Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67207

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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Kuei Yi Industrial Co., Ltd. ... 18.01

Tung Ho Steel Enterprise

Corporation ....................... 4.70

All Others .............................. 13.95

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.

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

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. 01–31986 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–469–811]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than

Fair Value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from Spain

are not being, nor 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:

Jennifer Gehr or Mike Strollo, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1779 or (202) 482–

0629, respectively.

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 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 Spain are

materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731-TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 18, 2001, we selected the

largest producer/exporter of structural

steel beams from Spain as the

mandatory respondent in this

proceeding. For further discussion, see

Memorandum to Lou Apple, Director,

Office 2, from The Team Re: Respondent

Selection dated July 18, 2001. We

subsequently issued the antidumping

questionnaire to Aceralia Corporacion

Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia) on July18,

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

Aceralia. On December 18, 2001, we

issued an additional supplemental

questionnaire to the respondent.

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

67208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

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

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

Act, on December 18, 2001, the

petitioners requested that, in the event

of a negative 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.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because our preliminary determination

is negative and no compelling reasons

for denial exist, we are granting the

petitioners’ request and are postponing

the final determination until no later

than 135 days after the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67209

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 period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

structural steel beams from Spain 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 respondent 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 made in the home

market, where appropriate. 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 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

respondent 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

Aceralia 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-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Korea,

58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993).) In

addition, we excluded from our

preliminary analysis all home market

sales between Aceralia’s mills because

these sales were made for internal

consumption. (For further discussion,

see Memorandum to the file from

Jennifer Gehr Re: Calculations

Performed for Aceralia Corporacion

Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia) for the

Preliminary Determination in the Less

Than Fair Value Investigation on

Structural Steel Beams from Spain dated

December 19, 2001 (‘‘Sales Calculation

Memorandum’’).)

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. We based EP on the packed price

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included, where appropriate, foreign

inland freight and foreign brokerage and

handling.

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 prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments for price-billing errors. We

made deductions for rebates, where

applicable. We also made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included, where appropriate, foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. customs duties (including harbor

maintenance fees and merchandise

processing fees), U.S. inland freight

expenses (freight from port to

warehouse) and U.S. storage 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 (i.e.,

imputed credit costs) and indirect

selling expenses.

Aceralia did not report rebates on

certain sales made during the POI.

Because the terms of the rebate

agreement provide for the payment of

rebates on these sales, we based the perunit rebate expense for them on the

amount reported for other sales to the

same customers. In addition, Aceralia

reported rebates, as well as certain

movement expenses, on a theoreticalweight basis. We adjusted these

expenses to state them on an actualweight basis. (See the Sales Calculation

Memorandum.)

For those U.S. sales which Aceralia

did not report a date of payment, we

have used the signature date of the

preliminary determination (i.e.,

December 19, 2001) in the calculation of

imputed credit expenses. In addition,

we restated the respondent’s U.S.

interest rate on a 365-day basis (rather

than a 360-day basis as reported). (See

the Sales Calculation Memorandum.)

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 Aceralia 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.

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. 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. Affiliated-Party Transactions and

Arm’s-Length Test

The Department’s standard practice

with respect to the use of home market

sales to affiliated parties for NV is to

determine whether such sales are made

at arm’s-length prices. Therefore, in

accordance with that practice, we

67210 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

1Where the Department determines that a

response to a request for information does not

comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act

provides that the Department will so inform the

party submitting the response and will, to the

extent practicable, provide that party the

opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If

the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the

applicable time limits, the Department may, subject

to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of

the original and subsequent responses, as

appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to consider

information that is submitted by an interested party

and is necessary to the determination but does not

meet all the applicable requirements established by

the administering authority’’ if the information is

timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete

that it cannot be used, and if the interested party

acted to the best of its ability in providing the

information. Where all of these conditions are met,

the statute requires the Department to use the

information, if it can do so without undue

difficulties.

performed an arm’s-length test on

Aceralia’s sales to affiliates as follows.

To test whether these sales were made

at arm’s-length prices, we compared, on

a model-specific basis, the starting

prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, and packing. Where, for the

tested models of the foreign like

product, prices to the affiliated party

were on average 99.5 percent or more of

the price to the unaffiliated parties, we

determined that sales made to the

affiliated party were at arm’s length.

Where, for the tested models of the

foreign like product, prices to the

affiliated party were on average lower

than 99.5 percent of the price to the

unaffiliated parties, we determined that

sales made to the affiliated party were

not at arm’s length. See 19 CFR

351.403(c). See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077

(July 9, 1993).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.403(d), where the respondent’s sales

to its affiliates constituted at least five

percent of the total home market sales,

and these sales failed the arm’s-length

test, our normal practice would be to

use sales made by the affiliates to

unaffiliated customers in our analysis.

In this case, however, we were unable

to do so because Aceralia either: (1) Was

unable to provide this information; (2)

failed to provide it in response to a

specific request; or (3) reported

information that was so incomplete that

it could not be used for the preliminary

determination. Consequently, we

disregarded the first category of sales

(i.e., those for which Aceralia was

unable to provide the downstream

information) and, we included the latter

two categories in our analysis using

adverse facts available.

Regarding the first scenario, Aceralia

was unable to report downstream sales

data for one customer group that became

unaffiliated during the POI. In its

November 9, 2001, supplemental

questionnaire response, Aceralia

demonstrated that: (1) it made

numerous attempts to obtain the

information from this customer after it

became unaffiliated; and (2) the

customer refused to provide the relevant

data. Based on this information, we

have accepted Aceralia’s claim, for

purposes of the preliminary

determination that, even acting to the

best of its ability, it could not provide

the requested information. For the

preliminary determination, we have

excluded sales to this customer group

from our analysis, because we found

that they were not made at arm’s-length.

For further discussion, see the Sales

Calculation Memorandum.

Regarding the latter two scenarios,

Aceralia did not report necessary

information requested by the

Department in its supplemental

questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the

Act provides that if an interested party

or any other person (A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the administering authority; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for the submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)

significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i)

of the Act, the administering authority

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the

Act, use the facts otherwise available in

reaching the applicable determination

under this title.1 Section 776(b) of the

Act further provides that adverse

inferences may be used when a party

has failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of its ability to comply with a

request for information.

In this case, we find that Aceralia

withheld downstream information

requested by the Department for certain

sales and failed to provide complete and

usable information on others. Because:

(1) We informed Aceralia of the

deficiency in its data and provided it an

opportunity to remedy it in a

supplemental questionnaire (pursuant

to section 782(d) of the Act); and (2)

Aceralia did not provide the

information requested or provide

information that was so incomplete that

it could not be used (within the

meaning of section 782(e) of the Act),

we resorted to facts otherwise available.

Further, the data that Aceralia claimed

it was unable to provide for these

transactions was provided for numerous

other transactions. Aceralia did not

indicate or explain why it was not

possible to provide this information for

the transactions in question. Therefore,

we conclude that Aceralia could have

provided the necessary data but chose

not to, thereby failing to cooperate to the

best of its ability within the meaning of

section 776(b) of the Act. Accordingly,

we adjusted the prices charged by

Aceralia to the affiliated customers in

question using adverse facts available.

Specifically, we increased the prices

charged to these customers by the

largest customer-specific ratio

calculated in the arm’s length test (i.e.,

the largest average price difference

between the prices charged to any

affiliated customer and unaffiliated

customers). For further discussion of

our application of facts available for the

preliminary determination, see the Sales

Calculation Memorandum.

On December 18, 2001, we issued an

additional supplemental questionnaire

to Aceralia on this topic. We intend to

verify Aceralia’s response to this

questionnaire and will consider this

information, as appropriate, for

purposes of the final determination.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of an allegation

contained in the petition, 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 a country-wide sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether

sales were made at prices below their

respective COP (see Initiation Notice, 66

FR at 33048, 33051).

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’’),

interest expenses, and home market

packing costs (see ‘‘Test of Home Market

Sales Prices’’ section below for

treatment of home market selling

expenses). We relied on the COP data

submitted by Aceralia, except as noted

below.

1. We revised the G&A rate to include

net foreign exchange losses on accounts

payable for the Gijon plant. In addition,

we excluded packing expenses from the

cost of goods sold denominator of the

four individual plant rate calculations.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67211

2The 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.

3Selling 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, where applicable.

4Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV,

where possible.

2. We revised the denominator in the

consolidated financial expense rate

calculation to include only those offsets

for interest income related to allowable

short-term interest bearing items. We

recalculated the denominator to be

based on cost of goods sold rather than

raw materials and also to exclude

packing expenses.

3. We weight-averaged the revised

COP/CV files for the four plants.

See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee to

Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of

Accounting, dated December 19, 2001,

Re: Cost of Production and Constructed

Value Calculation Adjustments for

Preliminary Determination (‘‘Cost

Calculation Memorandum’’).

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the adjusted weightedaverage 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 movement

charges, rebates, discounts, and direct

and indirect selling expenses. Regarding

home market movement charges,

without explanation, Aceralia did not

report certain extra freight charges on

sales to the Canary Islands, despite our

request that it do so.

See Aceralia’s November 8, 2001,

submission at pages 15 and 16. As

adverse facts available, we increased the

freight expenses on these sales by the

largest additional charge shown on

Aceralia’s agreement with its freight

provider. (See the Sales Calculation

Memorandum.)

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 (B) of the Act, whether such sales

were made (1) within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and (2) at prices which permitted the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 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 belowcost 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 disregard

those sales of that product, because we

determine that in such instances the

below-cost sales represent ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time, in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(A) 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

Aceralia’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.

D. 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’’),2 including selling

functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer

category’’), and the level of selling

expenses for each type of sale.

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 4), 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 LOT

is more remote from the factory than the

CEP LOT 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

Aceralia 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. Because

Aceralia claimed business proprietary

treatment for this information, we are

unable to discuss it here. For a

description of these selling functions,

see the Sales Calculation Memorandum.

Aceralia reported home market sales

through one channel of distribution:

direct sales to both affiliated and

unaffiliated distributors. As noted in the

‘‘Affiliated Party Transactions and

Arm’s Length Test’’ section of this

notice, we based our preliminary

analysis on Aceralia’s direct sales

(without considering any downstream

information). In making our level of

trade determination for these sales in

the home market, we relied upon the

information submitted in Aceralia’s

section A and supplemental section A

responses. Based on our analysis of this

business proprietary information, we

find that only one level of trade exists

67212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

in the home market. See the Sales

Calculation Memorandum.

In the U.S. market, Aceralia reported

both EP and CEP sales. In its section A

response, Aceralia stated that it made

EP sales to the United States through

Aristrain Hispano Trade

Handelsgesellschaft (‘‘AHT’’), an

affiliated trading company, for which

the distribution process was analogous

to Aceralia’s CEP sales through

TradeARBED, Inc. (‘‘TradeARBED’’).

Because Aceralia did not report

information on the selling functions

performed by it in connection with

AHT’s sales to the first unaffiliated

customer, we have insufficient

information on the record to make a

determination on the EP LOT.

Nonetheless, given that we have only

one LOT in the home market, it is not

possible to make a LOT adjustment for

EP sales. We have requested additional

information on the selling functions/

services provided to AHT and by AHT

to its ultimate customer; we will reexamine this issue for purposes of the

final determination in the event that we

find multiple levels of trade in the home

market at that time.

Regarding CEP sales, the relevant

transaction for U.S. sales, after CEP

adjustments are made, is between

Aceralia and its affiliated distributor,

TradeARBED. Based on the differences

in the number and degree to which

selling functions are performed in each

market, we found the CEP LOT to be

different from the home market LOT

and to be at a less advanced stage of

distribution than the home market LOT.

(Because Aceralia claimed business

proprietary treatment for this

information, we are unable to discuss

our analysis here. See the Sales

Calculation Memorandum.)

Consequently, we could not match to

sales at the same LOT in the home

market, nor could we determine a LOT

adjustment based on Aceralia’s home

market sales. Furthermore, we have no

other information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a LOT

adjustment.

Based on the selling functions

provided by Aceralia for its sales to the

United States, after CEP adjustments are

made, we find that these sales are at a

marketing stage which is less advanced

than for Aceralia’s home market sales.

In addition, the data available do not

permit us to determine the extent to

which this difference in LOT affects

price comparability. Therefore, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(f), we

are granting Aceralia a CEP offset.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers,

affiliated customers that we determined

to be at arm’s-length, or certain affiliated

customers not determined to be at

arm’s-length (adjusted as noted in the

‘‘Affiliated Party Transactions and

Arm’s Length Test’’ section, above). We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for billing

adjustments, discounts and rebates. We

also made deductions for movement

expenses, including inland freight,

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

We increased freight expenses to the

Canary Islands, as noted in the ‘‘Test of

Home Market Sales Prices’’ section,

above.

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 commissions.

Because Aceralia reported commissions

on a theoretical-weight basis, we

restated these expenses to an actualweight basis. In addition, we

recalculated the commission expenses

associated with certain sales in order to

assign these expenses to the transactions

on which they were incurred. Finally,

we disallowed an adjustment for

imputed credit expenses because

Aceralia’s payment data contained

numerous inconsistencies. (See the

Sales Calculation Memorandum.)

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.410(e), we offset the commission

incurred in the U.S. market with the

indirect selling expenses incurred in the

home market by the lesser of the

commission or the indirect selling

expenses. We reclassified technical

service expense incurred in the home

market as indirect selling expenses

because they are not directly associated

with individual sales. In addition, we

recalculated these expenses as a single

percentage of gross unit price because

Aceralia did not explain how the

expenses differed by mill. (See the Sales

Calculation Memorandum.)

Furthermore, we made adjustments

for differences in costs attributable to

differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 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

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

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

Percentage

Aceralia Corporacion

Siderurgica, S.A. ............... 1.21

Because the estimated weightedaverage dumping margin for the

examined company is de minimis, we

are not directing the Customs Service to

suspend liquidation of entries of

structural steel beams from Spain.

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

section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will

determine within 75 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67213

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

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. 01–31987 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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 hotor cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed