[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45088-45093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-873]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Ferrovanadium from the 
People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan, or Howard Smith, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4081, and (202) 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 
351 (April 2002).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that ferrovanadium from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) 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

    This 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

[[Page 45089]]

(December 26, 2001) (Initiation Notice).\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ferrovanadium imports from the PRC and the Republic of 
South Africa. See Ferrovanadium From China and South Africa, 67 FR 2236 
(January 16, 2002). During January 2002, the Department provided 
participating parties with an opportunity to comment on scope and 
product characteristics. Only the petitioners submitted comments.
    After reviewing the comments on product coverage and 
characteristics, on January 18, 2002, the Department issued its 
antidumping questionnaire\2\ to the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade & 
Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), the Embassy of the PRC in Washington 
D.C., and the companies identified in the petition, Jinzhou Ferroalloy 
(Group) Co, Ltd., Chengde Xinghua Vanadium Chemical Co., Ltd., and 
Pangang Group International Economic and Trading Corporation (Pangang). 
The Department requested that MOFTEC send the questionnaire to all 
companies that manufacture and export ferrovanadium to the United 
States, as well as all manufacturers that produce ferrovanadium for 
companies engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United 
States, and the companies that export ferrovanadium to the United 
States, during the period of investigation (POI). Only Pangang 
responded to the Department's questionnaire. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Pangang, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the 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, Pangang 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. Pangang 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 the publication of the 
preliminary determination determination, and are extending the 
provisional measures accordingly. See Pangang's letter to the 
Secretary, dated June 21, 2002.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. This period 
corresponds to the two 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 this investigation covers all ferrovanadium produced 
in the PRC, 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 ferrovanadium. The scope 
of this investigation specifically excludes vanadium additives other 
than ferrovanadium, such as nitrided 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) item numbers 2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000 and 8112.40.6000 
is specifically excluded. Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item 
number 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.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (NME) 
country in previous antidumping investigations (e.g., 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); Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 19873 (April 13, 2000); and the Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain: Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 
28, 2001)). In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any 
determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in 
effect until revoked. No party to this investigation has sought 
revocation of the NME status of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to section 
771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department will continue to treat the PRC as 
a NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal 
value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.

Separate Rates

    In a NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be 
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the

[[Page 45090]]

respondent demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over its export activities. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). 
Pangang has provided the requested company-specific separate rates 
information and has indicated that there is no element of government 
ownership or control over its operations. We have considered whether 
Pangang is eligible for a separate rate as discussed below.
    The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the 
export-related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process 
at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey From 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(Silicon Carbide). Under this test, the Department assigns separate 
rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the absence of 
both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export 
activities. See Silicon Carbide and the Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995).
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    Pangang has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate the absence of de jure control, including its business 
license, and the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China.'' 
Other than limiting Pangang's operations to the activities referenced 
in the license, we noted no restrictive stipulations associated with 
the license. In addition, in previous cases, the Department has 
analyzed the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China'' and 
found that it establishes an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (October 24, 1995). We have no 
information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this 
determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily 
found an absence of de jure control.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    With regard to the issue of de facto control, Pangang has reported 
the following: (1) there is no government participation in setting 
export prices; (2) its managers have authority to bind sales contracts; 
(3) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its 
management selection, and (4) there are no restrictions on the use of 
its export revenue and it is responsible for financing its own losses. 
Additionally, Pangang's questionnaire response does not suggest that 
pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of 
Pangang's questionnaire response reveals no other information 
indicating governmental control of export activities. Therefore, based 
on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is 
an absence of de facto government control over Pangang's export 
functions. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the respondent 
has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
The PRC-Wide Rate
    In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption 
that all exporters located in the NME country comprise a single 
exporter under common government control, the ``NME entity.'' The 
Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity unless an 
exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. Although the 
Department provided all PRC exporters of ferrovanadium with the 
opportunity to respond to its questionnaire, only Pangang submitted a 
response thereto. However, our review of U.S. import statistics reveals 
that there are other PRC companies, in addition to Pangang, that 
exported ferrovanadium to the United States during the POI. Because 
these exporters did not submit a response to the Department's 
questionnaire, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement to a 
separate rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable 
presumption that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under 
common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts 
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide 
rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single 
enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As 
explained above, some exporters of the subject merchandise failed to 
respond to the Department's request for information. The failure of 
these exporters to respond also significantly impedes this proceeding. 
Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our 
preliminary determination, we have

[[Page 45091]]

based the PRC-wide rate on total facts available.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party ``has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information,'' the Department may use information 
that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise 
available. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d 
Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith 
on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may 
make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). The complete 
failure of these exporters to respond to the Department's requests for 
information constitutes a failure to cooperate to the best of their 
ability.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) of the Act provides 
that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than 
on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, 
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA states that the independent sources may include 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation or review. See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. As noted in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used.
    For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we 
have used as the PRC-wide rate the recalculated dumping margin from the 
petition (see below). In the petition, the petitioners based export 
price (EP) on import values declared to the U.S. Customs Service. For 
the NV calculation, the petitioners based the factors of production, as 
defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy, 
and representative capital costs) on the quantities of inputs used by 
the petitioners.
    With regard to the EP calculation in the petition, the information 
relied upon was based on publicly available sources, that is, official 
U.S. government statistics; therefore, we find that the U.S. price from 
the petition margin is sufficiently corroborated. To corroborate the 
petitioners' NV calculations, we compared the petitioners' factor 
consumption data to that data on the record of this investigation. As 
discussed in a separate memorandum to the file, we found that the 
factors consumption data in the petition were reasonable and of 
probative value. See the memorandum to the file regarding corroboration 
of the petition data for the PRC-wide entity, dated June 25, 2002. The 
values for the factors of production in the petition were based on 
publicly available information for comparable inputs; therefore, we 
find that these surrogate values are sufficiently corroborated.
    During the course of this investigation, several of the surrogate 
values used in the petition are new or have been revised. In order to 
take into account the more recent information, we recalculated the 
petition margin using, where possible, the new or revised surrogate 
values to value the petitioners' consumption rates. As a result of this 
recalculation, the PRC-wide rate is, for the preliminary determination, 
78.52 percent. For the final determination, the Department will 
consider all margins on the record at the time of the final 
determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final 
PRC-wide margin.
Fair Value Comparison
    To determine whether Pangang's sales of ferrovanadium to customers 
in the United States were made at LTFV, we compared EP to NV, 
calculated using our NME methodology, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 
weighted-average EPs.
Export Price
    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because Pangang sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers 
prior to importation and because constructed export price (CEP) 
methodology was not otherwise warranted. At the time of sale, Pangang 
knew that its reported sales of the subject merchandise were destined 
for the United States.
    We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered prices charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer for exportation to the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross 
unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance. Where foreign inland 
freight, marine insurance, and brokerage and handling were provided by 
NME companies, we used surrogate values from South Africa to value 
these expenses (see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum 
dated June 25, 2002, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located 
in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building). For sales with 
international freight provided by NME shipping companies we used as the 
surrogate value a freight cost obtained from U.S. customs import 
statistics (see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum).
Normal Value
1. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, on the 
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy 
countries that are 1) at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the NME country; and 2) significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department's Office of Policy initially identified 
five countries that are at a level of economic development comparable 
to the PRC in terms of per capita GNP and the national distribution of 
labor. Those countries are India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and 
the Philippines (see the memorandum from Jeffrey May to Holly Kuga 
dated February 28, 2002). However, we could find no evidence that any 
of these countries are significant producers of ``comparable 
merchandise.'' Where the countries normally considered at a level of 
economic development similar to that of the country in question do not 
produce comparable merchandise, the Department's practice is to find 
the most comparable surrogate country that is a

[[Page 45092]]

significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Initiation Notice, 
66 FR 66398, 66400. Therefore, we requested and received from the 
Office of Policy a list of additional potential surrogate countries. We 
examined export and import statistics for each country on this list to 
determine if any of them are significant producers of ``comparable 
merchandise.''\3\ We found evidence of significant production of 
``comparable merchandise'' by only one of these countries, South Africa 
(see the memorandum from Karine Gziryan to the file regarding 
identification of significant producers of comparable merchandise dated 
June 25, 2002). Therefore, we have preliminarily calculated NV by 
applying South African values to Pangang's factors of 
production.Pangang's factors of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although Pangang claimed that India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise, it provided no evidence 
supporting its claim, nor did the Department find any indication 
that India was such a producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Factors of Production
    In its questionnaire responses, Pangang reported factors of 
production for two companies which it identified as producers of the 
subject merchandise. After examining the record regarding the 
production process for ferrovanadium, we have preliminarily determined 
that one of the companies which Pangang identified as a producer of the 
subject merchandise in fact produces an input used in the production of 
subject merchandise, rather than the subject merchandise. Therefore, we 
have not relied upon the factors of production reported for this 
company. Rather, we have valued the input obtained from this company 
using South African surrogate values, and in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production 
utilized by the producer of the ferrovanadium during the POI.
    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. See section 
773(c) of the Act. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit 
quantities by publicly available surrogate values from South Africa.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the surrogate values. For those 
values not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to 
account for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. As 
appropriate, we included freight costs in input prices to make them 
delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the 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).
    We valued material inputs and packing materials (including vanadium 
slag, limestone, sulfuric acid, ammonium sulfuric acid, calcium 
chloride, soda, aluminum, inferior iron, paper bags, wooden pallets, 
wooden boxes, iron drums and plastic woven bags) using values from the 
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, from 2000 and 2001 
South African imports and exports statistics reported in the United 
Nations Commodity Trade Statistics and the World Trade Atlas Import and 
Export Statistics. In accordance with the Department's practice, we 
used export values to calculate NV when import values for like products 
were not
    available. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 69503, 
(December 13, 1999).
    We valued coke oven gas based on the value of natural gas published 
in the Energy Prices and Taxes quarterly statistics, III Quarter, 2001. 
Specifically, we calculated the value for coke oven gas by multiplying 
the value for natural gas by the ratio of the BTU equivalent of coke 
oven gas to the BTU equivalent of natural gas. We valued blast furnace 
gas based on the value of natural gas published in the Energy Prices 
and Taxes quarterly statistics, III Quarter, 2001. Specifically, we 
calculated the value for blast furnace gas by multiplying the value for 
natural gas by the ratio of the BTU equivalent of blast furnace gas to 
the BTU equivalent of natural gas.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    We valued electricity using the published prices for industrial 
electricity obtained from the South African Statistics.
    To value truck freight rates, we used price quotes received from 
Freight Tainer, a South African transportation company. We valued rail 
rates using the surrogate value from South Africa employed in pure 
magnesium from the Russian Federation. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From 
the Russian Federation, 66 FR 21319 (April 30, 2001). See also the 
Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum.
    We based our calculation of selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, overhead, and profit on the 2001 financial statement 
of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Limited, a South African 
producer of the subject merchandise.
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary 
determination, see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum.
Verification
    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
    We are directing the U.S. Customs Service (Customs Service) to 
suspend liquidation of all entries of ferrovanadium from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. In 
addition, we are instructing the Customs Service to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount 
by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These 
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.
    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer/exporter          Weighted-Average Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangang Group International Economic                               73.29
 & Trading Corporation..............
PRC-Wide Rate.......................                               78.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 45093]]

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Pangang.
Disclosure
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
the calculations performed in the preliminary determination to 
interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice.
ITC Notification
    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination 
whether imports of ferrovanadium from the PRC are materially injuring, 
or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production for purposes of the final determination within 40 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination. Case briefs 
or other written comments must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration no later than one week after issuance of the 
verification report. Rebuttal briefs, whose content is limited to the 
issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after 
the deadline for the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities 
used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should 
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we 
request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the 
Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on 
diskette.
    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 or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days 
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 
48 hours before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing 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. 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, oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The 
Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days 
after this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
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. 02-16901 Filed 7-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S