[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8329-8333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2519]



[[Page 8329]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-822-804]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Belarus

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur or Karine Gziryan at 
(202) 482-5346 or (202) 482-4081, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Belarus are being sold, 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 are shown in the 
Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 18, 2000.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Austria, Belarus, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, 
Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea, 
the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 45754 (July 25, 
2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, 
the following events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in these investigations is the Rebar Trade 
Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual members, AmeriSteel, 
Auburn Steel Co., Inc., Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., 
Marion Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel and CMC Steel 
Group. (Auburn Steel was not a petitioner in the Indonesia case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation 
are threatening material injury or materially injuring a regional 
industry in the United States producing the domestic like product. See 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Austria, Belarus, China, 
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and 
Venezuela, 65 FR 51329 (August 23, 2000). With respect to subject 
imports from Austria, Russia, and Venezuela, the ITC determined that 
imports from these countries during the period of investigation (POI) 
were negligible and, therefore, these investigations were terminated. 
The ITC also determined that there is no reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury, by reason of subject imports from Japan. Id.
    On August 18, 2000, we sent the antidumping questionnaire to the 
Embassy of the Republic of Belarus with a letter requesting that it 
forward the questionnaire to all exporters who had shipments of rebar 
to the United States during the POI.\2\ We received responses from one 
company, Byelorussian Steel Works (BSW). We have reason to believe that 
this company accounted for all shipments of rebar from Belarus to the 
United States during the POI. We issued supplemental questionnaires to 
BSW, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (This section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. In NME cases, 
Section D requests information on factors of production. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 9, 2000, the petitioner requested a postponement of the 
preliminary determination in this investigation. On November 21, 2000, 
the Department published a Federal Register notice postponing the 
deadline for the preliminary determination until January 16, 2001. See 
Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, 
Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea 
and Ukraine, 65 FR 69909 (November 21, 2000).

Postponement of the Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On November 15, 2000, BSW requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. BSW also included a 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. 
Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary 
determination, we have postponed the final determination until not 
later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2000).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all 
rebar sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically 
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar 
that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Critical Circumstances

    In a letter filed on August 22, 2000, the petitioner alleged that 
there is a

[[Page 8330]]

reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of rebar from Belarus. Under section 
733(e)(1) of the Act, when critical circumstances allegations are 
submitted more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the 
preliminary determination, the Department shall determine on the basis 
of information available whether there is a reasonable basis to believe 
or suspect that critical circumstances exist.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist if: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping 
and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or 
elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or 
for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have 
known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less 
than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of such sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 
351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in 
determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been 
``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and 
value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent or more during the ``relatively short period'' 
of time may be considered ``massive.''
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject 
merchandise for three months immediately preceding the filing of the 
petition (i.e., the base period), and three months following the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the comparison period). However, as stated in 
section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations, if the Secretary 
finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at 
some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding 
was likely, then the Secretary may consider a time period of not less 
than three months from that earlier time (i.e., from that time prior to 
the beginning of the proceeding). Imports normally will be considered 
massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 
percent or more compared to imports during the base period.
    In this case, the petitioner argues that importers, exporters, or 
producers of rebar from Belarus had reason to believe that an 
antidumping proceeding was likely before the filing of the petition. 
Based upon information contained in the petition, we found that press 
reports and published statements were sufficient to establish that, by 
the end of December 1999, importers, exporters, and foreign producers 
knew or should have known that a proceeding was likely concerning rebar 
from Belarus. As a result, pursuant to section 351.206(i) of the 
Department's regulations, the Department has considered whether there 
have been massive imports after that time based on a comparison of 
periods immediately preceding and following the end of December 1999 
(i.e., April 1999 through December 1999, and January 2000 through 
September 2000, respectively). See Memorandum from Tom Futtner to Holly 
A. Kuga, Antidumping Duty Investigations of Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bar from Belarus--Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances (Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination 
Memorandum), dated January 16, 2000.
    In its critical circumstances allegation, the petitioner also 
alleges that rebar is a product for which demand is subject to seasonal 
shifts, and that it is appropriate to use a seasonal methodology to 
examine whether an import surge occurred with respect to Belarus. We 
disagree with the petitioner's analysis of massive imports based on 
seasonality because the evidence on the record does not substantiate 
that imports of rebar from Belarus are subject to seasonal shifts. See 
Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination Memorandum.
    In order to determine whether imports from Belarus have been 
massive, the Department requested that BSW, the only Belorussian 
producer and exporter to the United States of the subject 
merchandise,\3\ provide its shipment data for the last three years. 
Based on our analysis of the shipment data reported, because imports 
have decreased during the comparison period, we preliminarily find that 
the criterion under section 733(e)(1) of the Act has not been met, 
i.e., there have not been massive imports of rebar from BSW over a 
relatively short time. See Critical Circumstances Preliminary 
Determination Memorandum. For this reason, we preliminarily determine 
that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of rebar from 
Belarus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See section of this notice on the Belarus-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Status for Belarus

    In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country has at one time been considered a non-market 
economy (NME) shall remain in effect until revoked. This status covers 
the geographic area of the former U.S.S.R., each part of which retains 
the NME status of the former U.S.S.R. Therefore, Belarus will be 
treated as a NME country unless and until its NME status is revoked 
(see Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Uranium From Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and 
Uzbekistan; and Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Not Less Than 
Fair Value: Uranium From Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova 
and Turkmenistan, 57 FR 23380 (June 3, 1992)).
    The respondent in this investigation has not requested a revocation 
of Belarus's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily continued to 
treat Belarus as a NME.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on 
the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market 
economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal 
Value section, below.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise in a NME country a single rate, unless an exporter can 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. BSW has submitted separate rates information in its 
section A responses, and has requested a separate, company-specific 
rate. BSW has stated that it is wholly owned by the Ministry of 
Industry of the Republic of Belarus, but that is not controlled by the 
Government of the Republic of Belarus.
    The Department's separate rates test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over export-
related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Ukraine: Final Determination of

[[Page 8331]]

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, 
the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter 
can affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both (1) de jure and (2) 
de facto governmental control over export activities. See Silicon 
Carbide and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    In its questionnaire response, BSW asserts that under its Charter, 
it operates as an independent economic unit with those rights accorded 
to a legal entity, including the ownership of property, and independent 
responsibility for its sales. BSW also states that its owner, the 
Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Belarus, does not control the 
company's export activities. BSW further claims that there are no 
licensing requirements, quotas, or any other restrictions or controls 
by the Government of Belarus on exports of subject merchandise to the 
United States or any other destination.
    However, despite requests by the Department in its original and 
supplemental questionnaires, BSW did not place on the record any 
legislative enactments or other formal measures by the Government of 
the Republic of Belarus that support its claims, and that demonstrate 
the absence of de jure control. While BSW's Charter may provide for the 
company to operate independently in some respects, the Charter (which 
BSW placed on the record) is subject to the laws of Belarus (which BSW 
did not submit), and does not by itself prove the absence of de jure 
control. Therefore, without any documentary proof of the absence of de 
jure control, BSW has not overcome the presumption of de jure control.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    BSW reports that it has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, 
and claims that no organization outside BSW reviews or approves any 
aspect of BSW's export sales transactions. In addition, the submitted 
sales documentation shows no government involvement in setting export 
prices. In regard to management selection, BSW states that the Ministry 
of Industry of the Republic of Belarus appoints the Directors of BSW. 
Then, in consultation with the General Director of BSW, the Directors 
appoint the management of BSW. BSW notes that the General Director also 
must notify the Government of any change in the position of Chief 
Engineer, the second most senior position in the company.
    In regard to export revenue and profits, BSW reports that it has no 
restrictions on the use of its export revenue, but states that by 
special decrees of the Republic of Belarus, it is required to sell a 
certain percentage of its export revenue. BSW also claims that the 
management of BSW is solely responsible for the disposition of profits. 
However, proprietary documents on the record of this investigation 
indicate that the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Belarus 
influences the allocation of BSW's profit.
    While the record evidence indicates that BSW sets its own export 
prices and has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, it 
appears that BSW does not have autonomy from the government in 
selecting its management: BSW's Directors, appointees of the Ministry 
of Industry, select the management. Furthermore, BSW does not have 
complete operational control over either the proceeds of its export 
sales or its profits. Other record evidence, including BSW's Charter, 
indicates that in general, BSW's relevant activities are under the 
jurisdiction of its owner, the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of 
Belarus. In view of BSW's relationship with the Ministry of Industry of 
the Republic of Belarus, BSW has not overcome the presumption of de 
facto government control. Due to the proprietary nature of these 
issues, for further details, see Memorandum on Whether to Grant BSW a 
Separate Rate dated January 16, 2001.
    The failure to demonstrate either the absence of de jure or de 
facto control makes an exporter ineligible for a separate rate. In this 
case, we have preliminarily determined that BSW has failed to 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto control. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that BSW is not 
eligible to receive a separate rate.

The Belarus-Wide Rate

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
comprise a single exporter under common government control, the ``NME 
entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. 
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that BSW was 
the only Belorussian producer and exporter to sell the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. Since the only 
Belorussian producer and exporter of the subject merchandise responded 
to the Department's questionnaire, and we have no reason to believe 
that there are other non-responding exporters/producers of the subject 
merchandise during the POI, we calculated a Belarus-wide rate based on 
the weighted-average margin determined for BSW.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Belarus were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared export price (EP) to 
a NV calculated using our NME methodology, as described below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 
weighted-average EPs.

[[Page 8332]]

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, by BSW to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and 
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. At the time of sale, BSW knew that 
its reported sales of the subject merchandise were destined for the 
United States.
    We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered-at-frontier (DAF) 
and free-carrier (FCA) prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
customer for exportation to the United States. Where appropriate, we 
made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the factory to the frontier. Because inland freight was 
provided by NME companies, we based freight charges on surrogate 
freight rates from Thailand (see the Normal Value section for further 
discussion).

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department 
initially determined that Colombia, Ecuador, Namibia, South Africa, and 
Thailand were the countries most comparable to Belarus in terms of 
overall economic development (see the August 31, 2000, memorandum, 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
(Rebar) from Belarus: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country 
Selection).
    Because of a lack of necessary factor price information from the 
other potential surrogate countries that are significant producers of 
products comparable to the subject merchandise, we have relied, where 
possible, on information from Thailand, the source of the most complete 
information from among the potential surrogate countries. Accordingly, 
we have calculated NV by applying Thai values to BSW's factors of 
production. See Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum, dated 
January 16, 2001 (Surrogate Value Memorandum).
B. Factors of Production
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production reported by BSW for the POI. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit quantities by 
publicly available surrogate values from Thailand.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
included freight costs in input prices to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 
using the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory 
where this distance was shorter than the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a producer did not 
report the distance between the domestic supplier and the factory, we 
used as facts available the longest distance reported, i.e., the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to account for 
inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing materials (including steel 
scrap, ferroalloys, lime, limestone, coke, dolomite, haydite, 
fluorspar, wire with silicon calcium powder, electrodes, nitrogen, 
oxygen, argon, wire, and labels) using values from the appropriate 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, from 1997, 1998, and 1999 Thai 
imports statistics reported in the United Nations Commodity Trade 
Statistics. Where a material input was purchased in a market-economy 
currency from an unaffiliated market-economy supplier, we valued such 
material input at the actual purchase price in accordance with section 
351.408 (c)(1) of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis 
of surrogate values, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the 1997 Thai electricity rates, as 
adjusted, reported in the publication Energy Prices and Taxes, fourth 
quarter 1999. We based the value of natural gas on 1993 Thai prices 
reported in Coal and Natural Gas Competition in APEC Economies, 
published by the Asian Institute of Technology in August 1999.
    We based our calculation of selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, overhead, and profit on the 1999 financial statement 
of Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited (Sahaviriya), a 
Thai producer of steel products comparable to the subject merchandise. 
Although Sahaviriya does not produce rebar, we used Sahaviriya's 
statement because Sahaviriya is a Thai producer of comparable steel 
products, and we could not locate a financial statement of a Thai rebar 
producer from which we could calculate a positive amount of profit. We 
only included depreciation in our overhead calculation because 
Sahaviriya's financial statement does not separately list other factory 
overhead expenses.
    To value railway freight rates, we used a November 1999 rate from 
the State Railway of Thailand.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for Belarus when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary LTFV 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    We are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of any 
entries of rebar from Belarus entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date on which this notice is published in 
the Federal Register. We are instructing the Customs Service to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. 
These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until 
further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
              Manufacturer/exporter (percent)                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belarus-Wide Rate..........................................        73.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Belarus-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise from Belarus.

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in this investigation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

[[Page 8333]]

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our affirmative sales at less than fair value and negative 
critical circumstances preliminary determinations. If our final 
antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury, to the U.S. industry. The deadline for that ITC determination 
would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary 
determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification report. Rebuttal briefs 
must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of 
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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
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 any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one rebar 
case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all the 
cases. 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 within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    As noted above, the final determination will be issued 135 days 
after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 16, 2001.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2519 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P