67190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–831]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From Germany

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

Germany 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:

Thomas Schauer or Edythe Artman,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 or

(202) 482–3931, 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 Germany 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 two

largest producers/exporters of structural

steel beams from Germany as the

mandatory respondents 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 Stahlwerk

Thu ̈ringen GmbH (‘‘SWT’’) and

Salzgitter AG (‘‘Salzgitter’’) on July 26,

2001.

During the period August through

November 2001, the Department

received responses to sections A, B, C

and D of the Department’s original and

supplemental questionnaires from SWT.

The Department did not receive any

responses from Salzgitter.

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, SWT

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) SWT

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 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

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67191

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

With respect to SWT, to determine

whether sales of structural steel beams

from Germany to the United States were

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

we compared the constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) to the normal value

(‘‘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 the SWT in the

home market during the POI that fit the

description in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of this notice to

be foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared

U.S. sales to sales of identical

merchandise made in the home market.

In making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on

the physical characteristics reported by

the respondents in the following order

of importance: Form; shape/size (section

depth); strength/grade; and coating.

SWT 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. SWT did

not demonstrate that the hot-formed

beams with ‘‘special finishing’’ should

be distinguished from other hot-formed

beams. Neither did SWT demonstrate

that the 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

SWT are made in the United States by

TradeARBED Inc. (‘‘TANY’’), which is a

reseller affiliated with SWT.

We based CEP on the packed FOB or

CIF prices to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made adjustments

for price-billing errors. We made

deductions for rebates, where

applicable. We also made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

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

included, where appropriate, ocean

freight, marine insurance, U.S.

brokerage and handling, U.S. customs

duties, U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e.,

67192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

freight from port to warehouse), and

warehousing expenses. In accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those

selling expenses associated with

economic activities occurring in the

United States, including direct selling

expenses (imputed credit costs) and

indirect selling expenses (including

inventory carrying costs).

For the U.S. sales for which SWT 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.

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 SWT and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home-market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared the

respondent’s volume of home-market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

the respondent’s aggregate volume of

home-market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable for the

respondent.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and

Arm’s-Length Test

The Department’s standard practice

with respect to the use of home-market

sales to affiliated parties for NV is to

determine whether such sales are at

arm’s-length prices. Therefore, in

accordance with that practice, we

performed an arm’s-length test on

SWT’s sales to affiliates as follows.

We excluded sales to affiliated

customers in the home market not made

at arm’s-length prices from our analysis

because we considered them to be

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).

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. Because SWT did not

report these sales as we requested, we

relied on partial adverse facts available

in order to estimate the downstream

sales prices for the sales of these

customers that we match to U.S. sales.

See the ‘‘Facts Available’’ section below

for a detailed discussion of this use of

partial facts available.

C. Cost-of-Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of an allegation

contained in the petition, we found that

there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of structural

steel beams in the home market were

made at prices below their cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). Accordingly,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we

initiated a country-wide sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether

sales were made at prices below their

respective COP (see Initiation Notice, 66

FR at 33048, 33051).

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus an amount for general and

administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’),

interest expenses, and home-market

packing costs (see ‘‘Test of HomeMarket Sales Prices’’ section below for

treatment of home-market selling

expenses). We relied on the COP data

submitted by SWT and TANY, except in

specific instances. We revised the

consolidated financial expense rate to

exclude interest income offsets for

dividends and trade receivables. 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 (‘‘Cost

Calculation Memorandum’’).

2. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the weighted-average COP to

the home-market sales of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether the sale prices were below the

COP. The prices were exclusive of any

applicable billing adjustments,

movement charges, rebates, discounts,

direct and indirect selling expenses, and

packing expenses. In determining

whether to disregard home-market sales

made at prices less than their COP, we

examined, in accordance with sections

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether

such sales were made (1) within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and (2) at prices which

permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

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

where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POI are at prices less than the

COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product, because we

determine that in such instances the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POI are at

prices less than the COP during a POI,

we determine that the below-cost sales

represent ‘‘substantial quantities’’ of

sales within an extended period of time,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(A) of the

Act. In such cases, we also determine if

such sales were made at prices which

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, pursuant to

773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific

products, more than 20 percent of

SWT’s home-market sales were at prices

less than the COP and, therefore, the

below-cost sales were made within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities. In addition, because we

compared the price to the weightedaverage COP for the POI, we determined

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67193

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

somewhat along this chain. In performing this

evaluation, we considered the narrative responses

of the respondent to properly determine whether 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.

that the below-cost sales were not made

at prices which permitted the recovery

of all costs within a reasonable period

of time. Therefore, we 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 levels of trade for

EP and comparison-market sales (i.e.,

NV based on either home-market or

third-country prices), we consider the

starting prices before any adjustments.

For CEP sales, we consider only the

selling activities reflected in the price

after the deduction of expenses and

profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United

States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to

find sales of the foreign like product in

the comparison market at the same LOT

as the EP or CEP, the Department may

compare the U.S. sale to sales at a

different LOT in the comparison market.

In comparing EP or CEP sales at a

different LOT in the comparison market,

where available data make it

practicable, we make a LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT

is more remote from the factory than the

CEP LOT and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

LOTs between NV and CEP affected

price comparability (i.e., no LOT

adjustment was practicable), the

Department shall grant a CEP offset, as

provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the

Act. See Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from South Africa, 62 FR 61731

(November 19, 1997).

We obtained information from SWT

regarding the marketing stages involved

in making the reported home-market

and U.S. sales, including a description

of the selling activities performed by the

respondent for each channel of

distribution. SWT’s LOT findings are

summarized below.

We examined the chain of

distribution and the selling activities

associated with sales reported by SWT

to distributors in the home market.

SWT’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 SWT’s

sales to distributors constituted one

LOT. SWT did not provide any

information regarding the selling

activities associated with the

downstream sales by the distributors in

spite of our request for this information.

Therefore, we have assumed that SWT

and its affiliates performed the same

selling activities as SWT performed for

sales to distributors and that the LOT of

the downstream sales is the same as the

LOT of the sales to distributors.

In the U.S. market, SWT reported CEP

sales only. Therefore, we treated all of

SWT’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

home-market LOT in that SWT reported

a lower intensity of selling activities

associated with market research,

advertising, technical service, sales calls

and demonstrations, engineering

services, and warranties for the CEP

LOT than the home-market LOT.

Therefore, we found the CEP level of

trade to be different from the homemarket LOT and to be at less advanced

stages of distribution than the homemarket LOT. Consequently, we could

not match CEP sales at the same LOT in

the home market. Furthermore, we have

no information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a LOT

adjustment.

Because there is only one LOT in the

home market, it is not possible to

determine if there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

sales on which normal value is based

and home market sales at the LOT of the

export transaction. Accordingly,

because the data available do not form

an appropriate basis for making a levelof-trade adjustment but the homemarket LOT is at a more advanced stage

of distribution than the CEP LOT, we

have made a CEP offset to normal value

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 home-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 in the home market to

unaffiliated customers or prices to

affiliated customers that we determined

to be at arm’s-length. We made

adjustments for price-billing errors. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for discounts and

rebates. We also made deductions for

movement expenses, including inland

freight, and inland insurance under

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

addition, we made adjustments under

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.410 for differences in

circumstances of sale for imputed credit

expenses and warranties.

We also deducted home-market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Finally,

for comparisons to CEP sales, we made

a CEP offset pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset

as the lesser of the indirect selling

expenses on the comparison-market

sales or the indirect selling expenses

deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP.

F. Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party or any other

person: (A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

67194 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782;

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the Department shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.

Where the Department determines

that a response to a request for

information does not comply with the

request, section 782(d) of the Act

provides that the Department will so

inform the party submitting the

response and will, to the extent

practicable, provide that party the

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy

the deficiency within the applicable

time limits, the Department may, subject

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

or part of the original and subsequent

responses, as appropriate. Section

782(e) of the Act provides that the

Department ‘‘shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the administering

authority’’ if the information is timely,

can be verified, and is not so incomplete

that it cannot be used, and if the

interested party acted to the best of its

ability in providing the information.

Where all of these conditions are met,

the statute requires the Department to

use the information, if it can do so

without undue difficulties.

According to section 776(b) of the

Act, if the Department finds that an

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information

that is adverse to the interests of the

party as facts otherwise available.

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to

ensure that the party does not obtain a

more favorable result by failing to

cooperate than if it had cooperated

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative

Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the

URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong.,

2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore,

‘‘an affirmative finding of bad faith on

the part of the respondent is not

required before the Department may

make an adverse inference.’’

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340

(May 19, 1997).

An adverse inference may include

reliance on information derived from

the petition, the final determination in

the investigation, any previous review,

or any other information placed on the

record. See section 776(b) of the Act.

However, section 776(c) provides that,

when the Department relies on

secondary information rather than on

information obtained in the course of a

investigation or review, the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that information from

independent sources that are reasonably

at its disposal. The SAA states that the

independent sources may include

published price lists, official import

statistics and customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation or review. See SAA at 870.

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. Id. As

noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

from Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391,

57392 (November 6, 1996), to

corroborate secondary information, the

Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

1. Salzgitter

On July 26, 2001, we issued a

questionnaire to Salzgitter. We obtained

confirmation from Federal Express that

the questionnaire was delivered to

Salzgitter on July 30, 2001. On August

10, 2001, we sent a letter of clarification

of our questionnaire to Salzgitter. We

obtained confirmation from Federal

Express that this letter was delivered to

Salzgitter on August 13, 2001. Salzgitter

did not respond to our questionnaire.

Because Salzgitter did not respond to

our questionnaire and therefore

withheld information requested by the

Department, we find it necessary, under

section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use the

facts otherwise available in order to

calculate a dumping margin for this

company.

We find that, by not responding to our

questionnaire, Salzgitter failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act, we find it

appropriate to use an inference that is

adverse to its interests in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available. By

doing so, we ensure that Salzgitter will

not obtain a more favorable result by

failing to cooperate than had it

cooperated fully.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available and using an

adverse inference, we reviewed the

information provided in the petition

and in the response submitted by SWT.

The petition contained a margin

calculation for each of three products

sold by Salzgitter. See 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), for a review of the

methodology used by the petitioner for

its calculations of export price and

normal value. One of these margins was

higher than the margin that we

calculated for SWT. Hence, we selected

this margin for purposes of

corroboration.

We first corroborated the U.S. price

from the petition (the same price being

provided for all three products) by

comparing it to prices of comparable

product—product of the same grade and

section depth—sold by SWT. We found

that SWT made sufficient sales of the

comparable product at similar or lower

prices in the United States in order to

corroborate the price provided in the

petition. For the ocean freight and U.S.

duty expenses, we likewise found that

the petition contained the same

expenses for each of the three products

and that the percentage of sales by SWT

with ocean freight and U.S. duty

expenses in excess of these amounts of

expenses were sufficient to corroborate

the amounts provided in the petition.

We were unable to corroborate the port

charges from the petition, since these

were in excess of those reported by SWT

by a significant percentage. Thus, we

selected the weighted-average port

charges reported by SWT for use in

calculating a facts-available margin for

Salzgitter.

We then found that SWT made

sufficient home-market sales at prices

similar to or above the highest homemarket price provided in the petition.

Thus, we were able to corroborate this

price and we selected the home-market

prices from the petition for use in

calculating the facts-available margin.

One COP amount was provided in the

petition for each of the three products

sold by Salzgitter. We were not able to

corroborate this amount, since it

exceeded the highest COP reported by

SWT for a comparable product. Thus,

we selected the highest COP amount

reported by SWT to estimate whether

Salzgitter’s home-market prices were

made below the cost of production.

Using the information corroborated

and selected, we performed a below-cost

test and found that none of the three

home-market prices provided in the

petition were below the selected COP.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67195

Taking the highest of these prices, we

compared it to the export price, based

on the U.S. information corroborated

and selected, and calculated the margin

between the two amounts, as is our

practice. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Welded Large Diameter Line

Pipe from Japan, 66 FR 47172, 47173

(September 11, 2001). This margin of

35.75 percent, based on facts otherwise

available and using an adverse inference

in selecting from among those facts, is

our preliminary margin for Salzgitter.

Because it is a preliminary

determination, we will consider all of

the margins on the record at the time of

the final determination in order to

determine the most appropriate final

margin for Salzgitter.

For a detailed discussion of the

calculation of the margin for Salzgitter,

see the Decision Memorandum for

Salzgitter AG for the Preliminary

Results of the Less-Than-Fair-Value

Investigation of Structural Steel Beams

from Germany for the Period of

Investigation April 1, 2000, through

March 31, 2001, dated December 19,

2001.

2. SWT

Normally, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.403(d), where a 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 use the sales made by the

affiliates to unaffiliated customers in

our analysis. However, in this case,

SWT did not report the sales made by

the affiliates to unaffiliated customers.

Because we do not have the data we

need to use our normal methodology,

because SWT did not provide the

information we requested, and because

we find, as described below, that SWT

has significantly impeded this

proceeding in not providing the

information we requested, the use of

facts available with regard to these sales

is warranted.

In this proceeding, SWT has not

complied with our requests for

information with regard to downstream

sales. We have given SWT two

opportunities to remedy or explain the

deficiency in its response. As discussed

below, SWT has not remedied or

adequately explained the deficiency in

its response.

We sent a questionnaire to SWT on

July 26, 2001. In that questionnaire, we

asked that SWT report the resales by

affiliated customers to unaffiliated

customers instead of the sales by SWT

to affiliated customers. SWT did not

provide the downstream sales by its

affiliated customers in the home market,

telling us that it could not do so. See

SWT’s section A response dated August

30, 2001, at page A–3. SWT stated that

its affiliated resellers ‘‘co-mingle in their

warehouse structural steel beams from

all their suppliers’’ and that ‘‘these

affiliated resellers will not necessarily

record the origin of the product in their

sales records.’’ Id. SWT further stated

that the ‘‘situation is further

complicated by the fact that part of

SWT’s inventory systems, while

maintained in electronic format, differ

throughout the organization. The

inability to link data and an

inconsistency between database layouts

and data codes would make it both time

consuming and difficult (and at times

impossible) for SWT’s affiliated resellers

to link downstream sales of structural

steel beams to the beams they purchased

from SWT.’’ Id.

SWT expanded on its explanation in

a letter dated October 1, 2001. SWT

contends that it would be ‘‘impossible’’

to provide the downstream sales data as

the Department requested. However,

SWT focused on the difficulty in

reporting downstream sales of beams

that are of a grade which we do not use

in our normal-value comparisons

(hereinafter, ‘‘Grade B’’). With regard to

the grade sold in the United States

(hereinafter, ‘‘Grade A’’), SWT stated

that ‘‘traceability of [Grade A] material

is possible’’ and ‘‘for [Grade A]

products, the inspection certificate will

always go to the end customer.

Nevertheless, because the link, in these

situations, is not recorded in any

retrievable system, and because

historical sales records do not provide

any information nor provide any basis

for permitting retrieval through an

electronic format, obtaining the

information requested by the

Department is impossible.’’ See SWT

letter dated October 1, 2001, at pages 4–

5. Thus, it appears that SWT could have

provided the downstream sales for

Grade A beams, but that the operation

of assembling this data would have to be

done manually.

We reiterated our request for the

downstream sales in a supplemental

questionnaire on October 17, 2001. In

response to our request, SWT submitted

documents demonstrating the difficulty

or impossibility of gathering

downstream sales. However, all

documents pertained to Grade B beams.

SWT did not submit documentation

showing that it could not report

information on Grade A beams.

We sent a second supplemental

questionnaire to SWT on November 27,

2001, requesting that SWT report only

the downstream sales of Grade A beams.

We also limited the reporting

requirements for SWT so that it only

had to report downstream sales for those

affiliates that failed the arm’s-length test

(as identified in our supplemental

questionnaire). We asked that SWT

explain, if it did not report these limited

downstream sales, why it was unable to

do so in light of the fact that the sales

of this merchandise to these customers

accounts for a relatively low quantity of

sales.

SWT did not report the downstream

sales even on this limited basis. Instead,

SWT told us, with respect to Grade A

beams sold by two of the affiliates that

failed the arm’s-length test, that the

beams had been sold prior to their being

resold to the first unaffiliated party and,

therefore, there are no sales records to

end-customers. With regard to these

customers, SWT stated that, prior to any

re-sale from the related purchasers, the

products of SWT would have been comingled with non-SWT product. SWT

further told us that, with regard to one

of the customers, some of the beams

have not yet been resold and, therefore,

there are no downstream sales. Finally,

SWT stated that, with regard to a third

customer, while obtaining the

downstream sales would be possible, it

would be ‘‘an impracticable effort when

viewed in the context of all tonnage that

would have to be traced for the

reporting of the detailed information on

each downstream sale—a significantly

impracticable effort in terms of cost and

man-hours.’’ See SWT’s December 6,

2001, submission at pages 3–4.

We find SWT’s explanation

unconvincing for the following reasons.

First, SWT did not explain why it could

not report these sales given the

relatively small quantity of sales that

would have to be captured. For

example, SWT states that obtaining the

downstream sales information for the

third customer would be ‘‘a significantly

impracticable effort in terms of cost and

man-hours’’ but it did not explain why

that was the case given that the quantity

of that customer’s sales of Grade A

beams is very low.

Second, the fact that some of the

merchandise sold to one of the affiliates

has not yet been resold does not justify

not reporting that merchandise which

has been resold. Indeed, the fact that the

affiliate was able to report that some of

the merchandise was not yet resold

suggests that the company was able to

trace its inventory to particular

purchases from SWT.

Third, SWT states that traceability of

the merchandise is complicated due to

the co-mingling with non-SWT product

and that it would be ‘‘impossible’’ for

the reasons explained in the October 1,

2001, letter as described above.

67196 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

However, the October 1, 2001, letter

suggests that Grade A beams can be

traced and that the problem is that it

cannot be done electronically. SWT

does not explain why the tracing of

sales of Grade A beams could not be

done manually given the small quantity

of sales in question. Furthermore, if

SWT had required more time to obtain

the information we requested, it could

have asked for an extension of the

deadline to respond to our request.

Although we have not always granted

SWT the entire amount of time it

requested when it has requested

extensions, we have not denied SWT’s

requests for additional time to respond

to our requests for information.

Finally, SWT claims that there are no

sales records to end-customers for some

of the merchandise sold by these

affiliates. This is not an adequate

justification for not reporting these

sales. Because the facts of this matter are

proprietary, please see the SWT

preliminary analysis memorandum

dated December 19, 2001, for a full

description. Also, this is the first time

SWT made the Department aware of this

complication. Had SWT made us aware

of this circumstance previously, we

could have instructed SWT on the

proper methodology for reporting such

sales.

In sum, we are not convinced that

SWT, acting to the best of its ability,

could not report the downstream sales

of Grade A beams sold to the parties that

failed the arm’s-length test. Indeed, it

appears that SWT has made no attempt

to gather the downstream sales

information as of this date, even though

it had been notified that it should report

its downstream sales on July 26, 2001,

or, in the alternative, a limited number

of downstream sales on November 27,

2001. Furthermore, SWT has not

provided us an adequate explanation for

why it cannot report the more limited

selection of downstream sales identified

by the Department in its November 27,

2001, supplemental questionnaire.

Therefore, we find it appropriate to

rely on the facts available in order to

estimate the downstream sales prices of

Grade A beams sold by the parties that

failed the arm’s-length test. Also,

because we have preliminarily

determined that SWT has not acted to

the best of its ability in reporting these

sales, we find that it is appropriate to

use an adverse inference in estimating

these downstream sales prices.

In the course of performing the arm’slength test, we have calculated

customer-specific price ratios. We

calculated these ratios on a modelspecific basis by dividing the weightedaverage price of sales to the affiliate by

the weighted-average price of sales to

unaffiliated parties. We then weightaveraged the model-specific ratios for

each customer. As stated above, where

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.

As adverse facts available, we have

recalculated the prices of Grade A

beams sold to the parties that failed the

arm’s-length test. We recalculated this

price by multiplying the reported prices

by the highest customer ratio we found

among SWT’s affiliates and dividing the

product by the customer ratio for each

affiliate that failed the arm’s-length test.

For a detailed discussion of the use of

facts otherwise available for affiliated

sales, see the SWT Preliminary

Determination Analysis Memorandum

dated December 19, 2001.

We intend to examine this issue

further at verification.

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 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

Weighted-average margin

percentage

SWT ...................................... 6.58

Salzgitter ............................... 35.75

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

All Others .............................. 1 6.58

1Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A), we have

excluded from the calculation of the all-others

rate margins which are zero or de mimimis, or

determined entirely on facts available. Because we determined Salzgitter’s margin entirely on facts available, we used SWT’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, 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;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67197

1The Hangzhou Iron & Steel Group and the Jinan

Iron & Steel Group notified the Department via

facsimile on July 28, 2001, and August 2, 2001,

respectively, that they had no shipments of the

subject merchandise during the POI. The

Department put this information on the

administrative record of this proceeding.

(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. 01–31980 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–869]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From The

People’s Republic of China

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

People’s Republic of China 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: Lyn

Johnson or Richard Rimlinger, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5287 and (202)

482–4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statue and Regulations

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 (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (April 2001).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

structural steel beams from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

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

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV for

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’),

October 1, 2000, through March 31,

2001, are shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Background

On June 20, 2001, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

Notice of 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). The Department

notified the U.S. Embassy in the PRC of

the initiation of this investigation on

June 12, 2001.

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 PRC are

materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731–TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 17, 2001, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade &

Economic Cooperation with a letter

requesting that it forward the

questionnaire to all Chinese exporters of

structural steel beams who had

shipments during the POI. We also sent

courtesy copies of the antidumping

questionnaire to the following possible

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise named in the petition:

Chongqing Iron & Steel (Group Co. Ltd.),

Fushun Special Steel Co. Ltd.,

Guangzhou Iron & Steel Holdings Ltd.,

Hangzhou Iron & Steel Group Co., Hefei

Iron & Steel Co., Jinan Iron & Steel

Group, Lingyuan Iron & Steel Group Co.

Ltd., Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd

(‘‘Maanshan’’), Shanghai Pudong Iron &

Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., Taiyuan Iron &

Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., and Wuhan Iron

& Steel Group Co.

During the period August through

November 2001, the Department

received responses to sections A, C, and

D of the Department’s original and

supplemental questionnaires from

Maanshan. We received no other

responses to our questionnaire.1

On September 6, we requested

publicly-available information for

valuing the factors of production and

comments on surrogate-country

selection. We received comments from

Maanshan and from the Committee for

Fair Beam Imports (‘‘petitioners’’) on

November 29, 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 December 13, 2001, Maanshan

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)

Maanshan accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling