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

67224 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

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

ProfilARBED to the United States were

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

we compared the constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) to the NV, as described in

the ‘‘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 CEPs to

weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced and sold by ProfilARBED in

Germany 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 third

country, where appropriate. Where

there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the third country 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

ProfilARBED in the following order of

importance: form; shape/size (section

depth); strength/grade; and coating.

ProfilARBED reported different forms

in the home market for beams that had

‘‘special finishing’’ and it reported

different strength/grades in the home

market for beams that had different

notch-toughness requirements.

ProfilARBED did not demonstrate that

the hot-formed beams with ‘‘special

finishing’’ should be distinguished from

other hot-formed beams. Neither did

ProfilARBED demonstrate that the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67225

grades that had different notchtoughness requirements should be

distinguished from other beams that had

the same grade (but not the notchtoughness requirements). Therefore, we

did not differentiate the forms either on

the basis of ‘‘special finishing’’ or on the

basis of notch toughness.

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. In this case, all

U.S. sales of merchandise produced by

ProfilARBED are made in the United

States by TradeARBED Inc. (‘‘TANY’’),

which is a seller affiliated with

ProfilARBED.

We based CEP on the packed FOB or

CIF 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 expenses 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

(imputed credit costs) and indirect

selling expenses (including inventory

carrying costs).

We recalculated ProfilARBED’s

indirect selling expenses incurred by its

U.S. affiliate to reflect the expense rate

for the POI rather than the fiscal year,

based on the information provided in

ProfilARBED’s December 11, 2001,

submission. ProfilARBED reported most

U.S. sales data on a theoretical-weight

basis. We adjusted these data to state

them on an actual-weight basis.

For those U.S. sales which

ProfilARBED 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 recalculated

ProfilARBED’s U.S. interest rate on a

365-day basis, rather than the 360-day

basis reported, and recalculated the

imputed interest expense accordingly.

(See Memorandum entitled ‘‘U.S.

Imputed Interest Rate Recalculation’’

dated December 19, 2001.)

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 ProfilARBED and its U.S. affiliate on

their sales of the subject merchandise in

the United States and the foreign like

product in Germany 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

ProfilARBED’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.

In this case, we determined that

ProfilARBED’s aggregate volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product was insufficient to permit a

proper comparison with U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise. Specifically,

the vast majority of ProfilARBED’s sales

were made to an affiliated reseller

whose inventory includes products from

affiliated and unaffiliated suppliers in

other countries, the origin of which

cannot be readily identified. Because

most of the sales to the affiliated reseller

are eventually re-sold to nonLuxembourg customers, and those made

to Luxembourg customers cannot be

specifically identified as Luxembourgproduced merchandise, ProfilARBED’s

sales to the affiliated reseller cannot be

relied upon for purposes of determining

home market viability. Therefore, we

used sales to the largest third country

(‘‘Germany’’) as the basis for

comparison-market sales in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.404 (see the Department’s

October 10, 2001 supplemental

questionnaire at pages 1–2).

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and

Arm’s-Length Test

The Department’s standard practice

with respect to the use of third country

sales to affiliated parties for NV is to

determine whether such sales are at

arm’s-length prices. Therefore, in

accordance with that practice, we

performed an arm’s-length test on

ProfilARBED’s sales to affiliates.

Sales to affiliated customers in the

third country not made at arm’s-length

prices are excluded from our analysis

because they are made outside the

ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR

351.102. 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 subject merchandise,

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. See

19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where

no price ratio could be constructed for

an affiliated customer because identical

merchandise was not sold to

unaffiliated customers, we were unable

to determine that these sales were made

at arm’s-length prices and, therefore,

excluded them from our LTFV analysis.

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). Where the exclusion of such sales

eliminated all sales of the most

appropriate comparison product, we

made a comparison to the next most

similar model.

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, we normally use the sales made by

the affiliates to unaffiliated customers in

our analysis. Accordingly, we requested

ProfilARBED to report these resales.

As discussed in several of its

submissions, particularly its October 1,

2001, and November 28, 2001,

submissions, ProfilARBED claims that

its record-keeping system used in the

ordinary course of business does not

permit ProfilARBED to track its

downstream resales from the mill to the

ultimate unaffiliated purchaser.

According to ProfilARBED, the

information is not recorded

electronically and to track the

information manually would be

extremely burdensome and timeconsuming.

For purpose of the preliminary

determination, we have accepted

ProfilARBED’s claim that, even acting to

the best of its ability, it could not

provide the requested information for

the large number of sales in question in

67226 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.

3Where 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.

the time available. Therefore, for the

preliminary determination, we have

calculated NV based on the sales to

unaffiliated customers and affiliated

customers which passed the arm’s

length-test. We will examine

ProfilARBED’s claim during

verification.

The petitioners submitted additional

comments regarding this topic on

December 12 and 14, 2001. We received

these comments too late for

consideration in this preliminary

determination. We will consider these

comments for 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 third country 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 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 third country

packing costs (see ‘‘Test of Third

Country Sales Prices’’ section below for

treatment of third country selling

expenses). We relied on the COP data

submitted by ProfilARBED except in the

following instances:

A. We adjusted the values of

electricity, capital leasing and natural

gas purchased from affiliated parties to

reflect the higher of transfer price,

market price or the supplier’s COP, in

accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act.

B. We revised the G&A rate to include

exchange gains and losses on accounts

payable in the numerator of the

calculation and to exclude packing

expenses from the denominator of the

calculation.

C. We revised the financial expense

rate to exclude short-term interest

income offsets for dividends and trade

receivables.

D. We revised the denominator in the

consolidated financial expense rate

calculation to reflect cost of goods sold

rather than raw materials.

See Memorandum from Heidi Norris

to Neal Halper, Director Office of

Accounting, dated December 19, 2001,

Re: Cost of Production and Constructed

Value Calculation Adjustments for the

Preliminary Determination.

2. Test of Third Country Sales Prices

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the third country 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. In

determining whether to disregard third

country 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 the 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 third

country sales during the POI were at

prices less than the COP and, in

addition, the below-cost 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 351.412(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 LOT for EP and

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based

on either home market or third country

prices 3, 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, 243

F.3d 1301 (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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67227

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

ProfilARBED regarding the marketing

stages involved in making the reported

third country and U.S. sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by ProfilARBED for each

channel of distribution. ProfilARBED’s

LOT findings are summarized below.

We examined the chain of

distribution and the selling activities

associated with sales reported by

ProfilARBED to distributors in the

German market. ProfilARBED’s sales to

different distributors did not differ from

each other with respect to selling

activities (e.g. market research,

advertising and promotion, technical

services, sales calls and

demonstrations). Based on our overall

analysis, we found that all of

ProfilARBED’s sales to distributors

constituted one LOT.

In the U.S. market, ProfilARBED

reported CEP sales only. Therefore, we

treated all of ProfilARBED’s U.S. sales

as sales to an affiliated importer (i.e., at

the constructed, or CEP, LOT) and

found only one LOT. This CEP LOT

differed considerably from the German

market LOT in that ProfilARBED

reported a lower intensity of selling

activities associated with market

research, advertising, technical service,

sales calls and demonstrations, and

warranties for the CEP LOT than the

German market LOT. We found the CEP

LOT to be different from the German

market LOT and to be at a less advanced

stage of distribution than the German

market LOT. Consequently, we could

not match CEP sales to sales at the same

LOT in the German market, nor could

we determine a LOT adjustment based

on ProfilARBED’s sales to Germany.

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a LOT

adjustment.

Because there is only one LOT in the

German market, it is not possible to

determine if there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and German

market sales at the LOT of the export

transaction. Accordingly, because the

data available do not form an

appropriate basis for making a LOT

adjustment but the German market LOT

is at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the CEP LOT, we have

made a CEP offset to NV in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The

CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of:

(1) The indirect selling expenses on the

German market sales, or (2) the indirect

selling expenses deducted from the

starting price in calculating CEP.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers or

prices to affiliated customers that we

determined to be at arm’s-length. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for discounts and

rebates. We also made deductions for

movement expenses, including inland

freight, 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 warranties. ProfilARBED

reported some German sales data on a

theoretical-weight basis. We adjusted

these data to state them on an actualweight basis.

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 third country 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

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 CEP, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

WeightedAverage

margin percentage

ProfilARBED ............................. 2.40

All Others .................................. 2.40

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

67228 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

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. 01–32000 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 121801G]

Pacific Fishery Management Council;

Public Meetings and Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings and

hearings.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold public hearings to receive public

comment on the draft fishery

management plan (FMP) for West Coast

highly migratory species (HMS)

fisheries. This notice announces the

dates and locations of these public

hearings. The draft FMP will be

available after December 31, 2001.

DATES: Public hearings will be held

January 28–February 4, 2002 at seven

West Coast locations. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

date and time information.

ADDRESSES: Documents will be available

from and written comments should be

sent to Dr. Donald McIsaac, Executive

Director, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place,

Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220; phone:

503–326–6352 or fax: 503–326–6831.

For specific meeting and hearing

locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Waldeck; phone: 503–326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

hearings will be held to receive

comments on the draft FMP at the

following locations and times:

January 28, 2002, 4 p.m.: Natural

Resources Building, 1111 Washington

Street, Room 172, Olympia, WA 98501.

January 29, 2002, 7 p.m.: Red Lion

Inn, Pacific Room, 400 Industry,

Astoria, OR 97103.

January 30, 2002, 7 p.m.: Red Lion

Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 N

Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420.

January 31, 2002, 7 p.m.: Red Lion

Hotel Eureka, Evergreen Room, 1929

Fourth Street, Eureka, CA 95501.

February 1, 2002, 7 p.m.: Moss

Landing Community Center, 8071 Moss

Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA

95039.

February 2, 2002, 11 a.m.: Hilton Port

of Los Angeles/San Pedro, Terrasini

Room, 2800 Via Cabrillo Marina, San

Pedro, CA 90731.

February 4, 2002, 7 p.m.: Hubbs-Sea

World Research Institute, 2595

Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA 92109.

The public may also provide oral and

written comments on the draft FMP

during the March 2002 Council meeting,

which will be held March 11-15, 2002

at the Red Lion Hotel Sacramento, 1401

Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95815. At

that time, the Council is scheduled to

take final action on the HMS FMP.

Although non-emergency issues not

contained in this hearing notice may

arise for discussion, those issues may

not be the subject of formal action

during these hearings. Action will be

restricted to those issues specifically

listed in this document and to any

issues arising after publication of this

notice that require emergency action

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has

been notified of the Council’s intent to

take final action to address the

emergency.

Special Accommodations

The meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter

at 503–326–6352 (voice), or 503–326–

6831 (fax) at least 5 days prior to the

meeting date.

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31974 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 121901C]

Permits; Foreign Fishing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign

fishing applications.

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public

review and comment a summary of

applications submitted by the

Government of the Russian Federation

requesting authorization to conduct

fishing operations in the U.S. Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) in 2002 under

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to NMFS, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, International

Fisheries Division, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; and/

or to the Regional Fishery Management

Councils listed here:

Paul J. Howard, Executive Director,

New England Fishery Management

Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2,

Newburyport, MA 01905, Phone (978)

465–0492, Fax (978) 465–3116;

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, Federal Building, Room 2115,

300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904,

Phone (302) 674–2331, Fax (302) 674–

4136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert A. Dickinson, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 713–2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with a Memorandum of

Understanding with the Secretary of

State, NMFS publishes, for public

review and comment, summaries of

applications received by the Secretary of

State requesting permits for foreign

fishing vessels to fish in the U.S. EEZ

under provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

This notice concerns the receipt of

two applications from the Government

of the Russian Federation requesting

authorization to conduct joint venture

(JV) operations in 2001 in the Northwest

Atlantic Ocean for Atlantic herring and

Atlantic mackerel. The stern trawler/

processors KAPITAN GORBACHEV,

PATROKL and RYBACHIY are

identified as the Russian vessels that

would receive Atlantic herring and

Atlantic mackerel from U.S. vessels in