[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53190-53198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26085]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-845, A-570-846]


Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determinations: Brake Drums and Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Michelle A. 
Frederick, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0186, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA).

Preliminary Determinations

    We determine preliminarily that brake drums and brake rotors from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) 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 Act. The estimated margins are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of these investigations (61 FR 14740, April 3, 
1996), the following events have occurred:
    On April 4, 1996, the Department sent a survey to the PRC's 
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) and to the 
China Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export of Machinery & 
Electronics Products (China Chamber) requesting the identification of 
producers and exporters, and information on production and sales of 
brake drums and brake rotors exported to the United States. We received 
a facsimile from the China Chamber identifying three brake drum 
exporters and six brake rotor exporters to the United States on April 
25, 1996.
    On April 29, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) issued affirmative preliminary injury determinations in these 
cases (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-744). The ITC found that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of 
brake drums, and that there is a reasonable indication that an industry 
is materially injured by reason of imports from the PRC of brake 
rotors.
    The Department issued antidumping questionnaires \1\ to the China 
Chamber and MOFTEC, on May 8, 1996, with instructions to forward the 
document to all producers/exporters of brake drums and brake rotors and 
to inform these companies that they must respond by the due dates. We 
also sent courtesy copies of the antidumping duty questionnaire to all 
identified companies. In May, June, and July, 1996, 18 PRC companies 
submitted their section A, C, and D responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The questionnaire is divided into four sections. Section A 
requests general information concerning a company's corporate 
structure and business practices, the merchandise under 
investigation that it sells, and the sales of the merchandise in all 
of its markets. Sections B and C request home market sales listings 
and U.S. sales listings, respectively (section B does not normally 
apply in antidumping proceedings involving the PRC). Section D 
requests information on the factors of production of the subject 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 1996, we postponed both preliminary determinations until 
not later than October 3, 1996 (61 FR 29073, June 7, 1996) because we 
determined these investigations to be extraordinarily complicated 
within the meaning of section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    On June 7, 1996, we received a fax from Zheijiang Asia-Pacific 
Machine & Electric Group Co., stating that it did not export brake 
rotors or brake drums to the United States during the period of these 
investigations.
    On July 15, 1996, the Department requested that interested parties 
provide published information (PI) for valuing the factors of 
production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments 
from the interested parties in August 1996.
    After receiving complete questionnaire responses from the 18 PRC 
companies, we determined that, due to limited resources, we would only 
be able to analyze the responses of the seven largest brake rotor PRC 
exporters and the five largest brake drum PRC exporters to the United 
States (a total of 10 PRC companies, two of which export both brake 
drums and brake rotors). (See Respondent Selection section below.)
    In July and August, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the 10 
selected respondents only. We received responses to these 
questionnaires during August and September 1996. On September 18, 1996, 
less than 20 days before the preliminary determinations, the petitioner 
alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of 
brake drums and brake rotors from the PRC. The Department will make its 
determination as to whether it finds critical circumstances not later 
than 30 days after the date of the petitioner's submission in 
accordance with section 353.16(b)(2)(ii).
    Also, on September 13, the petitioner submitted additional PI which 
we were not able to consider for the preliminary determinations. 
However, we will consider this information for the final 
determinations.
    On September 18, 1996, counsel for Shenyang/Laizhou submitted 
additional comments on PI. We have considered Shenyang/Laizhou's 
submission, and we have rejected the claims made therein for these 
preliminary determinations.
    On September 20, 1996, counsel for Southwest Technical Import & 
Export Corporation (Southwest) submitted revised sales and factors of 
production databases, explaining that the only change to it's previous 
databases was what it had reported as a factor amount for plastic 
tarpaulins. For these preliminary determinations, we have incorporated 
the most recently submitted factor information Southwest reported for 
plastic tarpaulins into our analysis but we have not used the databases 
Southwest most recently

[[Page 53191]]

submitted due to time constraints. We will consider using these 
databases in our final determinations.
    On September 30, 1996, we requested shipment data from the 
respondents in order to examine the petitioner's critical circumstances 
allegation.

Postponement of Final Determinations

    From September 13 through 16, 1996, all participating respondents 
requested that, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, in the 
event of affirmative preliminary determinations in these 
investigations, the Department postpone its final determinations until 
not later than 135 days after the publication of the affirmative 
preliminary determinations in the Federal Register. In accordance with 
19 CFR 353.20(b), because our preliminary determinations are 
affirmative, these respondents account for a significant proportion of 
exports of brake drums and brake rotors, and we are not aware of the 
existence of any compelling reasons for denying the request, we are 
granting respondents' request and are postponing the final 
determinations until 135 days after the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register.

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these two investigations are (1) certain 
brake drums and (2) certain brake rotors.

Brake Drums

    Brake drums are made of gray cast iron, whether finished, 
semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches 
(20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 
20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the 
brake drums limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: 
automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under 
``one ton and a half,'' and light trucks designated as ``one ton and a 
half.''
    Finished brake drums are those that are ready for sale and 
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished drums are 
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and has undergone 
some drilling. Unfinished drums are those which have undergone some 
grinding or turning.
    These brake drums are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the 
casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) which 
produces vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General Motors, 
Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake drums covered in this 
investigation are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in 
the United States. The scope also includes composite brake drums that 
are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise 
meet the above criteria.
    Brake drums are classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Brake Rotors

    Brake rotors are made of gray cast iron, whether finished, 
semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches 
(20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 
20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the 
brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: 
automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under 
``one ton and a half,'' and light trucks designated as ``one ton and a 
half.''
    Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and 
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are 
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and has undergone 
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some 
grinding or turning.
    These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in 
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) which 
produces vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General Motors, 
Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this 
investigation are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in 
the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that 
are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise 
meet the above criteria.
    Brake rotors are classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the 
HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Periods of Investigations

    The periods of these investigations (POI) comprise each exporter's 
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country 
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., 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) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22545 (May 
8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol)). Neither respondents nor petitioners have 
challenged such treatment. Therefore, in accordance with section 
771(18)(C) of the Act, we will continue to treat the PRC as an NME in 
these investigations.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME 
producers' factors of production, valued, to the extent possible, in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the NV section below.

Surrogate Country

    The Department has determined that India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri 
Lanka, Egypt and Indonesia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of overall economic development (see Memorandum from David Mueller to 
Gary Taverman, dated May 21, 1996).
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to 
value the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and 
where appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon PI wherever 
possible. In cases where we have not used Indian data because they 
involved prices considered aberrational, we have used Indonesian import 
prices as surrogate values.

Respondent Selection

    In NME cases, we presume a single rate is applicable to all 
exporters and we attempt to examine the sales of all exporters during 
the POI. We sent a survey to MOFTEC and the China Chamber to determine 
the identity of producers and exporters of brake drums and brake 
rotors. We sent the antidumping questionnaire to MOFTEC and to the 
China Chamber with a list of the names of possible exporters and/or 
producers of the brake rotors and brake drums. We also sent courtesy 
copies to the named exporters and producers. The following PRC 
companies submitted full questionnaire responses in a timely manner:

China North Industries Dalian Corporation
China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corp. and its 
affiliates Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry Corporation and CAPCO USA

[[Page 53192]]

Shenyang Honbase Machinery Corporation, Ltd.
Yantai Import & Export Corporation
China North Industries Guangzhou Corporation
Southwest Technical Import & Export Corporation and its affiliates 
Yangtze Machinery Company and MMB International, Inc.
China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export (Xinjiang) 
Corporation, Ltd.
Qingdao Metals & Machinery Import & Export Corporation
Beijing Xinchangyuan Automobile Fittings Corporation, Ltd.
China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation
Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Corporation, Ltd.
Xianghe Zichen Casting Corporation
Jiuyang Enterprise Corporation
Hebei Metals and Machinery Import & Export Corporation
Yenhere Corporation
Longjing Walking Tractor Works Foreign Trade Import & Export 
Corporation
Jilin Provincial Machinery and Equipment Import & Export 
Corporation, Ltd.
Shanxi Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation.

    Given that we did not have the administrative resources to analyze 
the responses of all participating exporters, we determined that our 
investigations would be limited to the analysis of the sales of the 
seven largest PRC brake rotor exporters and the five largest brake drum 
exporters to the United States. As two PRC companies exported both 
brake drums and brake rotors, this constituted a total of ten 
companies. The identification of the largest exporters of each like 
product was based on the data supplied by those PRC companies which 
submitted a full questionnaire response. (See, Memorandum from the team 
to Barbara R. Stafford for a discussion on selection of respondents 
(Respondent Selection Memorandum), dated July 19, 1996.) For the brake 
drums investigation, we selected (1) China National Machinery Import & 
Export Corporation (CMC); (2) China North Industries Guangzhou 
Corporation (Guangzhou Norinco); (3) Qingdao Metals & Machinery Import 
& Export Corporation (Qingdao); (4) Yantai Import & Export Corporation 
(Yantai); and (5) Beijing Xinchangyuan Automobile Fittings Corporation, 
Ltd. (Xinchangyuan).
    For the brake rotors investigation, we selected (1) China National 
Automotive Industry Import & Export Corp. and its affiliates Shandong 
Laizhou CAPCO Industry Corporation, CAPCO USA (CAIEC/CAPCO); (2) China 
North Industries Dalian Corporation (Dalian Norinco); (3) Shenyang 
Honbase Machinery Corporation., Ltd., (Shenyang); (4) Guangzhou 
Norinco; (5) Southwest; (6) China National Machinery & Equipment Import 
& Export (Xinjiang) Corporation, Ltd., (a.k.a. Xinjiang); and (7) 
Yantai.
    On July 23, 1996, counsel for Shenyang (one of the 10 respondents 
selected by the Department) requested that Laizhou Luyuan Automobile 
Fittings Corporation, Ltd., (Laizhou), also be included in the group of 
selected respondents. Laizhou is, in fact, included among the selected 
respondents because the Department determined that Shenyang and Laizhou 
are affiliated parties within the meaning of section 771(33) of the 
Act, and the two producers were collapsed and treated as one respondent 
in the investigation of brake rotors. (See August 8, 1996, Memorandum 
from the team to Barbara R. Stafford (Affiliated Parties Memorandum.))

Separate Rates

    Each of the selected respondents has requested a separate, company-
specific rate. The following respondents are companies owned by all the 
people: (1) CAIEC/CAPCO; (2) CMC; (3) Dalian Norinco; (4) Guangzhou 
Norinco; (5) Qingdao; (6) Xinjiang; (7)Yantai; and (8) Southwest.
    The ownership structure of the remaining respondents is as follows:
    (1) Shenyang and Laizhou are affiliated parties (hereinafter 
Shenyang/Laizhou). Shenyang is owned entirely by GRI Honbase, a Hong 
Kong company which is U.S. owned. Laizhou is a joint venture between 
GRI Honbase and ``all the people.'' The share in Laizhou owned by ``all 
the people'' is a minority share; and
    (2) Xinchangyuan is a joint venture between a U.S. company and a 
PRC company, Beijing Changyuan Automotive Parts Factory. The PRC 
company is the majority shareholder and is owned by ``all the people.''
    As stated in Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol, ownership of a 
company by all the people does not require the application of a single 
rate. Accordingly, each of these respondents is eligible for 
consideration for a separate rate.
    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) (Sparklers) and 
amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The respondents have placed on the administrative record a number 
of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including laws, 
regulations and provisions enacted by the State Council of the central 
government of the PRC. They have also submitted documents which 
establish that brake drums and brake rotors are not included on the 
list of products that may be subject to central government export 
constraints. In addition, respondents Xinchangyuan and Laizhou each 
submitted the ``Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-
Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures'' (April 13, 1988). The articles of 
this law authorize joint venture companies to make their own 
operational and managerial decisions.
    In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the laws which the 
respondents have submitted in this record and found that they establish 
an absence of de jure control. See 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 
(October 24, 1995); see also Furfuryl Alcohol. We have no new 
information in these proceedings which would cause us to reconsider 
this determination.
    However, as in previous cases, there is some evidence that the PRC 
central government enactments have not been implemented uniformly among 
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See Silicon Carbide 
and Furfuryl Alcohol.) Therefore, the Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

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 management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the

[[Page 53193]]

proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and 
Furfuryl Alcohol).
    CAIEC/CAPCO, CMC, Qingdao, Shenyang/Laizhou, Southwest, 
Xinchangyuan, Xinjiang, and Yantai have asserted the following: (1) 
They establish their own export prices; (2) they negotiate contracts, 
without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) 
they make their own personnel decisions and; (4) they retain the 
proceeds of their export sales, use profits according to their business 
needs and have the authority to sell their assets and to obtain loans. 
In addition, respondents' questionnaire responses indicate that 
company-specific pricing during the POI does not suggest coordination 
among exporters. This information supports a preliminary finding that 
there is a de facto absence of governmental control of the export 
functions of these companies.
    Consequently, we determine preliminarily that these exporters have 
met the criteria for the application of separate rates. We will examine 
this matter further at verification.
    Dalian Norinco and Guangzhou Norinco also claimed separate rates 
and provided documentation in support of their claims. However, we have 
denied these entities separate rates in these preliminary 
determinations for the following reasons.
    On August 19, 1996, the petitioner argued that Dalian Norinco and 
Guangzhou Norinco are not eligible for separate rates. Based on an 
article appearing in Business Week, the petitioner alleged that these 
two companies are still part of NORINCO, which it claims is owned and 
controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Subsequently, the 
Department conducted additional research on this issue. Based on 
additional information and articles found by the Department, and placed 
on the record of these investigations, we have concluded preliminarily 
that Guangzhou Norinco and Dalian Norinco are still branches of the 
national corporation, NORINCO, which is controlled by the PLA. (See 
Concurrence Memorandum.) Therefore, the record does not support a 
preliminary finding of an absence of de facto control of export 
functions by the government. Accordingly, we determine preliminarily 
that Dalian Norinco is ineligible for a separate rate in the 
investigation of brake rotors and that Guangzhou Norinco is ineligible 
for separate rates for the investigations of brake drums and brake 
rotors.

China-Wide Rate

    U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value 
of U.S. imports of brake drums and brake rotors from the PRC is 
substantially greater than the total quantity and value of brake drums 
and brake rotors reported by all PRC companies that submitted responses 
in both the brake drums and brake rotors cases. Given these significant 
discrepancies, we have no choice but to conclude that not all exporters 
of PRC brake drums and brake rotors responded to our questionnaire. 
Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the 
China-Wide rate--to all exporters in the PRC (other than the eight 
named above as receiving separate rates), based on our presumption that 
Dalian Norinco, Guangzhou Norinco, and those respondents who failed to 
constitute a single enterprise, are under common control by the PRC 
government. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 
30, 1996) (Bicycles).
    This China-Wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts 
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; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the 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 * * 
* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, 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 the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition.
    When multiple companies are treated as a single enterprise, the 
enterprise must submit a complete, consolidated response. If it fails 
to do so, the Department may base the margin calculation for the 
enterprise on the facts available. As discussed above, all PRC 
exporters that have not qualified for a separate rate (except those 
uninvestigated respondents that fully cooperated in the investigations) 
have been treated as a single enterprise. Because some exporters of the 
single enterprise failed to respond to the Department's requests for 
information, that single enterprise is considered to be uncooperative. 
Accordingly, consistent with section 776(b)(1) of the Act, we have 
applied in each case, as total facts available, the higher of the 
applicable margin from the petition or the highest rate calculated for 
a respondent in that proceeding. In the present cases, based on our 
comparison of the calculated margins for the other respondents in these 
proceedings to the estimated margins in the petitions, we have 
concluded that the petition is the most appropriate record information 
on which to form the basis for dumping calculations in the brake drums 
investigation. We have concluded that the highest calculated rate among 
the selected respondents in the brake rotors case is the most 
appropriate record information on which to form the basis for dumping 
calculations in the brake rotors investigation. Accordingly, the 
Department has based the margin for brake drums on information in the 
petition and has based the margin for brake rotors on the highest 
calculated margin among the selected brake rotors respondents. In these 
cases, the highest petition rate for brake drums is 105.56 percent. The 
highest calculated margin for brake rotors 64.56 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies 
on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the 
petition is ``secondary information.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA also 
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value. Id. However, where corroboration is not 
practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information.
    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the 
margins in the petition to the extent practible. The petitioners based 
export prices on prices charged by U.S. distributors of brake drums and 
deducted from these prices a distributor mark-up. We compared the 
starting prices used by petitioner to prices derived from U.S. import 
statistics and found that the similarity to the import statistics 
corroborated the starting prices in the petition. See,

[[Page 53194]]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from South Africa, 61 FR 94, 24271 
(May 14, 1996). We also find that the deduction for the distributor 
mark-up is sufficiently documented for purposes of corroboration by 
examining affidavits submitted by industry experts. The normal value 
was based on factors of production employed by the petitioner to 
produce brake drums, and to the extent possible, surrogate factor 
values which were obtained from Indian PI. When analyzing the petition, 
the Department examined and confirmed the accuracy of the normal value 
data as provided in the petition by comparing the values used in the 
petition with values obtained from PI collected in these and previous 
NME investigations.
    Accordingly, we have corroborated, to the extent practicable, the 
data contained in the petition.

Rate for Respondents Not Selected

    As stated above, several PRC companies which submitted full 
questionnaire responses in a timely manner and which claimed 
eligibility for separate rates were not chosen by the Department 
respondents in either investigation. It would be inappropriate to 
assign these fully cooperative respondents a rate based on ``facts 
available,'' that would also apply PRC exporters of brake drums or 
brake rotors who refused to cooperate in these investigations. 
Therefore, we have assigned the cooperative respondents in the brake 
drums case a weighted-average dumping margin based on the calculated 
margins, which were not de minimis, of the selected brake drum 
respondents, and we have assigned the cooperative respondents in the 
brake rotors case a weighted-average dumping margin based on the 
calculated margins, which were not de minimis, of the selected brake 
rotors respondents.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine if the brake drums and brake rotors from the PRC sold 
to the United States by the eight PRC exporters receiving separate 
rates were made at less than fair value, we compared the ``United 
States Price'' (USP) to the NV, as specified in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    We based USP on export price (EP) in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, when the brake drums or brake rotors were sold directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and when constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average export prices (EPs) to the 
factors of production.
    We have determined preliminarily that certain PRC entities and 
certain U.S. entities are affiliated parties within the meaning of 
section 771(33) of the Act:
    (1) As discussed above, GRI Honbase owns a controlling interest in 
Sheyang/Laizhou. GRI Honbase is, in turn, owned by a U.S. party that 
also owns a majority interest in Midwest Air Technologies, Inc.(MAT), 
and MAT Automotive, Inc., the parties in the U.S. which first purchase 
the brake rotors produced by Shenyang/Laizhou. Thus, we determine 
preliminarily that Shenyang/Laizhou, MAT and MAT Automotive are 
affiliated parties.
    (2) Southwest wholly owns MMB International, Inc., the U.S. 
importer. Thus, we determine preliminarily that Southwest and MMB 
International, Inc., are affiliated parties.
    While the merchandise produced by Shenyang/Laizhou and Southwest 
was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer, the terms of all sales made through U.S. affiliates were 
negotiated in the United States by the affiliates. Therefore, we find 
that the responsibilities of the U.S. affiliates go well beyond those 
of ``a processor of sales related documentation'' or a ``communications 
link,'' and have redesignated the sales in question as CEP. (See 
Concurrence Memorandum.)
    Therefore, for all sales of brake rotors made by Shenyang/Laizhou 
and those sales of brake rotors by Southwest made in the United States, 
before or after importation, we have redesignated these sales as CEP 
sales in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. (See Concurrence 
Memorandum.)
    For CAIEC/CAPCO, whose sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
took place after importation into the United States, we based USP on 
CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
CEP the following expenses that related to economic activity in the 
United States: direct selling expenses, including credit expenses, and 
indirect selling expenses. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted an 
amount from CEP for profit by applying the surrogate value profit rate 
for brake drums and brake rotors to the sum of selling expenses 
incurred in the U.S. See Bicycles, 61 FR 19031.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:

1. CAIEC/CAPCO

    We calculated EP and CEP based on packed, FOB Qingdao port or CIF 
U.S. port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as 
appropriate. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for the following services which were provided by market 
economy suppliers: U.S. inland freight and U.S. duty expenses (which 
also included harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees). 
We also deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, an amount 
for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, marine 
insurance and U.S. inland insurance. However, when these movement 
services were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, we valued them 
using Indian rates. In some cases international freight and marine 
insurance were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, and in others 
by market economy suppliers. For the former, the deduction was based on 
Indian surrogate values. For the latter, we deducted the market economy 
value for the services from the starting price. We have also 
recalculated credit expenses using an interest rate that is an average 
of the interest rates of all U.S. dollar fixed and variable loans with 
a maturity of over one month and under one year as reflected in Federal 
Reserve statistics (see Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden (61 FR 15772, 15780) 
(Steel Plate))).

2. CMC

    We calculated EP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the CIF U.S. port price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight 
and foreign brokerage and handling, marine insurance and international 
freight. As all foreign inland freight and handling fees were provided 
by nonmarket economy suppliers and or paid for in a non-market economy 
currency, we valued these services using Indian rates.

3. Qingdao

    We calculated EP based on packed, CNF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the CNF U.S. price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
brokerage & handling and international freight. As all these expenses 
were provided by nonmarket

[[Page 53195]]

economy suppliers, we valued these services using Indian rates.

4. Shenyang/Laizhou

    We calculated CEP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price, where appropriate, for international freight (which 
includes ocean freight and U.S. inland freight), and marine insurance 
(which includes U.S. inland insurance). In some cases international 
freight and marine insurance were provided by nonmarket economy 
suppliers, and in others by market economy suppliers. For the former, 
the deduction was based on Indian surrogate values. For the latter, we 
deducted the market economy value for the services from the starting 
price. We also deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, an 
amount for foreign inland freight. Because these movement services were 
provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, these services were valued 
using Indian rates.
    We have also deducted from CEP credit expenses incurred on behalf 
of U.S. sales. We note that our practice is to calculate a credit 
period from the date that the merchandise is shipped to the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer to the date that payment from that customer 
is received. In CEP cases where the merchandise is shipped to the U.S. 
customer from the inventory of a U.S. affiliate, the credit period 
begins from the point of shipment from U.S. inventory. However, in the 
case of Laizhou/Shenyang, merchandise is shipped to the U.S. customer 
directly from the foreign port. Therefore, we have relied on a credit 
period beginning with the date of the bill of lading at the foreign 
port. Thus, we have recalculated credit expenses and have also used an 
interest rate based on the method used in Steel Plate.

5. Southwest

    We calculated EP and CEP based on packed, CIF customer's warehouse, 
CIF Hong Kong, or CIF U.S. port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States, as appropriate. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for the following: foreign inland freight, 
marine insurance (which includes domestic inland insurance), foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, transloading charges in 
Hong Kong, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. customs brokerage (which 
includes U.S. inland freight). International freight and transloading 
charges were provided for certain transactions by non-market economy 
carriers and for other transactions by market economy carriers. For the 
former, the deduction was based on Indian surrogate values. For the 
latter, we deducted the market economy value for the services from the 
starting price. The foreign inland freight, marine insurance, and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses were valued using Indian rates 
because these services were provided by a nonmarket economy supplier.
    We have also deducted from CEP credit expenses incurred on behalf 
of U.S. sales. As with Shenyang/Laizhou (noted above), Southwest's 
merchandise is shipped to the U.S. customer directly from the factory. 
Southwest reported its credit expenses based on the shipment date from 
the U.S. port. Therefore, we have recalculated credit expenses to 
reflect the date of shipment from the factory and have also used an 
interest rate based on the method used in Steel Plate.

6. Xinjiang

    We calculated EP based on packed, FOB Qingdao port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the FOB Qingdao price for foreign inland freight. As all foreign inland 
freight charges were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, we valued 
this service at an Indian rate.

7. Xinchangyuan

    We calculated EP based on packed, C&F or CIF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the C&F or CIF U.S. price, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight and brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. As all 
foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance 
were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, these services were 
valued using Indian rates. We also deducted ocean freight which was 
provided by market economy suppliers and paid for in market-economy 
currencies.

8. Yantai

    We calculated EP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the CIF U.S. price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling and marine insurance. As all these 
expense were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, these services 
were valued in India. In addition, we deducted international freight 
which was provided by market economy suppliers and paid for in market 
economy currencies.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the factories in the PRC 
which produced brake drums and/or brake rotors for the eight exporters. 
Where an input was sourced from a market economy and paid for in market 
economy currency (i.e., bolts), we used the actual price paid for the 
input to calculate the factors-based NV in accordance with our 
practice. See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 437 F. 3d 1442, 
1443 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (``Lasko''). We valued the remaining factors 
using PI from India where possible. Where appropriate Indian values 
were not available, we used PI from Indonesia.

Factor Valuations

    The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and 
contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value 
material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices. Where we 
were not able to rely on domestic prices, we used import prices to 
value factors. We did not remove from the import data import prices 
that respondents alleged were dumped and/or subsidized because they did 
not demonstrate that inclusion of these values caused depressive 
distortions in the import prices (see Concurrence Memorandum). As 
appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. 
For those values not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for 
inflation using wholesale price indices or, in the case of labor rates, 
consumer price indices, published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics. For a complete analysis of 
surrogate values, see the Factors Calculation Memorandum from the team 
to Barbara R. Stafford, (Factors Memorandum) dated October 3, 1996.
    To value calcium carbonate, we used public information from POI 
issues of the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. For dextrin, copper, 
copper powder, ferromanganese, ferrosilicon of greater than 55% purity, 
other ferrosilicon, and manganese metal, we relied on import prices 
contained in the April through July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly Statistics).
    To value ferrochromium, we used Indian import price data from the 
April through June 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics. To value iron 
scrap, steel scrap, and pig iron, we used domestic prices from public 
information contained in the annual report of Shivaji Works Ltd., an 
Indian producer of brake

[[Page 53196]]

drums, because these prices best represent the cost of those incurred 
by an Indian producer of brake drums and brake rotors.
    To value lead-based rust inhibitor, non-lead-based rust inhibitor, 
shot and angular grit (if used for sand cores), turnings and shavings 
(if used for sand cores), lubrication oil, ball bearing cups, steel 
angles, steel plate, and steel stamp, we used Indian import price data 
from the April through July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics. To value 
parting spray, we used Indian import price data from the April and May 
1995 issues of Monthly Statistics. Shenyang/Laizhou purchased castings 
for rotors from an unaffiliated nonmarket economy supplier. Shenyang/
Laizhou provided the financial statements of two Indian producers, 
Shivaji and Bhagwati, as a source for surrogate values for castings. To 
value this input, we used the cast iron casting price noted in 
Shivaji's financial statement only. Although the other financial 
statement submitted by Shenyang/Laizhou listed a price for castings, 
there was no indication that such castings were used to produce 
merchandise comparable to the merchandise subject to these 
investigations.
    We note that Shenyang/Laizhou claimed that the Indian surrogate 
values for castings purchased by Shenyang in China are significantly 
higher than the production experience of Laizhou, and that the Indian 
values may include products other than brake rotor castings. Based on 
this claim, Shenyang/Laizhou requested that the Department value the 
purchased castings using the factors of production of respondent 
Laizhou. We have rejected respondent's request for this preliminary 
determination. It is the Department's practice to value inputs 
purchased in NME countries using surrogate values for the input, rather 
than to construct a value for the input based on factors of production 
for that input. (See Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair 
Value Coumarin from People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66895, (Comments 
4 and 5) (December 28, 1994)). In the instant case, we are relying on 
Indian castings values (which we note were placed on the record by 
Shenyang/Laizhou themselves), and rejecting Shenyang/Laizhou's proposed 
methodology because the respondent has provided no evidentiary support 
for their claim that the surrogate values may reflect the prices of 
products other than (or substantially different from) brake rotor 
castings, and because the Department is required, under section 
1677b(a)(4) of the Act, to value factors of production in a surrogate 
market economy.
    Regarding lug bolts, we could not obtain a product-specific price 
from India. Therefore, we used Indonesian import data covering January 
through November 1995 from the November 1995 issue of Statistical 
Bulletin (see Concurrence Memorandum and Bicycles). For PRC companies 
which purchased lug bolts from market economy sources and paid in 
market economy currency, we used the data supplied in their 
submissions. To value steel sheet, steel strip, and steel wire rod, we 
relied upon public information from the SAIL publication.
    To value coking coal and wood, we used import prices covering April 
through July 1995 from Monthly Statistics. For liquid petroleum gas we 
used domestic prices from an Indian periodical, Financial Times of 
India. For electricity, we relied upon public information from 
Confederation of Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics 1995 to 
obtain an average price for electricity provided to medium-size 
industries.
    To value adhesive tape, corrugated cartons, corrugated paper, 
fiberboard, labels, nails, steel straps, wood brackets, wood cases and 
boxes, and wood pallets, we relied upon Indian import data from the 
April through July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics.
    Regarding plastic bags and sheets, we utilized Indian import price 
data for polyethylene from the April 1994 through February 1995 issues 
of Monthly Statistics. For plastic tarpaulin, we used the Indian import 
price for other plastic sheets from the April through July 1995 issues 
of Monthly Statistics. For bags and sheets of other plastics, we used 
Indian import price data from the same issues of Monthly Statistics.
    To value labor, we used data from the United Nations' publication 
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS). Information for Indian labor rates 
from Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions Abroad was found to 
represent statutory minimum Indian labor rates and not actual labor 
rates (see Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC, 60 FR 52647 (October 10, 1995) (PVA). 
The original source does not name or document the skill level 
represented by the YLS surrogate value, nor do we have agreement among 
parties regarding use of this labor rate for skilled and unskilled 
labor rate assumptions. Thus, following the method established in PVA 
and in relying on YLS data, we applied a single labor value to all 
reported labor factors, including indirect labor.
    To value truck freight rates, we used public information from the 
periodical The Times of India. For train rates, we relied upon POI 
public information from the Indian Railway Conference Association, 
which provides published distance-specific fees. For Indian barge 
rates, we relied upon public information contained in the August 3. 
1993 cable from the U.S. consulate in Bombay, originally utilized in 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Helical Spring 
Lock Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833 (September 28, 1993), adjusted 
for inflation. To value ocean freight rates, we used public information 
from the Federal Maritime Commission common rates tariff.
    To value foreign brokerage and handling, we relied on public 
information reported in the antidumping investigation of Stainless 
Steel Bar from India. For marine insurance, we used public information 
reported in the antidumping investigation of Sulfur Dyes, Including 
Sulfur Vat Dyes, from India (which is attached to the factors valuation 
memorandum).
    To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, we calculated a simple 
average using the financial statements of Rico and Shivaji. Of the five 
financial statements of Indian producers submitted by interested 
parties, only the statements of these two companies indicated 
production comparable to the merchandise subject to these 
investigations.
    Where appropriate, we have removed from the surrogate overhead and 
SG&A calculations, the excise duty amount listed in the financial 
statements (see Bicycles, 61 FR 19039). We also made certain 
adjustments to the percentages calculated as a result of reclassifying 
expenses contained in the financial statements.
    For both companies, we treated the line item labelled ``stores and 
spares consumed'' as part of factory overhead and not part of materials 
consumed because stores and spares are not direct materials consumed in 
the production process. We have considered stores and spares to include 
items such as filter screens, flux covering, drill bits and similar 
items which are not direct inputs into the production process. In 
addition, information in one of these companies' financial statements 
indicates that Indian accounting practices require Indian companies to 
record molding inputs (i.e., all types of sand, bentonite, lead powder, 
steel pellets (if used for sand cores or moulding), coal powder and 
waste oil) under ``stores and spares consumed.''

[[Page 53197]]

Therefore, we are considering these molding inputs as indirect 
materials and a part of factory overhead, and we are not valuing them 
as materials.
    We have considered the line item labelled ``raw materials 
consumed'' to include direct materials such as pig iron, steel scrap, 
and steel inputs, and non-steel direct inputs and not included them in 
factory overhead. The designation of these items is consistent with 
standard accounting procedures and recent determinations (see PVA and 
Bicycles). We also based our factory overhead calculation on the cost 
of goods manufactured rather than on the cost of goods sold. In 
addition, we included interest and/or financial expenses in the SG&A 
calculation.
    For Shivaji, we removed rent expenses from manufacturing costs and 
reclassified the expense as SG&A, and kept write-offs of development 
expenses in manufacturing costs. To avoid double counting, we removed 
the amount for miscellaneous expenses from the SG&A calculation to 
account for packing expenses. (For a further discussion of other 
adjustments made, see Concurrence Memorrandum).
    For Rico, we have considered technical know-how expenses as 
engineering expenses and kept them in factory overhead. To avoid double 
counting, we removed the amount for other expenses from the SG&A 
calculation to account for packing expenses. (For a further discussion 
of other adjustments made, see Concurrence Memorrandum).
    Southwest reported additional factors such as filter screens, 
fluxing covering, and grinding wheels which it uses to produce brake 
rotors. For these preliminary determinations, we have treated these 
types of inputs as part of factory overhead because they do not appear 
to be direct material inputs.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of brake drums 
and rotors from the PRC, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. The Customs Service will require a cash deposit 
or posting of a bond equal to the estimated dumping margins by which 
the normal value exceeds the USP, as shown below. These suspension of 
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 
CMC will be excepted from the suspension of liquidation instructions 
for brake drums because its sales of brake drums were not found to have 
been sold below fair value. CMC's sales of brake drums, which were 
manufactured by the producer whose factors formed the basis for the de 
minimis margin, will be excluded from an antidumping duty order on 
brake drums should one be issued. Brake drums that are sold by CMC but 
manufactured by other producers will be subject to the order, if one is 
issued. (See Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value: Case 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55625, (November 8, 
1994)(Pencils)). CAIEC/CAPCO will be excepted from the suspension of 
liquidation instructions for brake rotors because its sales of brake 
rotors were not found to have been sold below fair value. CAIEC/CAPCO's 
sales of brake rotors, which were manufactured by the producer whose 
factors formed the basis for the de minimis margin, will be excluded 
from an antidumping duty order on brake rotors should one be issued. 
Brake rotors that are sold by CAIEC/CAPCO but manufactured by other 
producers will be subject to the order, if one is issued. (See 
Pencils).
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average 
           Manufacturer/producer/exporter              margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Brake Drums                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Automotive Industry Import & Export                      
 Corporation, Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry                           
 Corporation, and CAPCO International USA...........               13.97
Yantai Import & Export Corporation..................               19.07
Qingdao Metal & Machinery Import & Export                               
 Corporation........................................                9.70
Beijing Xinchangyuan Automobile Fittings                                
 Corporation, Ltd...................................               11.29
China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation                0.08
Jiuyang Enterprise Corporation......................               13.97
Hebei Metals and Machinery Import & Export                              
 Corporation........................................               13.97
Longjing Walking Tractor Works Foreign Trade Import                     
 & Export Corporation...............................               13.97
Shanxi Machinery and Equipment Import & Export                          
 Corporation........................................               13.97
China-Wide Rate.....................................              105.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Brake Rotors                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Automotive Industry Import & Export                      
 Corporation, Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry                           
 Corporation, and CAPCO International USA...........                0.12
Shenyang Honbase Machinery Corporation, Ltd., and                       
 Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Corporation,                        
 Ltd., MAT Automotive, Inc., and Midwest Air                            
 Technologies, Inc..................................               64.56
Yantai Import & Export Corporation..................               11.81
Southwest Technical Import & Export Corporation,                        
 Yangtze Machinery Corporation, and MMB                                 
 International, Inc.................................               45.08
China National Machinery and Equipment Import &                         
 Export (Xinjiang) Corporation, Ltd.................               13.04
Qingdao Metal & Machinery Import & Export                               
 Corporation........................................               42.69
Xianghe Zichen Casting Corporation..................               42.69
Jiuyang Enterprise Corporation......................               42.69
Hebei Metals and Machinery Import & Export                              
 Corporation........................................               42.69
Yenhere Corporation.................................               42.69
Longjing Walking Tractor Works Foreign Trade Import                     
 & Export Corporation...............................               42.69
Jilin Provincial Machinery & Equipment Import &                         
 Export Corporation.................................               42.69
Shanxi Machinery and Equipment Import & Export                          
 Corporation........................................               42.69
China-Wide Rate.....................................               64.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53198]]

China-Wide Rate

    A China-Wide Rate has been assigned to brake drums based on the 
highest margin calculated in the brake drums case and a China-Wide Rate 
has been assigned to brake rotors based on the highest margin 
calculated in the brake rotors case. The China-Wide rate assigned to 
each product applies to all entries of that product except for entries 
from exporters/factories that are identified individually above under 
each product type.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determinations. If our final determinations are affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
these preliminary determinations or 45 days after our final 
determinations whether these imports are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the corresponding 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 January 8, 1997, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than January 15, 1997. A list of authorities 
used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should accompany 
these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages total, 
including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if requested, to 
afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised 
in case or rebuttal briefs. At this time, the hearing is scheduled for 
January 17, 1997, at 10:00-2:00 Room 1414, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 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 January 16, 
1996.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: October 3, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-26085 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P