[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67185-67189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-831]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel 
Beams From Italy

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at not less than 
fair value.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that structural steel beams from 
Italy are not being, nor 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: Alysia Wilson or Michael Strollo, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0108 or (202) 482-0629, 
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 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 Italy are 
materially injuring the United States industry (see ITC Investigation 
Nos. 731-TA-935-942 (Publication No. 3438)).
    On July 18, 2001, we selected Duferdofin SpA (``Duferdofin''), the 
largest producer/exporter of structural steel beams from Italy, as the 
mandatory respondent in this proceeding. For further discussion, see 
the memorandum to Louis Apple, Director, Office 2, from the Team 
Regarding: Respondent Selection, dated July 18, 2001. We subsequently 
issued the antidumping questionnaire to Duferdofin on July 18, 2001.
    During the period August through November 2001, the Department 
received responses to the Department's

[[Page 67186]]

original and supplemental questionnaires.
    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

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 18, 2001, the 
petitioners requested that, in the event of a negative 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. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because our preliminary 
determination is negative and no compelling reasons for denial exist, 
we are granting the petitioners' request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register.

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.

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,

[[Page 67187]]

``* * * 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 scope-exclusion requests in detail in a 
Memorandum to Louis Apple and Laurie Parkhill, Directors, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Offices 2 and 3, respectively, from The Structural 
Steel Beams Teams Re: Scope Exclusion Requests, dated December 19, 
2001.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2000, through 
March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Italy 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 Duferdofin 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 made in the home market, where appropriate. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
the respondent in the following order of importance: form; shape/size 
(section depth); strength/grade; and coating.

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, we are treating all of Duferdofin's U.S. 
sales as CEP sales because they were made in the United States by 
Duferdofin's U.S. affiliate on behalf of Duferdofin, within the meaning 
of section 772(b) of the Act.
    We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments 
for price-billing errors. We also made deductions for movement 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties 
(including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), 
U.S. inland insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from 
port to warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer), post-
sale warehousing expenses, truck loading expenses, and U.S. barging 
expenses. For post-sale warehousing expenses, we reallocated this 
expense to those transactions where the terms of sale indicated that 
warehousing expenses were incurred. For further discussion, see the 
Memorandum to the File from Michael Strollo and Alysia Wilson Re: 
Calculations Performed for Duferdofin S.p.A. (``Duferdofin'') for the 
Preliminary Determination in the 2000-2001 Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Structural Steel Beams (``Beams'') from Italy, dated 
December 19, 2001 (``Sales Calculation Memorandum''). 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 (commissions, 
imputed credit costs, and bank charges), and indirect selling expenses 
(including inventory carrying costs).
    For those U.S. sales for which Duferdofin did not report a date of 
payment, we have used the signature date of the preliminary 
determination (i.e., December 19, 2001) in the calculation of imputed 
credit expenses. In addition, we recalculated Duferdofin's reported 
U.S. indirect selling expenses to include interest expenses. We offset 
this expense by interest income and imputed credit (up to the amount of 
interest expense), in accordance with our practice. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled 
and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea, 66 FR 
3540 (January 16, 2001) and accompanying issues and decision memorandum 
at Comment 1. For further discussion, also see the Sales Calculation 
Memorandum. 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 Duferdofin 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. 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-below-cost 
investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below 
their respective COPs (see Initiation Notice at 66 FR 33048, 33051).
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), including interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs (see ``Test of Home Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of home market selling

[[Page 67188]]

expenses). We relied on the COP data submitted by Duferdofin except as 
noted below.
    1. We revised COP to include additional depreciation expense not 
included in Duferdofin's reported costs.
    2. We revised the G&A rate to include foreign exchange gains and 
losses on accounts payable and miscellaneous expense in the numerator 
of the calculation. We also excluded the ``variation in stocks of 
products in process, semifinished and finished products,'' packing 
expenses and G&A expense from the denominator of the calculation.
    3. We revised the financial expense rate to exclude the ``increase 
in work in progress and finished products,'' packing expense and other 
personnel expense from the denominator of the calculation.
    See Memorandum from Ji Young Oh 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 adjusted 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 movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling 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 are at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost 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, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Duferdofin's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

C. 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \2\ Selling 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \3\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058,-1060 (Fed. Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), we 
determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 
derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Duferdofin 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 
Duferdofin for each channel of distribution.
    Duferdofin reported home market sales through three channels of 
distribution and to four customer categories. We examined the chain of 
distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported 
by Duferdofin to each of its customer categories in the home market. 
The information on the record demonstrates that Duferdofin performs the 
same selling functions across channels of distribution and customer 
categories. See Appendix A-2 of Duferdofin's response to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire, dated November 13, 2001. 
Specifically, Duferdofin indicated that to all customers, regardless of 
channel of distribution, it provides: a high level of freight/delivery 
arrangements, a medium to high level of customer visits and customer 
approval/credit research, a medium level of inventory maintenance/
warehousing and computer services/accounts receivable, a low to medium 
level of market research and strategic planning, and a low level of 
pre-sale engineering advice, post sale servicing, rejected merchandise 
handling, customer

[[Page 67189]]

solicitation, and transit claims. Because Duferdofin performs the same 
selling functions with the same intensity for all its customers 
regardless of their channel of distribution, we preliminarily determine 
that Duferdofin made home market sales at one LOT during the POI.
    In the U.S. market, Duferdofin made only CEP sales through its 
affiliated importer/reseller Duferco Steel Inc. (``DSI''). Duferdofin 
reported that, for sales to the United States, virtually all selling 
functions are performed by DSI, with the exception of Italian inventory 
maintenance and international shipping arrangements, which are 
performed by Duferdofin.
    As set forth in 19 CFR 351.412(f), a CEP offset will be granted 
where (1) normal value is compared to CEP sales, (2) normal value is 
determined at a more advanced LOT than the LOT of the CEP, and (3) 
despite the fact that the party has cooperated to the best of its 
ability, the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to 
determine whether the difference in LOT affects price comparability. 
Duferdofin stated that after CEP adjustments are made, it performs only 
two selling functions for its U.S. sales to DSI (Italian inventory 
maintenance and international shipping arrangements) whereas it 
performs fourteen selling functions in the home market. Since the 
selling functions performed by Duferdofin for its sales to the United 
States, after CEP adjustments are made, are substantially less than 
those performed for Duferdofin's home market sales, we preliminarily 
determine that Duferdofin's home market sales are being made at a more 
advanced LOT than those to the United States. Because there is only one 
level of trade in the home market, the data available do not permit us 
to determine the extent to which this difference in LOT affects price 
comparability. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(f), we are 
granting Duferdofin a CEP offset.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's-length. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for early payment discounts. We also made deductions for movement 
expenses, including inland freight (plant to distribution warehouse, 
plant/warehouse to customer, and affiliated reseller to customer) and 
warehousing 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 commissions.
    We disallowed Duferdofin's claim for a rebate adjustment because 
Duferdofin failed to respond to the Department's requests to 
distinguish between pre- and post-petition rebates. See the Sales 
Calculation Memorandum.
    Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted 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.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duferdofin S.p.A...........................................         0.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for 
Duferdofin is de minimis, we are not directing the Customs Service to 
suspend liquidation of entries of structural steel beams from Italy.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
pursuant to section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 
75 days after our final determination whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the final 
verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed five days from the deadline date for case briefs. A list of 
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will 
hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    We will make our final determination 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. 01-31979 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P