[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56639-56644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-834-807]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicomanganese From Kazakhstan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Kemp, Brandon Farlander and 
Cheryl Werner, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4037, (202) 482-0182, and (202) 482-2667 respectively.

The Applicable Statute 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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's 
(``the Department's'') regulations are to the regulations codified at 
19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that silicomanganese from Kazakhstan is 
being, or is 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 April 26, 2001. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Silicomanganese From 
Kazakhstan, India and Venezuela, 66 FR 22209 (May 3, 2001) (``Notice of 
Initiation''). The Department set aside a period for all interested 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Notice of 
Initiation. On May 17, 2001, Eramet Marietta Inc. and The Paper, Allied 
Industry, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-
0639, (``petitioners'') proposed an amendment to the scope. On July 13, 
2001, we excluded low-carbon silicomanganese from the scope of these 
investigations. See Decision Memorandum from Barbara Tillman, Richard 
Weible, and Wedward Yang to Joseph Spetrini, dated July 13, 2001.
    On May 2, 2001, the Department requested information from the U.S. 
Embassy in Kazakhstan to identify producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. We did not receive a response. On May 9, 2001, the 
Department issued a letter to interested parties in the silicomanganese 
antidumping investigations, providing an opportunity to comment on the 
Department's proposed model match/product characteristics and 
hierarchy. On May 11, 2001, we received comments from Universal Ferro & 
Allied Chemicals Ltd. We also received comments on May 14, 2001, from 
Spat Alloys Limited. On May 16, 2001, we received comments from 
petitioners.
    For purposes of the questionnaires subsequently issued by the 
Department to the respondents, we modified the model match/product 
characteristics or the hierarchy of those characteristics from those 
originally proposed by the Department in its May 9, 2001 letter.
    On June 5, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from 
Kazakhstan. See Silicomanganese From India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 
66 FR 31258 (June 11, 2001) (``ITC Preliminary Determination'').
    On May 22, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan with a 
letter requesting that is forward the questionnaire to all 
manufacturers, and all manufacturers and exporters in Kazakhstan of 
silicomanganese who had shipments during the period of investigation 
(``POI''). We also sent courtesy copies of the antidumping 
questionnaire to the following possible producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise named in the petition: Transnational Co. Kazchrome and Aksu 
Ferroalloy Plant (``Kazchrome'') and JSC Yermak Ferroalloys 
(``Yermak''). We received a Section A response from Kazchrome on June 
26, 2001. On July 18, 2001, we received comments from petitioners on 
Kazchrome's Section A response. On

[[Page 56640]]

July 19, 2001, we received a Section C and Section D from Kazchrome. On 
September 14, 2001, we issued a supplemental questionnaire. On August 
7, 2001, petitioners, Considar Inc. (``Considar''), a U.S. importer, 
and Kazchrome each submitted surrogate country factor values to be used 
to value Kazchrome's factors of production. On September 4, 2001, 
petitioners filed rebuttal comments regarding the Egyptian electricity 
value submitted by Kazchrome. On September 14, 2001, Kazchrome and 
Considar filed supplemental information on Egyptian electricity values.
    On July 25, 2001, Kazchrome claimed that it had no knowledge of the 
final destination of subject merchandise. Rather, Kazchrome sold its 
exports of silicomanganese to an unaffiliated trading company that 
operates outside of Kazakhstan, Alloy 2000, S.A. (``Alloy 2000''). 
Alloy 2000 then resold silicomanganese to several international markets 
including the United States, during the POI. Accordingly, on September 
19, 2001, we sent sections A, C, and E of the Department's 
questionnaire to Alloy 2000, the exporter of the subject merchandise. 
On September 19, 2001, we received comments from Kazchrome and Considar 
regarding the Department's September 14, 2001, supplemental 
questionnaire. On October 4, 2001, and October 5, 2001, we received 
responses from Kazchrome, Alloy 2000 and Considar to the Department's 
September 14, 2001 supplemental questionnaire, and Alloy 2000's 
Sections A and C responses to the Department's questionnaire. On 
October 9, 2001, petitioners filed comments on Kazchrome and Alloy 
2000's failure to report Alloy 2000's sales of subject merchandise to 
Considar. On October 16, 2001, Kazchrome, Alloy 2000, and Considar 
submitted financial information and documentation regarding sales from 
Alloy 2000 through Considar to customers in the U.S market. On October 
23, 2001, Kazchrome, Alloy 2000, and Considar submitted additional 
comments on factors of production valuation of manganese ore. On 
October 23, 2001, the Department requested further financial 
information and documentation regarding certain sales from Alloy 2000 
through Considar to customers in the U.S. market in a supplemental 
questionnaire to Kazchrome, Alloy 2000, and Considar. On October 29, 
2001, the Department modified its request for financial information and 
documentation regarding certain sales from Alloy 2000 through Considar 
to customers in the U.S. market in another supplemental questionnaire 
to Kazchrome, Alloy 2000, and Considar. This questionnaire response is 
due on November 5, 2001 and will be considered for the final 
determination. On October 30, 2001, Kazchrome, Alloy 2000, and Considar 
submitted a response to the remaining question from the October 23, 
2001 supplemental questionnaire. This information will be considered 
for the final determination.
    On October 26, 2001, petitioners provided additional comments. On 
October 31, 2001, Kazchrome, Considar, and Alloy 2000 requested an 
update on the process for review of the status of Kazakhstan as a non-
market economy country.
    On August 17, 2001, petitioners requested a postponement of the 
preliminary determinations for India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela by 30 
days. On August 22, 2001, the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) agreed 
with petitioners to postpone the preliminary determination in this 
investigation; however, the GOK requested that the postponement be for 
50 days. On August 23, 2001, Kazchrome and Considar requested a 50-day 
postponement of the preliminary determination and also requested that 
the Department issued Kazchrome a Section B questionnaire and a market-
oriented industry questionnaire. On August 24, 2001, the Department 
postponed the preliminary determination for the India, Venezuela, and 
Kazakhstan investigation by 30 days. See Silicomanganese from 
Kazakhstan, India, and Venezuela; Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determination in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 66 FR 45964 (August 
31, 2001). On October 19, 2001, the Department determined the 
investigation is extraordinarily complicated and postponed the 
preliminary determination for India, Venezuela, and Kazakhstan to the 
full 50 days, until November 2, 2001. See Notice of Extension of 
Preliminary Results of Silicomanganese from India, Venezuela, and 
Kazakhstan 66 FR 26448 (October 19, 2001).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2000 through 
March 31, 2001. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (April 6, 
2001). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are all 
forms, sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon 
silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. 
Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, 
silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of 
minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese 
is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is 
used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and 
manganese. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 
percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent 
silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is 
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may 
also the classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This scope 
covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff classification. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope remains 
dispositive.
    The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a 
ferroalloy with the following chemical specifications: Minimum 55 
percent manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, 
maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and 
maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is used in the 
manufacture of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as 
motor lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It 
is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon 
silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.30.000.

Market Oriented Industry

    On July 12, 2001, Kazchrome requested that the Department make a 
determination that the silicomanganese industry in Kazakhstan operates 
as a market-oriented industry (``MOI''). On August 14, 2001, 
petitioners submitted a response to Kazchrome's MOI claim. On August 
23, 2001, petitioners submitted documents that were cited in the July 
30, 2001 and August 14, 2001 submissions. On November 1, 2001, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional

[[Page 56641]]

information on Kazchrome's claim that it is operating in a market-
oriented industry. Because we will not receive this response until 
after the preliminary determination, we will not be able to make a 
determination on the MOI request until the final determination.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    On June 28, 2001, Kazechrome requested revocation of Kazakhstan's 
non-market economy status under section 771 (18) of the Act. Kazchrome 
requested that revocation be effective as of January 1, 2000. On July 
5, 2001, the Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan met with Import 
Administration officials and presented the GOK's submission requesting 
that Kazakhstan's non-market economy status be revoked. On July 30, 
2001, petitioners submitted comments on why they believe Kazakhstan 
should remain a non-market economy. On August 14, 2001, Kazakhstan 
filed comments in response to petitioners' July 30, 2001 submission. On 
August 14, 2001, the GOK submitted a letter in which it concurred with 
the arguments made in Kazchrome's August 14, 2001 submission. On August 
29, 2001, petitioners filed comments to Kazakhstan's August 14, 2001 
submission.
    The Department has treated Kazakhstan as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping investigations and 
administrative reviews. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Titanium Sponge From the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, 64 FR 66169 (November 24, 1999); Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From 
Kazakhstan and Ukraine, 58 FR 13050 (March 9, 1993); and Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Uranium From 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, 57 
FR 23380 (June 3, 1992) (preliminary determination). A designation as a 
NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. 
See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. The GOK, Kazchrome, and 
petitioners have filed extensive information on whether Kazakhstan 
should be granted market-economy status. The Department has not 
completed its evaluation of information obtained regarding Kazakhstan's 
NME status. In addition, we invite public comment with respect to 
Kazakhstan on factors listed in section 771(18) of the Act, which the 
Department must take into account in making a market/nonmarket economy 
determination. Any comments on Kazakhstan's NME status must be 
submitted no later than December 10, 2001. Accordingly, for this 
preliminary determination, the Department is continuing to treat 
Kazakhstan as a NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME country, 
normal value (``NV'') is based on the NME producer's factors of 
production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise, pursuant to section 773(c)(1) and 
(4) of the Act. The sources of individual factor values are discussed 
in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, infra,

Separate Rates

    In a NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control. Thus, it is the 
Department's policy to assign all producers of subject merchandise in a 
NME country a single rate, unless a producer can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. 
Moreover, the Department generally assigns separate rates only to the 
entities that export to the United States, not their suppliers. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
49345 (September 27, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 2. In this instance, the exporter to the United 
States, Alloy 2000, is not located within Kazakhstan. Furthermore, its 
supplier, Kazchrome, stated in its June 26, 2001 Section A response 
that it has no knowledge that its sales to Alloy 2000 are destined for 
the United States. Therefore, Kazchrome is not eligible to receive a 
separate rate. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Glass Windshield From the People's 
Republic of China. 66 FR 48233, 48235 (September 19, 2001). We have 
assigned Alloy 2000 a separate rate. Id. However, because the only 
subject merchandise from Kazakhstan sold by Alloy 2000 is produced by 
Kazchrome, and because the subject merchandise is merely transshipped 
through Russia and sold directly to the U.S. by Alloy 2000, Alloy 
2000's normal value will be based on Kazchrome's factors of production. 
See section 773(a)(3) of the Act.

Kazakhstan-Wide Rate

    All exporters and producers were given the opportunity to respond 
to the Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received a 
timely Section A response from Kazchrome. Kazchrome stated that it is 
the only producer of silicomanganese in Kazakhstan. In Kazchrome's 
October 4, 2001 response, Kazchrome provided information from the GOK 
Statistics Agency, showing that for the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2001, 
its Aksu plant was the sole producer of ferrosilicomanganese, also 
known as silicomanganese, in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Moreover, the 
U.S. Geological Survey's (``USGS'') Minerals Yearbook, 1999, lists the 
Aksu plant as the only producer of silicomanganese in Kazakhstan. See 
USGS report by Richard M. Levine, in the USGS Minerals Yearbook, 1999, 
located at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/europe.htm1#kz (October 2, 2001). Kazchrome states on page 5 of its 
Section A response that Aksu Ferro alloy Plant is a wholly-owned branch 
of Kazchrome. Moreover, the sole exporter, Alloy 2000, receives all of 
its subject merchandise produced in Kazakhstan from Kazchrome. 
Therefore, the Kazakhstan-wide rate will be the calculated margin for 
Alloy 2000, the sole exporter.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market economy countries that: (1) Are at 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the NV 
section below.
    The Department has determined that Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco, 
Ecuador, and Algeria are countries comparable to Kazakhstan in terms of 
economic development. See Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Jean Kemp: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, 
dated June 12, 2001.
    On July 6, 2001, we requested comments on surrogate country 
selection, significant production in the potential counties, and 
surrogate values for the factors of production. On July 24, 2001, we 
received comments from Kazchrome and Considar regarding selection of a 
market-economy surrogate country. Also of July 24, 2001, we

[[Page 56642]]

received comments from petitioners regarding selection of market-
economy surrogate country. On October 1, 2001, the Department selected 
Egypt as the primary surrogate country for Kazakhstan to value the 
factors of production for this investigation. See Memorandum from 
Cheryl Werner on Selection of a Surrogate Country: Preliminary 
Determination: Antidumping Investigation on Silicomanganese from 
Kazakhstan (October 1, 2001).
    Therefore, we have relied, where possible, on Egyptian information 
in calculating NV by using Egyptian prices to value Kazchrome's factors 
of production, when available and where appropriate. We have obtained 
and relied upon public information wherever possible. See Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final determination in an antidumping 
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production within 40 days after the 
date of publication of the preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of silicomanganese to the United States 
by Alloy 2000 were made at less than fair value, we compared 
constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated weighted-average CEPs.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for Alloy 2000 we 
used CEP because the first sale on an unaffiliated customer in the 
United States was made in the United States by Considar, an affiliate 
of Alloy 2000. See A.K. Steel Corp v. United States, 226 F3d 1361 (Fed. 
Cir. 2000). Alloy 2000 is affiliated with Considar because there is an 
exclusive sales agency agreement between Considar and Alloy 
International S.A. for North America (see Kazchrome and Considar's 
September 19, 2001 submission and October 4 and 5, 2001 supplemental 
questionnaire responses), and because of the relationship between Alloy 
2000 and Alloy International S.A. (see Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum). Consistent with Department practice, in order to determine 
whether a principal/agent relationship exists between Alloy 2000 and 
Considar, we first examine whether an explicit agreement exists from 
the alleged principal authorizing the agent to act on its behalf in a 
specified context. This agreement must not only state that such a 
relationship exists, but the alleged agent must expressly consent to 
such representation on behalf of the principal. See, e.g., Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
41509, 41512 (August 8, 2001) and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Engineered Process Gas Turbo-Compressor 
Systems, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, and Whether Complete or 
Incomplete, from Japan (``Gas Turbo Compressors''), 62 FR 24392, 24402-
24403 (May 5, 1997) (expressing the principal/agent test). Based on the 
Department's examination of the agreement between Alloy 2000 and 
Considar, and financial documents submitted by Alloy 2000 and Considar 
on October 16, 2001, detailing the payments between the parties on 
those sales, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a 
principal/agents relationship between Alloy 2000 and Considar and that 
Considar, the agent, has expressly consented to such representation on 
behalf of the principal, Alloy 2000.
    On October 9, 2001, petitioners submitted a request that the 
Department require that Alloy 2000 submit its transaction prices to 
Considar as the U.S. sales in this investigation. On October 23, 2001, 
the Department requested further information from Considar and Alloy 
2000 regarding their transactions which we will consider for the final 
determination in this investigation.
    In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared 
POI-wide weighted-average CEPs to the NVs. We calculated weighted-
average CEPs for Alloy 2000's U.S. sales made in the United States 
through Considar. We based CEP on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, vessel loading costs, global insurance expense from the 
factory to the U.S. customer (i.e., domestic inland insurance, marine 
insurance, and U.S. inland insurance), international freight, U.S. 
customs duty, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. 
warehousing costs (which, in certain instances, includes U.S. repacking 
costs), and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the U.S. 
customer. Kazchrome reported that it used a non-market economy carrier 
for foreign inland freight; therefore, we valued foreign inland freight 
using an appropriate surrogate value for rail transportation costs. 
Because foreign inland freight from the factory to the port occurred 
principally on railways in the Russian Federation, we valued the 
freight using a surrogate value from Thailand, a country at a similar 
level of economic development to Russia. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted from CEP direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit 
expenses) and indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying 
costs that were associated with Alloy 2000's and Considar's economic 
activities occurring in the United States. We also deducted early 
payment discounts from the gross unit price, where appropriate. 
Finally, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See Analysis Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The 
merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
    Factors of production include: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production, reported by Kazchrome, for materials, energy, 
labor, by-products, and packing. We valued all the input factors using 
publicly available information as discussed in the ``Surrogate 
Country'' and ``Factor Valuations'' sections of this notice.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources 
an input from a market economy and pays for it in market economy 
currency, the Department employs the actual price paid for the input to 
calculate the factors-based NV. See also, Lasko Metal Products v. 
United States, 437 F. 3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (``Lasko'').

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by Kazchrome for the POI. To 
calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied 
by publicly available surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate 
values, we considered the

[[Page 56643]]

quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For a detailed 
description of all surrogate values used fro Kazchrome, see Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs 
to derive delivered prices. We added to the surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    For the raw material surrogate values, except for the surrogate 
value for manganese ore, we used values for Egypt as reported in the 
United Nations Statistical Division Commodity Trade Database System 
(``UNCTS'') for 1999, deducting those values from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries. As the UNCTS data are 
reported in U.S. dollars, we did not need to convert these values. 
Since the data from this publication were not contemporaneous with the 
POI, we adjusted material values for inflation by using the Producer 
Price Index (``PPI'') rate for the United States, as discussed in the 
``Inflation/Deflation Factor'' section of the Factor Valuation 
Memorandum. Because the Egyptian values we found for manganese ore were 
aberrational in 1999, we used a surrogate value for manganese ore from 
1996. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    To value electricity, we have accepted Kazchrome and Considar's 
submitted rate of $0.0177/kWh for Egypt, which was from the 
Department's Trade Information Center (``TIC'') website (http://www.trade.gov/td/tic). See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Kazchrome reported a byproduct gas; however, the gas byproduct is 
not sold nor used as an input in the silicomanganese production process 
and, therefore, we are not giving a credit for this byproduct. 
Kazchrome also reported utilizable manganese scrap as a byproduct of 
the production process. Since this credit is already reflected in 
Kazchrome's reported factor of production for manganese ore, we are not 
granting a by-product credit for this excess manganese ore. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    To determine appropriate overhead, financial expense, selling, 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expense, and profit percentages 
to be applied to the NV calculation, we used relevant data from a 1998 
annual report of Alexandria National Iron & Steel Co. (``ANS Steel''), 
an Egyptian hot-rolled steel producer, because we were unable to locate 
an annual report for any Egyptian ferroalloy producers. While we could 
not determine a complete value for overhead using ANS Steel's financial 
statements, we were able to determine a value for depreciation, a 
component of overhead, and have used this value for overhead.
    For labor, consistent with section 351.408(c)(3) of the 
Department's regulations, we used the Kazakhstan regression-based wage 
rate at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected 
Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2001 (see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/99wages/99wages.htm). The source of the wage rate 
data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Year Book of Labour 
Statistics 2000, International Labor Office (Geneva: 2000), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all company and GOK information relied upon in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise 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 U.S. 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 CEP, as indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin-
                                                               weighted
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       average
                                                               percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy 2000, S.A............................................       180.86
Kazakhstan-Wide............................................       180.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination of sales at LTFV. 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 the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the 
subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    Cash briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the 
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case of 
rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held fifty-seven days 
after publication of this notice at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a 
time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone 
the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the 
schedule date. 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 date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number, (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each 
party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in 
that party's case brief, and may make rebuttal presentations only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination no later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 56644]]


    Dated: November 2, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-28226 Filed 11-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M