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

67214 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

or finished, having at least one

dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches

or more), whether of carbon or alloy

(other than stainless) steel, and whether

or not drilled, punched, notched,

painted, coated, or clad. These

structural steel beams include, but are

not limited to, wide-flange beams

(‘‘W’shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’

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

shapes), and M-shapes. All the products

that meet the physical and metallurgical

descriptions provided above are within

the scope of this investigation unless

otherwise excluded. The following

products are outside and/or specifically

excluded from the scope of this

investigation: (1) Structural steel beams

greater than 400 pounds per linear foot,

(2) structural steel beams that have a

web or section height (also known as

depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural

steel beams that have additional

weldments, connectors, or attachments

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

however, if the only additional

weldment, connector or attachment on

the beam is a shipping brace attached to

maintain stability during transportation,

the beam is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector, or attachment.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings 7216.32.0000,

7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060,

7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000,

7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000,

7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,

7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to

our regulations (see Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR

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

aside a period of time for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage and

encouraged all parties to submit

comments within 20 calendar days of

publication of the Initiation Notice (see

66 FR 33048–33049). Interested parties

submitted such comments by July 10,

2001. Additional comments were

subsequently submitted by interested

parties.

Pursuant to the Department’s

solicitation of scope comments in the

Initiation Notice, interested parties in

this and the concurrent structural steel

beams investigations request that the

following products be excluded from

the scope of the investigations: (1)

Beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift

mast profiles.

With respect to the scope-exclusion

requests for the A913/65 beam and

forklift mast profiles, the interested

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

and reason that, in general, these

products differ from the structural steel

beams covered by the scope of the

investigations in terms of physical

characteristics, ultimate uses, purchaser

expectations, channels of trade, manner

of advertising and display and/or price.

They also argue that these products are

not produced by the petitioners.

In considering whether these products

should be included within the scope of

the investigations, we analyzed the

arguments submitted by all of the

interested parties in the context of the

criteria enumerated in the court

decision Diversified Products Corp. v.

United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889

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

analyses, we relied upon the petition,

the submissions by all interested

parties, the International Trade

Commission’s (‘‘ITC’’) preliminary

determination, and other information.

After considering the respondent’s

comments and the petitioners’

objections to the exclusion requests

regarding the A913/65 beam, we find

that the description of this grade of

structural steel beam is dispositive such

that further consideration of the criteria

provided in their submissions is

unnecessary. Furthermore, the

description of the merchandise

contained in the relevant submissions

pertaining to this grade of beam does

not preclude this product from being

within the scope of the investigations.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that the A913/65 beam does

not constitute a separate class or kind of

merchandise and, therefore, falls within

the scope as defined in the petition.

With respect to forklift mast profiles,

having considered the comments we

received from the interested parties and

the criteria enumerated in Diversified,

we find that the profiles in question,

being doubly-symmetric and having an

I-shape, fall within the scope of the

investigations. These profiles also meet

the other criteria included in the scope

language contained in the petition.

While the description by the interested

party requesting the exclusion indicates

some differences, such as in price,

between forklift mast profiles and

structural steel beams, these differences

are not sufficient to recognize forklift

mast profiles as a separate class or kind

of merchandise. However, given these

differences between forklift mast

profiles and structural steel beams, we

preliminarily determine that forklift

mast profiles should be separately

identified for model-matching purposes.

We also received a scope-exclusion

request by an interested party for

fabricated steel beams. This request was

subsequently withdrawn pursuant to an

agreement with the petitioners to clarify

the scope language by adding that

‘‘ * * * beams that have additional

weldments, connectors or attachments

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

outside the scope definition.’’ However,

‘‘ * * * if the only additional weldment,

connector or attachment on the beam is

a shipping brace attached to maintain

stability during transportation, the beam

is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector or attachment.’’

Accordingly, we modified the scope

definition to account for this

clarification. See the ‘‘Scope’’ section

above.

We have addressed these scopeexclusion requests in detail in a

Memorandum to Louis Apple and

Laurie Parkhill, Directors, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Offices 2 and 3,

respectively, from The Structural Steel

Beams Teams Re: Scope Exclusion

Requests, dated December 19, 2001.

Period of Investigation

The 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 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-toLength 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 homemarket 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 salesbelow-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 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 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

67216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

1The 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.

2Selling 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.

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.

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 homemarket 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 homemarket 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 homemarket 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 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 weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the CEP, as indicated in the

chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

WeightedAverage

margin percentage

Highveld .................................... 7.22

All Others .................................. 7.221

1As 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–814]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From the

Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from the

Russian Federation are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value, as provided in

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

as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination. Since we are postponing

the final determination, we will make

our final determination not later than

135 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3477 or

(202) 482–4477, 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 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 the Russian

Federation are materially injuring the

United States industry (see ITC

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–935–942

(Publication No. 3438)).

We issued the antidumping

questionnaire to Guryevsk Steel Works,

Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, and

Nizhny Tagil Iron and Steel Works on

July 18, 2001. We only received a

questionnaire response from Nizhny

Tagil Iron and Steel Works (Tagil).

During the period August through

October 2001, the Department received

responses to sections A, C, and D of the

Department’s original and supplemental

questionnaires from Tagil.

On September 25, 2001, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made