[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 438-442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-160]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-821-807]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of the Final Determination: Ferrovanadium and 
Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian Federation

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Louis Apple, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1769, respectively.

Preliminary Determination:

    We preliminarily determine that imports of ferrovanadium and 
nitrided vanadium from the Russian Federation (Russia) are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension 
of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since initiation of the investigation on June 20, 1994 (59 FR 
32952, June 27, 1994), the following events have occurred.
    On July 15, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary 
determination that there was a reasonable indication that an industry 
in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports of ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium 
from Russia.
    On July 29, 1994, the Russian Ministry for Foreign Economic 
Relations (MINFER) advised us that the only producers of the subject 
merchandise are SC Vanadium Tulachermet (Tulachermet) and Chusavoy 
Metallurgical Works (Chusavoy).
    On August 10, 1994, we sent the antidumping questionnaire to the 
Embassy of the Russian Federation, as well as to Tulachermet and 
Chusavoy. (The antidumping questionnaire was divided into three 
sections: section A requesting general information on each company; 
section C requesting information on, and a listing of, U.S. sales made 
during the period of investigation (POI); and, section D requesting 
information on the production process, including specific amounts of 
each input used in manufacturing ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium). 
We requested the Embassy's assistance in forwarding the questionnaire 
to all Russian exporters and producers of ferrovanadium and nitrided 
vanadium and submitting complete questionnaire responses on their 
behalf.
    In September, we received responses to Section A of the 
questionnaire from Tulachermet, Chusavoy, and Odermet Limited 
(Odermet), an exporter of the subject merchandise headquartered in the 
United Kingdom. Based on information in these responses, as well as 
additional information submitted by the petitioner, we issued the 
antidumping questionnaire (limited to Sections A and C) during 
September, October, and November to trading companies operating in 
various European countries and the Russian Federation, which may have 
exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
    In response to these questionnaires, Gesellschaft fhr 
Elektrometallurgie m.b.H. (GfE)(a German subsidiary of Metallurg, Inc. 
and related party to Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation 
(Shieldalloy)), submitted a Section A response in October 1994. Five 
trading companies--AIOC, Axel Johnson AB (which is related to AIOC), 
VVO Tiajpromexport, VO Promsyrioimport, and Technoinvest--indicated 
that they did not sell the subject merchandise during the POI. Three 
companies did not respond to the questionnaire: Marc Rich Co., AG, 
Wogan Resources, Ltd., and one Russian trading company that cannot be 
named in this notice because its identity is deemed business 
proprietary information.
    Two other questionnaires sent to Russian trading companies were 
returned to us as undeliverable. Finally, we received an unsolicited 
Section A response from Galt Alloys, Inc.(Galt), an exporter of the 
subject merchandise, in November 1994.
    On September 28, 1994, the Department postponed its preliminary 
determination until December 27, 1994 (59 FR 50559, October 4, 1994).
    In October and November, 1994, the Department received responses to 
questionnaire section C from Galt, GfE, Odermet, and Tulachermet, and 
to questionnaire section D from Chusavoy and Tulachermet. In addition, 
Odermet claimed that it should be considered a reseller of 
ferrovanadium under section 773(f) of the Act, and that its foreign 
market value should be determined on the basis of its sales to Germany, 
the intermediate country in which the subject merchandise was sold. 
Accordingly, Odermet also submitted a questionnaire response for its 
sales to Germany.
    During October and November 1994, the Department requested 
clarifications of the submitted responses from Chusavoy, Galt, GfE, 
Odermet, and Tulachermet. In addition, the Department presented to GfE 
section E-2 of the antidumping questionnaire, regarding information on 
further manufacturing performed in the United States, because GfE 
reported that all of its sales in the U.S. were further manufactured by 
its related affiliate, Shieldalloy, prior to sale to unrelated parties 
in the United States. Responses to these supplemental information 
requests were received during November and December. Additional 
information concerning GfE's Section E-2 was requested and received in 
December 1994.
    In November 1994, the Department provided interested parties with 
the opportunity to submit publicly-available, published information for 
the Department to consider when valuing the factor inputs (see 
``Foreign Market Value'' section below). Responses to this request were 
submitted during December 1994.
    On December 19, 1994, the Department received a letter from Marc 
Rich Co. A.G., (now known as Glencore International A.G. (Glencore)) 
requesting that the Department provide it with a second questionnaire 
and [[Page 439]] analyze its sales for this proceeding. The Department 
rejected Glencore's request as untimely on December 27, 1994.
    On December 20, 1994, Tulachermet requested that it be granted a 
separate rate in this determination. This request is discussed below 
under ``Suspension of Liquidation''.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on December 19, 1994, 
Galt, Tulachermet, and Odermet, exporters accounting for a significant 
portion of the merchandise in this proceeding, requested that, in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone the final determination to 135 
days after the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary 
determination. The Department finds no compelling reason to deny these 
requests and is, accordingly, postponing the final determination until 
the 135th day after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.20 (b).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are ferrovanadium and 
nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, form or size, unless 
expressly excluded from the scope of this investigation. Ferrovanadium 
includes alloys containing ferrovanadium as the predominant element by 
weight (i.e., more weight than any other element, except iron in some 
instances) and at least 4 percent by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium 
includes compounds containing vanadium as the predominant element, by 
weight, and at least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from 
the scope of this investigation are the vanadium additives other than 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum master 
alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap, vanadium-bearing 
raw materials, such as slag, boiler residues and fly ash, and vanadium 
oxides.
    The products subject to these investigations are currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7202.92.00, 7202.99.5040, 8112.40.3000, 
and 8112.40.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) in this proceeding is December 1, 
1993, through May 31, 1994.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, Russia has been treated as a 
nonmarket economy country (NME), for the purposes of determining 
foreign market value, in all past antidumping investigations (see, 
e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 55427 
(November 7, 1994) (Magnesium from Russia)). No information has been 
provided in this proceeding that would lead us to change this 
designation. Therefore, in accordance with section 771(18)(c) of the 
Act, we have treated Russia as an NME for purposes of this 
investigation.

Surrogate Country

    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we must, to the 
extent possible, value the factors of production in one or more market 
economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME economy country, and (2) are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. Initially, the Department 
identified five countries as possible surrogates: Algeria, Poland, 
Thailand, Turkey and Tunisia (see July 29, 1994, Memorandum from the 
Office of Policy to Gary Taverman). We subsequently determined, after a 
further review of economic and production data, that South Africa is 
also at a level of economic development comparable to Russia. 
Therefore, given its economic comparability to Russia, and the fact 
that it is a significant producer of merchandise identical to that 
being investigated, (see December 22, 1994, Memorandum from Office of 
Policy to Gary Taverman), we have based FMV on the appropriate factors 
of production as valued in South Africa, except for those factors for 
which we were unable to obtain a suitable value from South Africa. We 
have obtained and relied upon published, publicly-available 
information, wherever possible. For a few factors, we were unable to 
find appropriate South African values. In these instances, as discussed 
below in the ``FMV'' section of this notice, we used values from 
publicly-available, published information pertaining to Turkey, or 
values pertaining to Brazil and Germany as included in the petition.

Fair Value Comparisons

A. Participating Respondents
    To determine whether sales to the United States of ferrovanadium 
and nitrided vanadium by Galt, GfE, Odermet and Tulachermet, were made 
at less than fair value, we compared the United States price (USP) to 
the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice.
B. Non-participating Respondents
    All exporters to which a questionnaire was issued are considered 
mandatory respondents in this proceeding. We consider those mandatory 
respondents that did not respond to the questionnaire to be 
uncooperative respondents, and we have based the less-than-fair-value 
margin for those companies on the best information available (BIA) in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. For this preliminary 
determination, we consider Marc Rich Co. and Wogan Resources to be 
uncooperative respondents because they did not provide timely responses 
to our questionnaire. Accordingly, we have based these companies' LTFV 
margins on an uncooperative BIA rate.
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower 
margins to those respondents that cooperated in an investigation and 
margins based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents which 
did not cooperate in an investigation. As outlined in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 58 
FR 37083 (July 9, 1993), when a company refuses to provide the 
information requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly 
impedes the Department's investigation, it is appropriate for the 
Department to assign to that company the higher of (a) the highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation. Here, we are assigning as BIA to 
these uncooperative exporters a margin of 108.00 percent for 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium. This margin represents the highest 
margin in the petition, as recalculated by the Department at 
initiation.
C. All Other Companies
    We are basing the LTFV margins for all other companies, including 
those companies which reported that they did not sell the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI, on a simple average of 
the rates assigned the mandatory respondents, and the rates based on 
BIA. Given our concern about the role that Shieldalloy may play as both 
petitioner and as respondent with its related affiliate, GfE, we have 
[[Page 440]] excluded GfE's rate from the calculation of the ``all 
others'' rate. A simple average, rather than a weighted-average, is 
applied because we do not have sufficient data to weight the individual 
margins.

United States Price

    We based United States Price (USP) for Odermet and Tulachermet on 
purchase price (PP), in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the exporters to 
unrelated parties in the United States prior to importation and because 
the exporters sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by other 
circumstances. We calculated purchase price based on packed, CIF, FOB, 
or ex-factory prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States, and 
made the following deductions (where appropriate): for Odermet, foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight 
containerization, and marine insurance; for Tulachermet, foreign inland 
freight and foreign brokerage and handling.
    We based USP for Galt and GfE on ESP, in accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to the 
first unrelated purchaser after importation into the United States. We 
calculated ESP based on packed delivered prices, where appropriate. For 
Galt, we made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign brokerage and 
handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling. For GfE, we made deductions 
for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, 
inland freight, and inland insurance.
    In addition, for Galt, GfE, and Tulachermet, we deducted foreign 
inland freight between the factory and the reported intermediate 
destination (e.g., Rotterdam) using reported distances and transport 
modes to calculate an appropriate surrogate factory-to-border or port 
freight amount on the basis of surrogate freight rates in South Africa. 
In addition, for certain sales made by Tulachermet, as well as certain 
shipments by GfE, we deducted port loading charges incurred in Russia 
based on port charges in South Africa. For all other movement expenses, 
we deducted the reported expenses as these services were reported to 
have been provided by market economy suppliers and paid in freely 
convertible market economy currencies. We made no deduction from USP to 
account for either export taxes paid by Russian companies to the 
Russian government or commissions paid by Russian companies to other 
Russian companies because (a) the actual amounts paid are an internal 
expense within an NME country, and (b) there is no quantifiable good or 
service factor for which a surrogate value can be determined.
    Further, for GfE, we made additional deductions, where appropriate, 
for all value added to the ESP sales of the subject merchandise in the 
United States, pursuant to section 772(e)(3) of the Act. The value 
added consists of the costs associated with the production of the 
further manufactured products, other than the costs associated with the 
imported merchandise, and a proportional amount of any profit related 
to the further manufacture. Profit was calculated by deducting from the 
sales price of the finished product the total cost of production of the 
imported product, based on the factors of production methodology 
described below, as well as all applicable movement charges. The total 
profit was then allocated proportionately to all components of cost. 
Only the profit attributable to the value added was deducted. GfE did 
not report the value added for certain sales. As BIA, we applied the 
highest amount of value added reported for all other U.S. sales.

Foreign Market Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, except for sales by 
Odermet, we calculated FMV for ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium 
based on a valuation of factors of production reported by the factories 
in Russia which produced the subject merchandise. The factors used to 
produce ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium include materials, labor, 
and energy. To calculate FMV, the reported quantities were multiplied 
by the appropriate surrogate values for the different inputs. (For a 
discussion of the complete analysis of surrogate values, see our 
Valuation Memorandum dated December 27, 1994.) We then added amounts 
for general expenses and profit, the cost of containers and coverings, 
and other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition 
packed and ready for shipment to the United States.
    To value the raw materials, we used publicly available information 
for South Africa from South Africa's Mineral Industry 1993/94 and 
Southern African Customs Union Trade Statistics (SACU Trade 
Statistics).
    To value vanadium slag, we used a price quote for South African 
vanadium slag submitted in the petition because we were unable to 
determine if the prices available from public sources were for 
unprocessed or processed material. Among the surrogate values we had 
obtained, the price quote in the petition was for the material most 
similar to that used by the Russian producers.
    To value sulfuric acid, we determined that the value derived from 
SACU Trade Statistics was inconsistent with all other values obtained 
for this factor. Therefore, we valued this factor based on the unit 
value derived from the United Nations Trade Commodity Statistics for 
Turkey. We used a Turkish value because Turkey is among those countries 
considered economically comparable to Russia, as noted above.
    To value nitrogen, we used the Brazilian price quote from the 
petition, as this value was the only one available to us, and Brazil 
has been determined to be among those countries within a range of 
economic comparability to Russia in past cases (see, e.g., Magnesium 
from Russia).
    To value natural gas, we used the Brazilian price included in the 
petition because we were unable to locate a suitable surrogate value in 
cubic meters to apply to the factor data reported in cubic meters. The 
Brazilian value was accepted for the same reasons described for 
nitrogen.
    To value electricity, we used a rate published by the South African 
electrical company, ESKOM, in their 1993 annual report.
    To value hourly labor rates in South Africa, we used data from 
South African Central Statistics Service News Release for labor rates 
in the metal manufacturing sector. As this information did not 
distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor, we applied a single 
labor value to all reported labor factors.
    We were unable to obtain an appropriate factory overhead percentage 
based on South African experience. Accordingly, for purposes of this 
determination, we calculated factory overhead based on information in 
the petition concerning the experience of a German producer of the 
subject merchandise that is related to the petitioner. We used this 
information because the German producer's production process is similar 
to the Russian manufacturers', and we had no other information 
available.
    For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used 
the statutory minimum (section 773(e)(i)(B)(i)) of ten percent of 
material, labor, energy, and factory overhead because we could not 
obtain information based on any surrogate country's experience. For 
profit, we used the statutory minimum of eight percent of materials, 
labor, factory [[Page 441]] overhead, and SG&A expenses for the same 
reason.
    To value packing materials, we used information from SACU Trade 
Statistics. We added surrogate freight costs from South Africa for the 
delivery of inputs to the factories producing ferrovanadium and 
nitrided vanadium, except where this cost was already included in the 
surrogate value.
    Tulachermet failed to report its labor factors of production. As 
BIA, we used the labor factors in the petition. In addition, Chusavoy 
and Tulachermet failed to report the distances between factory and 
suppliers of certain inputs. As BIA, we applied the farthest distance 
from all other suppliers in order to calculate the freight cost for 
those inputs.

FMV for Sales by Odermet

    In accordance with Section 773(f) of the Act, Odermet claims that 
its U.S. sales should be compared to its sales to a third country 
because: (1) it is a reseller of the subject merchandise; (2) the 
Russian manufacturer does not know at the time of the sale to Odermet 
the country to which Odermet intends to export the merchandise; (3) the 
merchandise is exported by Odermet to a country other than the United 
States; (4) the merchandise enters the commerce of an intermediate 
country (Germany) but is not substantially transformed there; and (5) 
the merchandise is subsequently exported to the United States. Based on 
the information on the record to date, we have determined that, for 
purposes of the preliminary determination, Odermet has met the 
statutory criteria to consider basing its FMV on its sales to the 
intermediate country, Germany. We based its FMV on the methodology 
described below.

Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, whenever the 
Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in 
the home market or third country have been made at prices less than the 
cost of production, it shall determine whether such sales were made at 
less than the cost of production. Because the price from the Russian 
producer to Odermet, the third country reseller, is not based on 
market-determined factors, we have reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that Odermet's sales in Germany also are not based on market-
determined factors and are at prices less than the cost of producing 
the merchandise (see Import Administration Policy Bulletin 94-1, dated 
March 25, 1994).
A. Calculation of COP
    We calculated COP based on the factors of production for materials, 
labor, energy, factory overhead, SG&A, and packing reported by 
Odermet's supplier, Tulachermet, and valued in a surrogate country as 
described above.
B. Test of Third Country Sale Prices
    After calculating COP, we tested whether third country sales of the 
subject merchandise were at prices below COP.
    We compared COP to reported prices that were net of movement 
charges. If over 90 percent of a respondent's sales were at prices 
above the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales because we 
determined that the respondent's below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities. If between ten and 90 percent of a respondent's 
sales were at prices above the COP, we discarded only the below-cost 
sales if made over an extended period of time. Where we found that more 
than 90 percent of respondent's sales were at prices below the COP over 
an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales and calculated FMV 
based on the factors of production methodology described above.
    In order to determine whether below-cost sales were made over an 
extended period of time, we performed the following analysis: (1) if a 
respondent sold a product in only one or two months of the POI and 
there were sales in those months below the COP, or (2) if a respondent 
sold a product during three months or more of the POI and there were 
sales below the COP during three or more of those months, then below-
cost sales were considered to have been made over an extended period of 
time.
C. Results of COP Test
    We found that more than 90 percent of third country sales were at 
below-COP prices over an extended period of time. We have no 
information indicating whether the below cost sales were at prices that 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time 
in the normal course of trade. Accordingly, we based FMV for all U.S. 
sales on the factors of production methodology.
Currency Conversion
    We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank, or at the rates published by the International Monetary 
Fund in International Financial Statistics.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from the Russian Federation 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Customs 
Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 
estimated amount by which the FMV exceeds the USP as shown below. These 
suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until 
further notice.
    Consistent with our practice in investigations involving imports 
from NME countries, we calculated a single rate applicable to all 
exporters in the Russian Federation who have not established 
eligibility for a separate rate. Tulachermet accounts for all exports 
by known Russian exporters during the POI. While we have received 
information on four Russian customers that purchased the subject 
merchandise, we have no information, at this time, indicating that any 
of them are exporters. Accordingly, the only rate calculated for a 
Russian exporter is the Tulachermet rate. Because Tulachermet is the 
only identified Russian exporter, there is no need to address 
Tulachermet's separate rate request at this time.
    The estimated dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-  
             Manufacturer/producer/exporter               average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All exporters located in Russia including SC Vanadium-                  
 Tulachermet............................................          56.15%
Galt Alloys, Inc........................................          40.46%
Gesellschaft fur Elektrometallurgie m.b.H./Shieldalloy                  
 Metallurgical Corporation/Metallurg, Inc...............          49.18%
Marc Rich Co., AG/Glencore International AG.............         108.00%
Odermet, Ltd............................................         28.25% 
[[Page 442]]                                                            
                                                                        
Wogan Resources, Ltd....................................         108.00%
All Others not located in Russia........................          68.17%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine 45 days after our final determination whether 
these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, 
the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than March 27, 1995, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 3, 1995. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on April 
5, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1851, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20230. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by the 135th 
day after the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

    Dated: December 27, 1994.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-160 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DO-P