[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45083-45088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16900]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-791-815]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Ferrovanadium from the 
Republic of South Africa

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Crittenden or Mark Manning 
(Xstrata) at (202) 482-0989 or (202) 482-5253 and Timothy P. Finn or 
John Conniff (Highveld), at (202) 482-0065 or (202) 482-1009, 
respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office IV, Group II, Import 
Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
2002).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that ferrovanadium from the Republic of 
South Africa (South Africa) is being sold, 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

    The investigation was initiated on December 17, 2001. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Ferrovanadium from the 
People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa, 66 FR 
66398 (December 26, 2001) (Initiation Notice).\1\

[[Page 45084]]

 Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have 
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are The Ferroalloys Association 
Vanadium Committee (TFA Vanadium Committee) and its members: Bear 
Metallurgical Company, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Gulf 
Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, U.S. Vanadium Corporation, and 
CS Metals of Louisiana LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice, at 66 
FR 66398. On January 3, 10, and 17, 2002, the petitioners submitted 
comments on product coverage. On January 7, 15, and 17, 2002, Highveld 
Steel and Vanadium Corporation (Highveld) and Xstrata South Africa 
(Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata) submitted product coverage comments.
    On December 27, 2002, the Department solicited comments from 
interested parties regarding model-matching criteria. See Letter from 
Holly Kuga (December 27, 2001). The petitioners and respondents 
submitted model-matching comments to the Department on January 9, 2002. 
The petitioners also submitted rebuttal model-matching comments on 
January 10, 2002.
    On January 14, 2002, Xstrata submitted comments to the Department 
regarding the sales below cost investigation the Department initiated 
on December 17, 2001. The Department received a rebuttal to Xstrata's 
comments from the petitioners on January 17, 2002. On January 17, 2002, 
the Department received comments regarding the sales below cost 
investigation from Highveld.
    On January 10, 2002, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports from South Africa of ferrovanadium that are 
alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See Ferrovanadium From 
China and South Africa, 67 FR 2236 (January 16, 2002).
    After reviewing the comments on product coverage and 
characteristics, on January 18, 2002, the Department issued the 
antidumping duty questionnaire\2\ to Highveld and Xstrata. The 
Department issued an abridged Section A questionnaire, requesting 
quantity and value (Q&V) data, to Vametco Minerals Corporation 
(Vametco) on January 29, 2002, for the purpose of including Vametco in 
the Department's respondent selection analysis. See Selection of 
Respondents section below. We received responses to our questionnaire 
from all respondents. We issued supplemental questionnaires, pertaining 
to sections A, B, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire, to 
Highveld and Xstrata in February, March, April, and May 2002. Highveld 
and Xstrata responded to these supplemental questionnaires in February, 
March, April, May, and June 2002. On February 11, 2002, Xstrata 
provided information demonstrating that the home market was not viable 
and submitted Q&V data for its largest third-country markets. On March 
1, 2002, the Department designated Germany as the appropriate third-
country market for which to calculate Xstrata's normal value (NV). See 
Memorandum from Howard Smith to the File, ``The Appropriate Comparison 
Market for Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ferrovanadium from the Republic of 
South Africa,'' dated March 1, 2002 (Xstrata Third Country Market 
Selection Memorandum). On March 12 and 15, 2002, the petitioners 
submitted amendments to the cost allegation contained in the petition 
for this investigation to include German-specific price and cost 
information placed on the record by Xstrata. The Department, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, concluded that 
there was a reasonable basis to suspect that Xstrata is selling 
ferrovanadium in Germany at prices below the cost of production (COP) 
and initiated a cost investigation on ferrovanadium sales in Germany on 
March 26, 2002. See the Cost of Production Analysis section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 COP of 
the foreign like product and the constructed value of the 
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on 
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 24, 2002, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the 
Department postponed the preliminary determination of this 
investigation 50 days, from May 6, 2002, until June 25, 2002. See 
Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of 
South Africa: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations; 67 FR 20089 (April 24, 2002).

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 petitioners. 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 an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On June 21, 2002, Xstrata 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. Xstrata also included a 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months 
after the publication of the preliminary determination.. Accordingly, 
since we have made an affirmative preliminary determination, and the 
requesting party accounts for a significant proportion of exports of 
the subject merchandise, we have postponed the final determination 
until not later than 135 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination, and are extending the provisional measures 
accordingly. See Xstrata's letter to the Secretary, dated June 21, 
2002.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2000, through 
September 30, 2001. This period corresponds to the four most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
November 2001). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of these investigations covers all ferrovanadium 
regardless of grade, chemistry, form, shape, or size. Ferrovanadium is 
an alloy of iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in 
the manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and 
scientifically identified as vanadium. It specifically excludes 
vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitride vanadium, 
vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides, 
vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as 
slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 
2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 are specifically excluded. 
Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number

[[Page 45085]]

7202.92.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope 
of this investigation remains dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits the Department to investigate either: (1) a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid 
based on the information available at the time of selection, or (2) 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise from the exporting country that can reasonably be 
examined. The petition identified three South African producers of 
ferrovanadium that export to the United States: Highveld, Vametco, and 
Xstrata. Due to limited resources, we determined that we could 
investigate only the two South African producers/exporters that 
accounted for the largest volume of exports to the United States during 
the POI. See the Memorandum from Howard Smith to Holly A. Kuga, 
``Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of 
Ferrovanadium from South Africa,'' which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. Therefore, we designated Highveld and Xstrata as mandatory 
respondents and sent them the antidumping questionnaire.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents in the home market and covered by the 
description in the Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in 
the home market or designated third-country market (i.e., the 
comparison market) during the POI are considered to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied upon product grade and maximum and minimum 
product size to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to NV.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of ferrovanadium from South Africa were 
made in the United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export 
price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to 
NVs.

Use of Partial Facts Available

    During the course of this investigation, the Department issued 
seven supplemental questionnaires to Highveld requesting that the 
company provide certain information necessary for our determination. 
Despite the fact that the Department provided Highveld with repeated 
opportunities to provide the requested information, Highveld withheld 
certain information and failed to provide other information in the form 
and manner requested by the Department. As a result, the Department has 
determined to use facts available to calculate certain sales 
adjustments. These adjustments include U.S. commission/indirect selling 
expenses, home and U.S. market packing costs, U.S. warehousing 
expenses, and financing expenses associated with U.S. sales.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available if the Department 
finds that the party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability. In this case the Department has found that Highveld 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability with 
respect to these sales adjustments. Therefore, for the preliminarily 
determination, we have made an inference that is adverse to Highveld in 
selecting from among the facts available to calculate the sales 
adjustment noted above. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see 
the Memorandum from Howard Smith to Holly A. Kuga, ``Application of 
Partial Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination: 
Highveld Steel & Vanadium Limited,'' dated June 25, 2002.

Constructed Export Price

    For both Highveld and Xstrata, we calculated CEP, in accordance 
with section 772(b) of the Act, for all sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers that took place after importation into the United States. 
Highveld and Xstrata reported only CEP sales in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
all U.S. sales by Highveld and Xstrata on the packed FOB or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight, international freight, marine 
insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling charges, U.S. 
customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), U.S. inland insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, 
and warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct and indirect selling expenses. Also, we made an 
adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market (Third-Country Comparison)
    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or has 
sufficient aggregate value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that 
there is no particular market situation in the home market that 
prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP transaction. The 
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be 
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States. For this investigation, we found that Highveld had a 
viable home market for ferrovanadium. Thus, the home market is the 
appropriate comparison market for Highveld in this investigation, and 
we used the respondent's submitted home market sales data for purposes 
of calculating NV.
    Xstrata did not have a viable home market in South Africa. 
Therefore, the Department considered the Q&V of Xstrata's POI sales of 
subject merchandise in the United States and the three largest third-
country markets. In selecting the appropriate comparison market for 
Xstrata's U.S. sales, we applied the criteria listed in section 
351.404(e) of the Department's regulations, which direct the Department 
to consider the similarity of the foreign like product exported to the 
third-country market to the subject merchandise exported to the United 
States; the volume of export sales to the third-country market; and 
such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
    After comparing Xstrata's U.S. market sales with the three third-
country

[[Page 45086]]

market sales of subject merchandise, the Department selected Germany as 
the appropriate comparison market for Xstrata. See Xstrata Third 
Country Market Selection Memorandum.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value section below.
B. Date of Sale
    For reporting purposes, Highveld used the last day of the month in 
which the merchandise was picked up or delivered as the home market 
date of sale even though it indicated that the sales terms are 
finalized on the invoice date (see Highveld's April 19, 2002, 
supplemental at pages 5 and 6). The Department's practice is to 
consider the invoice date as the date of sale unless a different date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are 
established, or the invoice date is after the shipment date (see Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin 
From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) and 
accompanying ``Decision Memorandum'' at Comment 15). Because the 
invoice date for Highveld's home market sales is subsequent to the 
shipment date, we have considered the shipment date that Highveld 
reported to be the date of sale.
    Xstrata initially reported the date of sale as the contract date. 
On May 8, 2002, Xstrata reported that the invoice date is the more 
appropriate date to use as the date of sale because certain material 
terms of the sale are not set until the invoice date. Xstrata provided 
additional discussion of how the terms of sale changed after the 
contract date on April 17, May 8, and June 13, 2002. Because of this 
information, we have considered the invoice date to be the date of sale 
for Xstrata.
C. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
    During the POI, Highveld made home market sales to affiliated 
customers. We applied the arm's-length test to sales from Highveld to 
its affiliated customers by comparing them to sales of identical 
merchandise from Highveld to unaffiliated home market customers. If 
these affiliated party sales satisfied the arm's-length test, we used 
them in our analysis.
    To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we 
compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and rebates, 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, commissions, and home market 
packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to 
the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price 
to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 62 FR 
at 27355, Preamble - Department's Final Antidumping Regulations (May 
19, 1997). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market which were 
not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because 
we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 
CFR 351.102.
    Xstrata had no comparison market sales to affiliated customers 
during the POI.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
    On November 26, 2001, in the petition for the imposition of 
antidumping duties, the petitioners alleged that sales of ferrovanadium 
in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP. 
Accordingly, the petitioners requested that the Department conduct a 
country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Based upon the comparison 
of adjusted home market prices to the COP for South African producers, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of 
ferrovanadium produced in South Africa were made at prices below the 
COP and initiated a country-wide cost investigation. See Initiation 
Notice.
    On February 11, 2002, Xstrata provided information demonstrating 
that the home market was not viable and submitted Q&V data for its 
largest third-country markets. On February 21, 2002, the petitioners 
submitted a country-specific cost allegation for each of the third-
country markets presented by Xstrata. On March 1, 2002, the Department 
designated Germany as the appropriate third-country market for which to 
calculate NV. See Xstrata Third Country Market Selection Memorandum. On 
March 12 and 15, 2002, the petitioners filed amendments to the cost 
allegation contained in their February 21, 2002, submission to include 
Germany-specific price and cost information placed on the record by 
Xstrata. The Department, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of 
the Act, concluded that there was a reasonable basis to suspect that 
Xstrata is selling ferrovanadium in Germany at prices below the COP and 
initiated a cost investigation on ferrovanadium sales in Germany. See 
Memorandum to Holly Kuga from the Team, ``Analysis of Petitioner's 
Allegations of Sales Below Cost of Production for Xstrata South Africa 
(Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata),'' dated March 26, 2002. As a result, 
the Department initiated, on March 26, 2002, a COP investigation with 
respect to Xstrata's sales in Germany.
    The Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether 
the respondents made sales in the home market or third-country market 
at prices below their respective COPs during the POI within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described 
below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP for each respondent based on the sum of the cost 
of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for the home market or third country market general and administrative 
(G&A) expenses and interest expenses. We relied on the COP data 
submitted by Highveld and Xstrata in their respective cost 
questionnaire responses, except, as noted below, in specific instances 
where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.
    a. Highveld. Highveld calculated the reported net interest expense 
ratio based on its own consolidated financial statements, rather than 
on the consolidated financial statements of its parent corporation. In 
accordance with the Department's longstanding practice, we recalculated 
the interest expense ratio by dividing the full-year interest expense 
by the cost of sales reported on the audited fiscal-year financial 
statements which correspond most closely to the POI at the highest 
level of consolidation (i.e., we used the financial statements of 
Highveld's corporate parent). See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from South 
Africa, 67 FR 35485 (May 20, 2002) and accompanying ``Decision 
Memorandum'' at Comment 7; see also the Memorandum from Timothy P. Finn 
to the File, ``Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination 
of the Investigation of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corp. Ltd. 
(Highveld),'' dated June 25, 2002 (Highveld Calculation Memorandum).
    b. Xstrata. We made no modifications to Xstrata's reported COP.
2. Test of Home Market and Third-Country Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these

[[Page 45087]]

sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period 
of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and 
whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we 
compared the COP to the comparison market prices, less any applicable 
discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, commissions, 
and packing.
3. Results of the Cost of Production Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that 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 were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined that such sales were made in ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) or the Act. In such cases, because we compared 
prices to POI average costs, we also determined that such sales were 
not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
    Section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that if, after 
disregarding all sales made at prices below the COP, there are no 
comparison market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, NV shall 
be based on constructed value (CV). Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(B) of 
the Act, because both respondents made all of their comparison market 
sales at prices below the COP, we disregarded all comparison market 
sales and based NV on CV. We calculated CV as the sum of each 
respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. In 
addition, because all comparison market sales were made at prices below 
the COP, we calculated selling expenses and profit in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. We based the selling expenses and 
profit for Highveld and Xstrata on figures obtained from each company's 
financial statements and available information regarding the selling 
expenses incurred by each. Section 773(a)(8) of the Act directs the 
Department to make certain adjustments to CV, as appropriate (i.e., 
circumstance of sale adjustments). Pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the 
Act, we have included, where possible, the appropriate adjustments in 
our calculation of CV. For further information, see the Memorandum from 
Mark Manning and Crystal Crittenden to the File, ``Calculation 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Investigation of 
Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata),'' (Xstrata 
Calculation Memorandum) and the Highveld Calculation Memorandum, both 
dated June 25, 2002.
F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
    Since all of Highveld's home market sales and Xstrata's third 
country sales failed the cost test, we are unable to use these sales as 
the basis of NV and instead must calculate NV based on CV. The selling 
expenses and profit for CV, as noted above, were obtained from 
Highveld's financial records, therefore, we have no basis for 
attributing a level of trade (LOT) to this CV. As such, we are unable 
to conduct a LOT analysis. For this reason, we made no LOT adjustment 
or CEP offset to either Highveld's or Xstrata's NV.
G. Currency Conversions
    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank, the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates.

Verification

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

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides for the use of an ``all 
others'' rate, which is applied to non-investigated firms. See 
Statement of Administrative Actions, Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. 
L. 103-465, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. 103-316, vol. I (1994) (SAA) 
at 873. This section states that the all others rate shall generally be 
an amount equal to the weighted average of the weighted-average dumping 
margins established for exporters and producers individually 
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any 
margins based entirely upon the facts available. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily assigned to all other exporters of ferrovanadium from 
South Africa a margin that is based on the weighted-average margins 
calculated for Highveld and Xstrata.

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 entries of 
ferrovanadium from South Africa that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in 
the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping 
margins are as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Ltd................        45.58
Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited.................        37.29
All Others.................................................        41.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

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

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary sales at LTFV determination. If our final 
antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine 
whether the imports covered by that determination are materially 
injuring, or threatening 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 last 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

[[Page 45088]]

should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, 
the Department respectfully requests that all parties submitting 
written comments also 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 an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will 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. 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 Department will make its final determination 
within 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: June 25, 2002.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-16900 Filed 7-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S