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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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

67218 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request on October 2, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

November 30, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from

the People’s Republic of China,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia,

South Africa, Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR

51639 (October 10, 2001).) On October

30, 2001, the petitioners made another

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for an

additional 19 days. We granted this

request on October 31, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

December 19, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Structural Steel Beams from the

People’s Republic of China, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa,

Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 56078

(November 6, 2001)).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

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

Act, on December 7, 2001, Tagil

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register

and extend the provisional measures to

not more than six months. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because (1) Our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) Tagil

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67219

‘‘* * * 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

October 1, 2000, through March 31,

2001.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

for the Russian Federation

The Department has treated the

Russian Federation as a non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) country in all past

antidumping duty investigations and

administrative reviews. See, e.g., Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Not

Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium

From the Russian Federation, 66 Fr

49347 (September 27, 2001); Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled

Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the

Russian Federation, 64 FR 38626 (July

19, 1999); Titanium Sponge from the

Russian Federation: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 64

FR 1599 (Jan. 11, 1999); Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian

Federation, 62 FR 61787 (Nov. 19,

1997); Notice of Final Determination of

Sale at Less Than Fair Value: Pure

Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from

the Russian Federation, 60 FR 16440

(Mar. 30, 1995) (Magnesium from Russia

Original Investigation Final

Determination). A designation as a NME

remains in effect until it is revoked by

the Department. See section 771(18)(C)

of the Act.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME country, section

773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base

normal value (‘‘NV’’) on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a comparable market economy that is

a significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The sources of individual

factor prices are discussed under the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.

No party in this investigation has

requested a revocation of Russia’s NME

status. We have, therefore, preliminarily

continued to treat Russia as an NME.

However, we are currently evaluating

Russia’s NME status in another ongoing

proceeding. See Notice of Initiation of

Inquiry Into the Status of the Russian

Federation as a Non-Market Economy

Country Under the Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Laws, 66 FR 54197

(October 26, 2001).

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of subject merchandise in

an NME country a single rate unless an

exporter can demonstrate that it is

sufficiently independent so as to be

entitled to a separate rate. Tagil has

submitted separate-rates information in

its section A responses, it has stated that

there is no element of government

ownership or control, and it has

requested a separate, company-specific

rate.

The Department’s separate-rate test is

unconcerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/border-type controls

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

minimum export prices), particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (Nov. 19, 1997); Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

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

1997); and Honey from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

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

1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China, 56

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

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

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

Under the separate-rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in

NME cases only if the NME respondents

can demonstrate the absence of both de

jure and de facto governmental control

over export activities. See Silicon

Carbide and Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of

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

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

Tagil has placed on the record a

number of documents to demonstrate

absence of de jure control, including: 1)

the Federal Law on Joint Stock

Companies (Dec. 26, 1995); 2) the

Federal Law No. 158-FZ (Sept. 25,

1998); and 3) the Federal Act No. 3615–

1 (October 9, 1992), ‘‘Currency control

and supervision’’ (as amended through

May 31, 2001).

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled

Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the

Russian Federation, 64 FR 61261, 61268

(Nov. 10, 1999); see also Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the

Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1142

(Jan. 7, 2000). We have no new

information in this proceeding which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination.

According to Tagil, structural steel

beam exports are not affected by exportlicensing provisions or export quotas.

Tagil claims to have autonomy in setting

the contract prices for sales of pure

magnesium through independent price

negotiations with its foreign customers

without interference from the Russian

government. Based on the assertions of

Tagil, we preliminarily determine that

there is an absence of de jure

government control over the pricing and

marketing decisions of Tagil with

respect to this company’s structural

steel beam export sales.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

67220 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts, and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses.

Tagil has asserted the following: (1) It

establishes its own export prices; (2) it

negotiates contracts without guidance

from any governmental entities or

organizations; (3) it makes its own

personnel decisions; and (4) it retains

the proceeds of its export sales and uses

profits according to its business needs.

Additionally, Tagil’s questionnaire

responses indicate that companyspecific pricing during the POI does not

suggest coordination among exporters.

This information supports a preliminary

finding that there is an absence of de

facto governmental control of the export

functions of these companies.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that Tagil has met the criteria

for the application of separate rates.

Russia-Wide Rate

In all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers located in the

NME comprise a single exporter under

common government control, the ‘‘NME

entity.’’ The Department assigns a single

NME rate to the NME entity unless an

exporter can demonstrate eligibility for

a separate rate.

Tagil has preliminarily qualified for a

separate rate. Furthermore, the

information on the record of this

investigation indicates that Tagil is the

only Russian producer and/or exporter

of the subject merchandise with sales or

shipments to the United States during

the POI. Based upon our examination

and clarification of Customs data, we

have determined that there are no other

Russian producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise and

consequently none which were required

to respond to our questionnaire.

Because Tagil, the only known Russian

producer of steel beams, responded to

our questionnaire and the evidence

indicates that there are no other Russian

producers or exporters of subject

merchandise during the POI, we have

calculated a Russia-wide rate for this

investigation based on the weightedaverage margin we determined for Tagil.

This Russia-wide rate applies to all

entries of subject merchandise except

for entries of subject merchandise

exported by Tagil.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

structural steel beams from the Russian

Federation to the United States were

made at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’),

we compared the constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) to the NV calculated

using an NME analysis, as described

below. In accordance with section

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

compared POI-wide weighted-average

CEPs to weighted-average NV.

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.

In this case, we based CEP on the

packed ex-warehouse, or delivered

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made adjustments for price-billing

errors. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

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

included, where appropriate, ocean

freight, marine insurance, U.S.

brokerage and handling, international

freight, U.S. customs duties (including

harbor maintenance fees and

merchandise processing fees), U.S.

inland insurance, U.S. inland freight

expenses (i.e., freight from port to

warehouse and freight from warehouse

to the customer), truck loading

expenses, U.S. barging expenses, and

post-sale 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

(imputed credit costs), and indirect

selling expenses (including inventory

carrying costs).

In addition, pursuant to section

772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced

the starting price by an amount for

profit to arrive at CEP. We calculated

the CEP-profit ratio for Tagil using the

financial data reflected on the income

statement of a Turkish producer of steel.

For further discussion of the financial

statements of this surrogate producer,

see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this

notice below.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that: (1) Are at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of the NME country,

and (2) are significant producers of

comparable merchandise. The

Department has determined that Poland,

Venezuela, South Africa, Turkey,

Colombia, and Tunisia are countries

comparable to Russia in terms of overall

economic development. See the August

9, 2001, memorandum from Jeffrey May,

Director, Office of Policy to Laurie

Parkhill, Office Director, Group 1, Office

3 (Policy Memorandum).

According to the available

information on the record, we have

determined that South Africa meets the

statutory requirements for an

appropriate surrogate country for

Russia. For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we have selected, except

where noted, South Africa as the

surrogate country, based on the quality

and contemporaneity of the currently

available data. Accordingly, we have

calculated NV using South African

values for the Russian producer’s factors

of production. We have obtained and

relied upon publicly available

information wherever possible.

2. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by Tagil

for the POI. To calculate NV, the

reported per-unit factor quantities were

multiplied by publicly available South

African surrogate values.

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued Russian factors of production, in

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the

Act. Factors of production include, but

are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor

required; (2) quantities of raw materials

employed; (3) amounts of energy and

other utilities consumed; and (4)

representative capital cost, including

depreciation. In examining surrogate

values, we selected, where possible, the

publicly available value which was: (1)

An average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the POI or most

contemporaneous with the POI; (3)

product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.

For a more detailed explanation of the

methodology used in calculating various

surrogate values, see the ‘‘Preliminary

Determination Factors Valuation

Memorandum from senior analyst to the

File,’’ dated December 19, 2001. In

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67221

accordance with this methodology, we

valued the factors of production as

follows.

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the availability, quality,

specificity, and contemporaneity of the

data. As appropriate, we adjusted input

prices by including freight costs to make

them delivered prices. We added to

South African surrogate values a

surrogate freight cost using the shorter

of the reported distance from the

domestic supplier to the factory or the

distance from the nearest seaport to the

factory. This adjustment is in

accordance with the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in

Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117

F. 3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Where a producer did not report the

distance between the material supplier

and the factory, we used as facts

available the longest distance reported

(i.e., the distance between the Russian

seaport and the producer’s location). To

value rail freight rates, we used a rate

for aluminum slabs or ingots provided

by Spoornet, a South African rail

company. As we were unable to identify

a surrogate value for freight by truck, we

valued trucking freight expenses using

the surrogate value for rail freight. For

those values not contemporaneous with

the POI, we adjusted for inflation using

producer price indices or wholesale

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

We valued the following inputs using

the Commodity Trade Statistics Section

of the United Nation’s Harmonized

System import data for South Africa:

lime/limestone, iron from ore, iron

pellets, coal, ferromanganese, and

silicomanganese.

We valued the following inputs using

the official South African import

statistics obtained from the Trade

Statistics data service: ferrosilicon,

aluminum, magnesium powder, and

silicocalcium.

We valued scrap using information

based on import data from the World

Trade Atlas.

In its October 9, 2001, submission, the

respondent calculated a scrap value of

$33.00 per metric ton based on imports

of this input into South Africa. In its

October 9, 2001, submission, the

petitioners based scrap-value

information on exports of steel scrap

from South Africa to various marketeconomy countries.

The petitioners argue in their

November 14, 2001, submission that the

Department should refrain from using

the respondent’s scrap value because

the per-unit value for scrap is

aberrational. According to the

petitioners, the figure used by the

respondent represents only 1,525 metric

tons of imports, which the petitioners

argue is an extremely low volume of

steel. See petitioners’ November 14,

2001, submission at page 2. In contrast,

the respondent argues in its October 19,

2001, submission that the Department’s

practice is to refrain from using export

statistics as a basis for calculating

surrogate values when other data are

available.

We agree with the petitioners that the

respondent’s scrap value is aberrational

because of the extreme low volume of

steel imports to South Africa. We also

agree with the respondent that our

practice is to refrain from using export

statistics as a basis for calculating

surrogate values when other data are

available. Therefore, because we cannot

base the scrap value on imports of steel

scrap to South Africa, we have

determined that it is appropriate to seek

information from other steel-producing

countries. Specifically, we attempted to

seek scrap-value information from the

surrogate countries listed in the August

9, 2001, Policy Memorandum.

We examined whether countries

listed on the Policy Memorandum such

as Poland, Venezuela, Turkey,

Colombia, and Tunisia produced

structural steel beams. Based on the Iron

and Steel Works of the World, 13th

Edition, we found that Poland is the

only country that produces steel beams.

Therefore, we attempted to seek scrapvalue information based on imports

from this country. We were able to find

scrap-value information based on

imports from Poland. Specifically, we

used data from the World Trade Atlas to

value scrap. Therefore, because Poland

is a market economy and is currently at

a level of economic development

comparable to Russia as demonstrated

by its gross national product, we valued

scrap using import statistics from

Poland.

We valued both natural gas and heavy

oil using data from the International

Energy Agency. We valued electricity

using the POI electricity rate charged to

large industrial users by Eskom, a South

African electric utility company.

We valued packing costs using the

packing-cost factor presented by

Highveld Steel and Vanadium

Corporation Ltd. (‘‘Highveld Steel’’) in

case A–791–811 in the September 12,

2001, public-version submission at

exhibit B–3. Although this value is a

ranged value, we find that it is the most

indicative factor for packing expenses

because Highveld Steel is the sole

producer of steel beams in South Africa.

The packing-cost factor includes

materials, labor, and transport services.

Therefore, we did not use any packing

material and packing labor amounts

submitted by the respondent in our

packing-cost calculation.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

Based on the information submitted

by Tagil, we have determined that slag,

small coke, waste, and vanadium are byproducts. Because they are by-products,

we subtracted the sales revenue of slag,

coke by-product, waste, and vanadium

from the estimated production costs of

structural steel beams. This treatment of

by-products is consistent with generally

accepted accounting principles. See

Cost Accounting: A Managerial

Emphasis (1991) at pages 539–544. We

used a South African price quote to

value slag, waste, and vanadium and the

United Nation’s Harmonized System

data to value coke by-product.

With respect to the valuation of

factory overhead, selling, general and

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and

profit, we considered the information on

the record submitted by both the

petitioners and the respondent for this

purpose.

In its October 9, 2001, submission, the

petitioners provided a copy of the 2000

annual financial statement of Anglo

American plc, the parent company of

Highveld Steel, the only South African

producer of structural steel beams. In its

October 9, 2001, submission, the

respondent provided a copy of the 2000

Annual Report of Highveld Steel.

In its October 19, 2001, submission,

the respondent argues that the

consolidated financial statements of

Anglo American should not be used

because they do not provide a

reasonable basis for evaluating the

experience of South African steel beams

producers. According to the respondent,

there are too many industries included

within the Anglo American financial

statements. Therefore, for these reasons,

the respondent argues that the data in

Anglo American’s financial statements

do not provide an appropriate basis to

calculate surrogate ratios for overhead,

SG&A, and profit as a reasonable

estimate of the steel beam industry in

South Africa.

In its November 14, 2001, submission,

the petitioners argue that Highveld

Steel’s financial statement is not a

suitable basis for calculating factory

overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios

because it does not separately identify

all SG&A expenses from its cost of sales.

According to the petitioners, the

inability to separate out SG&A items

from employees’ remuneration and

other cost of sales renders Highveld

Steel’s financial statement unusable for

67222 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

purposes of calculating an SG&A ratio.

Therefore, for these reasons, the

petitioners argue that the Department

should rely on Highveld Steel’s parent

company’s financial statements as the

basis for calculating factory overhead,

SG&A, and profit ratios.

We agree with the respondent that the

Anglo American financial statements

would not provide a reasonable basis for

calculating overhead, SG&A, and profit

ratios because the data includes

information from businesses and

industries dissimilar to the experience

of a South African steel beams producer.

We also agree with the petitioners that

we cannot rely on Highveld Steel’s

financial statements because it is

unclear which elements of Highveld

Steel’s financial statement constitute

SG&A costs. Therefore, since Highveld

Steel is the only steel beam producer in

South Africa, we have determined that

it is appropriate to seek information

from other steel-producing countries.

Specifically, we attempted to seek

financial information from the surrogate

countries listed in the Policy

Memorandum.

We examined whether countries

listed in the memorandum such as

Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, Colombia,

and Tunisia produced structural steel

beams. Based on the Iron and Steel

Works of the World, 13th Edition, we

found that Poland is the only country

that produces steel beams. Specifically,

we found that Huta Katowice SA is a

steel beams producer in Poland.

Therefore, we attempted to seek

financial information from this

company. We were unsuccessful,

however, in finding any financial

information from this company that

would provide an appropriate basis for

calculating factory overhead, SG&A, and

profit ratios. Because we could not find

any financial information concerning

production in South Africa or Poland,

we have determined that it is

appropriate to seek financial

information from a steel producer (a

non-steel beams producer) in South

Africa. Based on the Iron and Steel

Works of the World, 13th Edition, we

found that there are several steel

producers in South Africa. We

attempted to seek financial information

from these steel companies and were

unsuccessful in finding any financial

information. We then examined whether

we could find financial information

from steel-producing companies in

Poland. We were unsuccessful in

finding any financial information from

steel producing companies in Poland.

We then examined whether we could

find financial information from steelproducing companies in Turkey that

would provide the most appropriate

base for valuing factory overhead,

SG&A, and profit ratios. Based on the

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: HotRolled, Flat-Rolled, Carbon-Quality

Steel Products From the Russian

Federation, 64 FR 9312–9318 (February

25, 1999) (Hot-Rolled), we found that, in

that case, to value overhead, SG&A

expenses, and profit ratios, we used

public information reported in the 1997

financial statements of Eregli Demir ve

Celik Fabrikalari TAS (‘‘Erdemir’’), a

Turkish steel producer. Because Turkey

is currently at a level of economic

development comparable to the Russian

Federation as demonstrated by its percapita GNP and its national distribution

of labor, we find it appropriate to use

Turkey as a surrogate country to value

factory overhead, SG&A, and profit. See

Policy Memorandum. Therefore, for

purposes of this preliminary

determination, we have used this

company’s financial statements to

calculate the factory overhead, SG&A,

and profit ratios. However, we welcome

interested parties to comment on our

determination to use Turkey as a

surrogate country and Erdemir’s fiscal

1997 financial statements as the basis

for calculating factory overhead, SG&A,

and profit.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions, in

accordance with section 773A(a) of the

Act, based on the official exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we intend to 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. The suspension-ofliquidation instruction will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margin is as

follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Tagil .......................................... 165.00

Russia-Wide Rate ..................... 165.00

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67223

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. 01–31989 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–810]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From

Luxembourg

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

Luxembourg 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:

David J. Goldberger or Margarita Panayi,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136 or

(202) 482–0049, 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 Luxembourg

are materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731–TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 26, 2001, we selected the

largest producer/exporter of structural

steel beams from Luxembourg as the

mandatory respondent in this

proceeding. For further discussion, see

Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach,

Senior Director Office 1, from The Team

Re: Respondent Selection dated July 26,

2001. We subsequently issued the

antidumping questionnaire to

ProfilARBED, S.A. (‘‘ProfilARBED’’) on

July 26, 2001.

We received section A, B, and C

questionnaire responses from

ProfilARBED during August and

September 2001. Based on our analysis

of the responses, we determined that the

Luxembourg home market was not

viable and that sales to Germany, the

largest third-country market, should be

reported and used for calculating

normal value (‘‘NV’’). Further, as the

Department stated in the Initiation

Notice, in the event German sales were

to be used for NV, a sales-below-cost

investigation would be initiated.

Therefore, we also requested that

ProfilARBED complete a section D

questionnaire response (see October 10,

2001, supplemental questionnaire and

‘‘Home Market Viability’’ section

below).

We issued and received responses to

our supplemental questionnaires from

October through December 2001.

On September 25, 2001, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made

a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request on October 2, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

November 30, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from

the People’s Republic of China,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia,

South Africa, Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR

51639 (October 10, 2001).) On October

30, 2001, the petitioners made another

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for an

additional 19 days. We granted this

request on October 31, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

December 19, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Structural Steel Beams from the

People’s Republic of China, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa,

Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 56078

(November 6, 2001).)

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

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

Act, on November 21, 2001,

ProfilARBED requested that, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, and extend the

provisional measures to not more than

six months. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2)

ProfilARBED accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

ProfilARBED’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 these investigations

covers doubly-symmetric shapes,

whether hot- or 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 these investigations unless

otherwise excluded. The following

products are outside and/or specifically

excluded from the scope of these

investigations: (1) Structural steel beams