). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated an investigation of sales-below-cost for Highveld to 
determine whether sales were made at prices below their respective COP 
(see Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 33048, 33051, and Memorandum to 
Richard W. Moreland from Laurie Parkhill Re: Initiation of Cost 
Investigation, dated October 29, 2001, for further details).
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), and interest expenses (see ``Test of Home Market 
Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home-market selling 
expenses). We relied on the COP data submitted by Highveld and its 
parent company, Anglo American plc., except as noted below.
    B. We revised Highveld's G&A rate calculation to exclude freight 
out and packing expenses from the denominator (cost of sales) of the 
calculation.
    C. We revised Highveld's interest expense rate calculations to 
exclude freight out, packing expenses, interest expenses and G&A 
expenses from the denominator (cost of sales) of the calculation.
    D. We excluded the vanadium slag offset (``VSLAG'') from the total 
cost of manufacture of each CONNUM.
    See Memorandum from Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, dated December 19, 2001, Re: Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination (``Cost Calculation Memorandum'').
2. Test of Home Market-Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home-market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any 
applicable billing adjustments, movement charges, rebates, discounts, 
direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. In 
determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices less 
than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 
and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an 
extended period of time, (2) in substantial quantities, and (3) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 
where less than

[[Page 67216]]

20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI 
are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost 
sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the 
below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the 
POI are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost 
sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of 
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were 
made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Highveld's home-market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

C. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling 
activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\ including selling 
functions,\2\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, 
we have organized the common structural steel beams selling 
functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing 
support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and 
quality assurance/warranty services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home-market or third-country prices), we consider the starting 
prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058, -1060 (Fed. Cir. 
March 7, 2001).
    When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if a NV level of trade is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP level of trade and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affected 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We obtained information from Highveld regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making the reported home-market and U.S. sales, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by the 
respondent for each channel of distribution. Highveld's LOT findings 
are summarized below.
    Highveld reported two channels of distribution in the home market. 
The selling activities associated with all sales were similar (e.g., 
freight and delivery arrangements, plannings and rollings, and after-
sales service) and, based on our analysis of the selling activities, we 
considered the two channels of distribution to constitute one LOT. 
Highveld reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market, one 
represented by its EP sales and one represented by its CEP sales. 
Because the selling activities associated with the home-market LOT were 
similar to those associated with EP sales (e.g., freight and delivery 
arrangements, plannings and rollings, and aftersale service), we made 
no LOT adjustment for EP sales. For CEP sales, after making deductions 
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we found that the selling 
functions performed by Highveld at the CEP level (e.g., aftersale 
service and technical advice) were sufficiently different from the 
selling functions performed at the home-market LOT (e.g., planning of 
rollings, market research, advertising, and freight and delivery 
arrangements) to consider the home-market LOT to be different and at a 
more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT. Because the sole 
home-market LOT was different from the CEP LOT, we could not match to 
sales at the same LOT in the home market, nor could we determine a LOT 
adjustment based on Highveld's home-market sales of merchandise under 
investigation. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides 
an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Accordingly, for 
Highveld's CEP sales we determined normal value at the sole home-market 
LOT and made a CEP-offset adjustment to NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for rebates. We also made deductions for movement expenses (i.e., 
inland freight expense from plant/warehouse to customer) under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments under 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences 
in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses.
    We also deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Finally, for comparisons to CEP sales, we made a CEP offset pursuant to 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We calculated 
the CEP offset as the lesser of the indirect selling expenses on the 
comparison-market sales or the indirect selling expenses deducted from 
the starting price in calculating CEP.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of

[[Page 67217]]

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

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)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct 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 CEP, as indicated in the chart 
below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               Average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highveld...................................................         7.22
All Others.................................................      7.22\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As Highveld was the only respondent that we used in our
  calculations, we used Highveld's margin as the all-others rate.

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, 
pursuant to 735(b)(2) 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.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

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, a table of contents, and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will 
hold a public 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 an interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively 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. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 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 by 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. 01-31988 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P