[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62008-62013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-818]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions From the Russian Federation

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Tom Futtner, 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-
0651, and (202) 482-3814, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (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 imports of urea ammonium nitrate 
solutions (UANS) from the Russian Federation (Russia) are being sold, 
or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice.

Case History

    On May 9, 2002, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations to determine whether imports of UANS from Lithuania, 
Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are being, or are likely to be, sold in 
the United States at LTFV. See Initiation of Antidumping 
Investigations: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Belarus, 
Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 67 FR 35492 (May 20, 
2002) (Initiation Notice).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in this investigation is the Nitrogen 
Solutions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner). Its members consist 
of CF Industries, Inc., Mississippi Chemical Corporation, and Terra 
Industries, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 4, 2002, the International Trade Commission (ITC) 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports of UANS from Belarus, Russia and 
Ukraine. See Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solution from Belarus, Lithuania, 
the Russian Federation and Ukraine, 67 FR 39439 (June 7, 2002).
    During May 2002, the Department provided participating parties with 
an opportunity to comment on scope and the product characteristics of 
subject merchandise. No parties submitted comments.
    On May 22, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire \2\ to the Embassy of the Russia in Washington DC, and 
the company with the most imports during the period of investigation 
(POI), according to data on

[[Page 62009]]

the record, JSC Nevinnomysskij Azot (Nevinka). The Department requested 
that the Embassy of Russia send the questionnaire to all companies that 
manufactured and exported UANS to the United States, as well as all 
manufacturers that produced UANS for companies engaged in exporting 
subject merchandise to the United States, and all companies that 
exported UANS to the United States, during the POI. Although the 
Department provided all Russian exporters of UANS with the opportunity 
to respond to its questionnaire by providing it to the Embassy of 
Russia, only Nevinka responded to the Department's questionnaire. The 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Nevinka, 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 
nonmarket economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the factors 
of production of the merchandise sold in or to the United States 
under investigation. Section E requests information on further 
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., April, 2002). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is all 
mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal 
solution, regardless of nitrogen content by weight, and regardless of 
the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibitors. The 
merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3102.80.00.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs Service (the Customs Service) purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated Russia as a nonmarket economy (NME) 
country in previous antidumping investigations (e.g., see Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel 
Beams From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 35490 (May 20, 2002) Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347, (September 27, 
2001), and the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 
From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510 (February 4, 2000)). In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked. 
On June 6, 2002, the Department revoked Russia's NME status effective 
April 1, 2002. Because the POI for this investigation precedes the 
effective date of the market economy determination, this preliminary 
determination is based on information contained in the nonmarket 
economy questionnaire responses submitted by the respondent. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department will continue 
to treat Russia as an NME country for the purposes of this 
investigation.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an 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 (FOP), valued in 
a comparable market economy that is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. The sources of individual FOP prices are 
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.

Separate Rates

    In an 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 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). Nevinka \3\ 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 Nevinka is eligible for 
a separate rate as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Both Nevinka and an affiliated reseller participated in the 
sales process during the POI. Because they are affiliated, we are 
analyzing the separate rates information as applicable to both 
Nevinka and the affiliated reseller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
processes 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, 22587 (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, 59 FR 22587, and the Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 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.
    Nevinka has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate the absence of de jure control, including Nevinka's 
business licenses and company registration. Other than limiting 
Nevinka's operations to the activities referenced in the license, we 
noted no restrictive stipulations associated with the licenses. 
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

[[Page 62010]]

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 
the disposition of profits or financing of losses.
    With regard to the issue of de facto control, Nevinka has reported 
the following: (1) There is no government participation in setting 
export prices; (2) its managers have authority to negotiate sales 
contracts; (3) the government does not participate in management 
selection, and (4) there are no restrictions on the use of its export 
revenue. Furthermore, Nevinka is responsible for financing its own 
losses. Although Nevinka is obligated by Russian law to convert a 
certain percentage of foreign currency receipts into rubles, the 
Department has not considered such foreign exchange requirements to 
constitute de facto control. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine, 66 FR 13286, 
13289 (March 5, 2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales At Less 
Than Fair Value: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate From 
Ukraine, 66 FR 38632, 38633 (July 25, 2001). Additionally, Nevinka's 
questionnaire response does not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of Nevinka'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 Nevinka's export functions. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that the respondent has met the criteria for the application 
of a separate rate.
    For further discussion of our preliminary separate rates 
determination, see the Separate Rates Analysis for the Preliminary 
Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Urea Ammonium Nitrate 
Solutions from the Russian Federation, dated concurrently with this 
notice, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.

The Russia-Wide Rate

    In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption 
that all exporters or producers 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 Russian exporters of UANS with the opportunity 
to respond to its questionnaire, only Nevinka provided a response. 
However, our review of U.S. import statistics reveals that there are 
other Russian companies, in addition to Nevinka, that exported UANS 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 Russian government, and 
we are applying adverse facts available to determine the single 
antidumping duty rate, the Russia-wide rate, applicable to all other 
Russian 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 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.'' Pursuant to section 782(e) of the 
Act, the Department shall not decline to consider information that is 
submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the 
determination, even if that information does not meet all the 
applicable requirements established by the Department, if all of the 
following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be 
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve 
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the 
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences 
may be used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. In this case, except for Nevinka, all Russian producers/
exporters of subject merchandise that exported to the United States 
during the POI failed to act to the best of their ability by not 
providing a response to the Department's questionnaire. Thus, the 
Department has determined that, in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. It is the 
Department's practice to assign to non-cooperative respondents the 
higher of the highest petition margin, adjusted as appropriate, or the 
highest margin calculated for any respondent in the proceeding (see, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Japan, 63 FR 40434 (July 29, 1998)). In 
this case, the highest margin on record is 331.4 percent, the rate from 
the petition as published in the Initiation Notice.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' such as the petition, the Department shall, 
to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316 (1994) (SAA), states that ``corroborate'' means to determine 
that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870.
    In order to determine the probative value of the information used 
to calculate the Russian-wide rate, we examined evidence supporting the 
calculations in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the 
export price (EP) and NV calculations on which the petition margin 
calculations were based. The petitioner's methodology for calculating 
EP and NV is discussed in the Initiation Notice. In the petition, EP 
was based average unit values (AUVs) of imports of subject merchandise 
during the POI based on official U.S. government import statistics. We 
recalculated the EP to reflect AUVs in the full POI. Therefore, we 
consider this information corroborated. To corroborate the

[[Page 62011]]

petitioner's NV calculations, we compared the factor consumption rates 
reported in the petition to the factor consumption rates for these 
inputs reported by Nevinka, the only responding company in this 
investigation. Because these were significantly different, we 
substituted Nevinka's consumption rates for those in the petition. 
Regarding the factor values, because the Department has preliminarily 
determined to use a different surrogate country than was used in the 
petition, we have substituted the factor values developed for this 
preliminary determination for those in the petition. In instances where 
a factor value was reported in the petition for which we did not 
develop a surrogate value, we continued to use the value in the 
petition.
    As a result of these changes, we found that the recalculated 
petition margin, 233.85 percent, is the highest margin on the record of 
this case. We have corroborated any secondary information to the extent 
practicable. To the extent this margin is a recalculated margin based 
on current information from the investigation, it does not represent 
secondary information, and, thus, does not need to be corroborated. 
Thus, the Department has preliminarily determined the Russian-wide rate 
to be 233.85 percent. For the final determination, the Department will 
consider all margins on the record at that time for the purpose of 
determining the most appropriate margin to be used as adverse facts 
available. See the memorandum on Corroboration of Secondary Information 
of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Urea Ammonium Nitrate 
Solutions from the Russian Federation (Russia), dated September 26, 
2002, on file CRU located in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
building.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether Nevinka's sales of UANS 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 Nevinka reported that it and an affiliated reseller participate 
in the sales process to sell subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. 
customers prior to importation and because constructed export price 
(CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted.
    We calculated EP based on the 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. Where foreign inland freight was 
provided by NME companies we used surrogate values from Egypt to value 
these expenses (see the Surrogate Country Values Used for the 
Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Urea-Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation (Surrogate 
Value Memo), dated September 26, 2002, on file in the CRU).

Date of Sale

    As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use 
the respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date 
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer 
establishes the essential terms of sale. Although ``the Department 
prefers to use invoice date as the date of sale, we are mindful that 
this preference does not require the use of invoice date if the facts 
of a case indicate a different date better reflects the time at which 
the material terms of sale were established.'' See Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998).
    For the first half of the POI, Nevinka reported the contract 
addenda date as the date of sale because, according to Nevinka, it is 
the date when all the essential terms of sales were established. For 
these sales, the Department is using the contract addenda date as the 
date of sale. During the second half of the POI, Nevinka revised its 
selling methods. As a result of this change, Nevinka reported the date 
of shipment as the date of sale.
    We have generally accepted Nevinka's date of sale methodology. 
However, for sales concluded in the first half of the POI but carried 
out in the second half, we used Nevinka's shipment date as date of 
sale, rather than the contract addenda date to ensure consistency in 
the treatment of transactions with this fact pattern. See Calculation 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian 
Federation, dated September 26, 2002.

Billing Adjustments

    For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the Department 
has not adjusted Nevinka's price for reported billing adjustments 
because Nevinka has not substantiated its claim for these adjustments. 
Although Nevinka provided a narrative description of the process 
involved in calculating the billing adjustments, it failed to place 
documentation on the record substantiating this claim. According to 19 
CFR 351.401(b), ``the interested party that is in possession of the 
relevant information has the burden of establishing to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary the amount and nature of a particular adjustment.'' 
The Department will examine this issue at verification.

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 Russia in terms of per capita Gross National Product (GNP) and the 
national distribution of labor. Those countries are Columbia, Egypt, 
the Philippines, Thailand, and Tunisia (see the memorandum from Jeffrey 
May to Holly Kuga dated February 28, 2002 on file in the CRU). As noted 
in the memorandum on Selection of Surrogate Country: Preliminary 
Determination: Antidumping Investigation on Urea Ammonium Nitrate 
Solutions from the Russian Federation (September 26, 2002) on file in 
the CRU, Egypt is economically comparable to Russia. Egypt is also a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. Moreover, there is 
sufficient publicly available information on Egyptian values. 
Accordingly, we have preliminarily calculated NV using publicly 
available information from Egypt to value Nevinka's factors of 
production, except where noted below.

2. Factors of Production

    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, including 
depreciation. See section 773(c) of the Act. To calculate NV, we

[[Page 62012]]

multiplied the reported per-unit quantities for these factors by 
publicly available surrogate values.
    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 input 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 (including sodium 3-polyphosphate, 
caustic sodium, aluminum sulphate, polyacrylamide, quicklime, liquid 
chlorine, anthracite coal, hydrozinehydrate, sulfuric acid, and sodium 
bichromate) using values from the appropriate Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) item number, from 1999 Egyptian import statistics 
reported in the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics (UNCTS), 
adjusted for inflation.
    For the material input, anti-foam Lapron, we used India as the 
surrogate country, since no surrogate value information has been placed 
on the record or has otherwise been identified for Egypt or any other 
country on the Department's surrogate country list. Therefore, we have 
used April 2001--December 2001 import data from the appropriate HTS 
item number as reported in the December 2001 annual volume of the 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports.
    For one material input, corrosion inhibitor, Nevinka reported that 
it purchased this item from a market economy supplier. Therefore, we 
used the amount that Nevinka reported it paid this supplier to value 
this input.
    In its August 16, 2002, submission, Nevinka calculated a natural 
gas value of $28.47 per 1000m3 using an Egyptian government price 
decree for natural gas to consumers, including industrial consumers 
(see Nevinka's August 1, 2002, submission, Exhibit 10, for the Egyptian 
government decree). The petitioner reports in its September 4, 2002, 
submission that the Egyptian government purchased the gas from natural 
gas producers at $1.50 and $2.65 per Mmbtu (or approximately $54 to $96 
per 1000m3) based on the price of crude oil, as of July 2001.
    Publicly available information indicates that the Egyptian 
government has agreed to pay market prices for natural gas from private 
companies located in Egypt. Since the price at which the Egyptian 
government buys natural gas from gas producers appears to be at market 
prices, we have determined that the appropriate surrogate value for 
this factor is the price paid to the gas producers. This price 
accurately reflects the true market value of natural gas. Publicly 
available information indicates that predominate the price paid by the 
Egyptian government for natural gas was approximately $2.65 per Mmbtu 
during the POI. Therefore, we valued natural gas using information 
contemporaneous to the POI from an article dated July 18, 2002 
published at www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=3846 and we are 
applying $2.65 per Mmbtu (or $93.50 per 1000m3, adjusted for gross 
calorific value) as the surrogate value for natural gas in this case.
    For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the 
Russian regression-based wage rate at the Import Administration's home 
page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised 
in September 2002 (see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of the 
wage rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the 2001 Year 
Book of Labour Statistics, International Labor Organization (Geneva: 
2001), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    We valued electricity using the public prices from the Department's 
Trade Information Center for high consumption industrial consumers, as 
employed in silicomanganese from Kazakstan. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, 67 FR 
15535 (April 2, 2002).
    To value rail rates, we used the surrogate value from Egypt 
employed in titanium sponge from Kazakhstan. See Titanium Sponge from 
the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 48973 (November 24, 1999).
    We based our calculation of selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, overhead, and profit on the financial statements of 
Chemical Industries Company, Egyptian Financial & Industrial Company, 
and El Delta Fertilizers and Chemical Industries, Egyptian producers of 
comparable merchandise.
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary 
determination, see the Surrogate Values Memo.

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 Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise from Russia 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 weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevinka....................................................       138.95
Russia-Wide Rate...........................................       233.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Russia-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Nevinka.

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 UANS from Russia 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

[[Page 62013]]

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 contents are 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, NW., 
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 75 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: September 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-25186 Filed 10-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P