[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 101-108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-831]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy (Chang Mien), Doreen Chen 
(Tung Mung), Gideon Katz (YUSCO) or Michael Panfeld, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165, (202) 482-0408, (202) 482-5255, and 
(202) 482-0172, respectively.

THE APPLICABLE STATUTE: 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's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 62 
FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We preliminarily determine that stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Case History

    On July 13, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. See Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, 
and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 37521, (July 13, 1998) (``Initiation''). 
Since the initiation of this investigation the following events have 
occurred.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. On July 27, 1998, petitioners, 
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., 
Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (formerly 
Lukens, Inc.), the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the 
Butler Armco Independent Union, and the Zanesville Armco Independent 
Organization, Inc., filed comments proposing clarifications to the 
scope of these investigations. From July October, 1998, the Department 
received numerous responses from respondents aimed at clarifying the 
scope of the investigations. See Memorandum for Joseph A. Spetrini, 
Scope Issues, dated December 14, 1998.
    On July 31, 1998, the Department requested information from the 
American Institute in Taiwan (``AIT'') to identify producers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise. On August 2, 1998, AIT responded to the 
Department's request for information. On July 27 and July 28, 1998, 
petitioners and Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), respectively, 
submitted comments on our proposed model matching criteria.
    On July 24, 1998, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury 
determination in this case. On August 3, 1998, the Department issued 
antidumping questionnaires to YUSCO, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., 
Ltd. (``Chia Far''), Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. (``Tang Eng''), Tung 
Mung Development Co., Ltd. (``Tung Mung''), Ta Chen International (``Ta 
Chen''), and Chang Mien Industries, Co., Ltd. (``Chang Mien''). On 
September 21, 1998, the Department selected YUSCO and Tung Mung 
(collectively ``respondents'') as respondents in this investigation. On 
November 3, 1998, the Department amended its decision to include Chang 
Mien as a mandatory respondent. See ``Selection of Respondents,'' 
below.
    On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
response from Chang Mien. On September 21, 1998, we received sections 
B, C, and D of the questionnaire from Chang Mien. Petitioners filed 
comments on Chang Mien's questionnaire responses on September 24, and 
November 12, 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires for sections 
A, B, C and D to Chang Mien on November 13, 1998, and December 3, 1998, 
and received responses to these questionnaires on November 27, 1998 and 
December 10, 1998. Additionally, on December 4, 1998, petitioners 
submitted comments concerning adjustments that the Department should 
make in its preliminary determination.
    On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
response from Tung Mung. On September 24, 1998, we received sections B, 
C, and D of the questionnaire from Tung Mung. Petitioners filed 
comments on Tung Mung's questionnaire responses on September 24, and 
October 16, 1998. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections 
A, B, C and D to Tung Mung on October 26, 1998, and received responses 
to this questionnaire on November 12, 1998. On November 18, 1998, we 
requested that Tung Mung report the date or order, which Tung Mung 
describes as ``initial estimates,'' and also requested that Tung Mung 
ensure that all those home market sales for which ``initial estimates'' 
were finalized during the period of the investigation are included in 
the revised home market sales listing. On December 2, Tung Mung 
provided the requested information.
    On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
response from YUSCO. On September 25, 1998, we received sections B and 
C of the questionnaire, and on September 28, 1998, we received section 
D of the questionnaire from YUSCO. Petitioners filed comments on 
YUSCO's questionnaire responses on September 25, 1998 and October 19, 
1998. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C 
to YUSCO on October 26, 1998, and received a response to this 
questionnaire on November 18, 1998. We issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for section D on November 2, 1998 and received a response 
on November 16, 1998. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire for 
sections A, B, and C on November 25, 1998 and received a response on 
December 3, 1998.
    On October 6, 1998, petitioners made a timely request for a thirty-
day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Department determined that these 
concurrent investigations are extraordinarily complicated and warranted 
the thirty-day postponement requested by petitioners. On October 23, 
1998, we

[[Page 102]]

postponed the preliminary determination until no later than December 
17, 1998. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 
France, Germany, Mexico, Japan, the Republic of South Korea, the United 
Kingdom and Taiwan; Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 63 FR 56909 (October 
23, 1998). On October 30, 1998, petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of SSSS from Taiwan. The critical 
circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination is discussed 
in the ``Critical Circumstances'' section of the notice below.
    Finally, on December 3, 1998, petitioners submitted comments 
regarding the product concordance. For specific adjustments to the 
product concordance information submitted by Chang Mien, see Memorandum 
to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in the Preliminary Determination of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 
1998.
    On October 14 and 15, 1998, petitioners alleged that Ta Chen is 
reselling subject merchandise by certain respondents in the United 
States at prices less than Ta Chen's cost of acquisition and related 
selling and movement expenses. On December 3, 1998, we initiated a 
middleman dumping investigation against Ta Chen. The results of that 
investigation will be incorporated in the final determination of this 
investigation.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 9, 1998, 
YUSCO requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. YUSCO also requested to extend the provisional measures to 
not more than six months. Additionally, on December 11 and 15, 1998, 
Tung Mung and Chang Mien, respectively requested a postponement of the 
deadline for the Final Determination and an extension of provisional 
measures, if found that their margins are higher than de minimis. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) YUSCO and Tung Mung account for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
no compelling reasons for a denial exists, we are granting the 
respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly.

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an 
alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 
10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 
7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: 
(1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to 
length; (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled 
sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not 
more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a 
flat rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-
rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and 
a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 
percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These excluded products 
are described below:
    Flapper valve steel is excluded. It is defined as stainless steel 
strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent 
carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 
0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus 
of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and 
sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means 
of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no 
more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. 
Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, 
yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters 
also is excluded from the scope of this investigation. This stainless 
steel strip

[[Page 103]]

in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth 
elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip also is 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. This ductile stainless 
steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel also is excluded from the 
scope of this investigation. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel also 
is excluded from the scope of this investigation. This high-strength, 
ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified 
Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 
11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 
manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 
percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 
0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 
added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 
1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 
aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is 
generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in 
widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the 
manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments also are 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These include stainless 
steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools 
(e.g., carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 
440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The 
steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, 
sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 
percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 
sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \5\ ``GIN4 Mo'', ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 1997 through 
March 31, 1998.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
either: (1) A sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
is statistically valid based on the information available at the time 
of selection; or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
    After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in this 
proceeding and the resources available to the Department, we determined 
that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise. Instead, we found that, 
given our resources, we would be able to investigate the Taiwanese 
producers/exporters with the greatest export volume, as identified 
above. In total, these companies (YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chang Mien) 
accounted for more than 85 percent of all known exports of the subject 
merchandise from Taiwan during the POI. For a more detailed discussion 
of respondent selection in this investigation, see Respondent Selection 
Memorandum, September 24, 1998.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSSS from Taiwan to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
(``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``export 
price'' section of this notice below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs for 
comparison to weighted-average NVs.
    On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.). 
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court 
discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the 
basis for foreign market value when the Department finds home market 
sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' The

[[Page 104]]

URAA amended the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of 
trade'' to include sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. 
Consequently, the Department has reconsidered its practice in 
accordance with this court decision and has determined that it would be 
inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market 
sales, as the basis for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales 
of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the United 
States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the 
Department will use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. 
The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no 
above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison.

Transactions Investigated

YUSCO

    For its home market sales, YUSCO reported the Government Uniform 
Invoice (``GUI'') date as the date of sale, while for its U.S. market 
sales, YUSCO reported the commercial invoice date as the date of sale. 
YUSCO stated that the sale dates submitted for each market represented 
the date when the essential terms of sales, i.e., price and quantity, 
are definitively set, and that until the invoice date, these terms were 
subject to change. Petitioners alleged that the questionnaire response 
by YUSCO does not support YUSCO's claim that price and quantity may 
change at any time between the order acceptance date (confirmation 
date) and the final invoice date. Given the relevance of petitioners' 
comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-to-order 
products, petitioners' claims have some merit. Consequently, on October 
26, 1998, the Department requested that YUSCO provide additional 
information concerning the nature and frequency of price and quantity 
changes occurring between order and invoice. In addition, we requested 
that YUSCO report sales during the POI for which YUSCO had issued an 
order acceptance, in addition to those sales invoiced during the POI. 
Based on our analysis of the information submitted by YUSCO, we have 
preliminarily determined that for home market and U.S. sales, the GUI 
and commercial invoice dates, respectively, are the appropriate 
indicators of the actual date of sale because a large percentage of 
orders in each market were modified or canceled during the time between 
order and invoice dates.
    YUSCO reported that it made sales of subject merchandise to several 
end-users during the POI, including Yieh Mau, to which YUSCO claims an 
affiliation. With respect to Yieh Mau, there is no equity ownership of 
five percent or more between the two companies and YUSCO did not 
provide record evidence sufficient to demonstrate either financial or 
operational control of Yieh Mau. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily determines that Yieh Mau is not affiliated with YUSCO. 
See Proprietary Analysis Memorandum: YUSCO. With respect to the other 
allegedly affiliated parties, the Department has likewise conducted an 
analysis of these parties' affiliation with YUSCO. Because the 
identities of these parties, as well as all pertinent information 
regarding the affiliations, is proprietary information, please refer to 
the Proprietary Analysis Memorandum: YUSCO. We note that the Department 
intends to examine closely all affiliation issues at verification.
    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered 
them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102. To 
test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared 
on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested models of subject 
merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 
percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined 
that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 
CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be constructed 
for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold 
to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that these sales 
were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') analysis. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993); Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber 
from Brazil, 63 Fed. Reg. 59509 (Nov. 8, 1998). Where the exclusion of 
such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, we made a comparison to the next most similar model.

Tung Mung

    For its home market, Tung Mung reported the date of invoice as the 
date of sale, while for its U.S. market sales, Tung Mung reported the 
contract date as the date of sale. Tung Mung stated that the sale dates 
submitted for each market represented the date when the essential terms 
of sales, i.e., price and quantity, are definitively set, and that up 
to the invoice date, these terms were subject to change. Petitioners 
alleged that the questionnaire response by Tung Mung did not support 
Tung Mung's claim that for home market sales, price and quantity may 
change at any time between the order acceptance date (confirmation 
date) and the final invoice date. Given the relevance of petitioners' 
comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-to-order 
products, petitioners' claims have some merit. Consequently, on October 
26 and November 18, 1998, the Department requested that Tung Mung 
provide additional information concerning the nature and frequency of 
price and quantity changes occurring between the confirmation date and 
date of invoice. In addition, we requested that Tung Mung report sales 
during the POI for which Tung Mung had issued an order acceptance, in 
addition to those sales invoiced during the POI. Based on our analysis 
of the information submitted by Tung Mung, we have preliminarily 
determined that the sales contract date is the appropriate date of sale 
because the sale contract date is the date on which the terms are 
finalized. With respect to home market sales, we have preliminarily 
determined that the date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale 
since it is the date on which the terms are set and not changed 
thereafter. For a further discussion of this issue, see Analysis 
Memorandum: Tung Mung.

Chang Mien

    In its original questionnaire response, Chang Mien reported that 
for home market transactions it was using the date of invoice as the 
date of sale because Chang Mien's accounting books treated date of sale 
in this manner. In petitioners' November 12, 1998 submission, they 
stated that it appeared that Chang Mien was using the wrong date of 
sale. Given the relevance of petitioners' comments and the nature of 
marketing these types of made-to-order products, petitioners' claims 
have some merit. Consequently, on November 13, 1998, the Department 
requested that Chang Mien provide additional information concerning the 
nature and frequency of price and quantity changes occurring between 
the confirmation date and date of invoice. In its November 27, 1998 
supplemental response Chang Mien stated that because home market 
customers purchase from inventory, ``there usually is no price change 
or

[[Page 105]]

change in quantity between order confirmation date (day 0) and shipping 
(invoice date) (day 1-3).'' See Chang Mien's November 27, 1998 
supplemental response at 8. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
the date of the order confirmation is the more appropriate sale date. 
Accordingly, on December 3, 1998, the Department requested that Chang 
Mien submit a revised home market sales listing using date of order 
confirmation as the sale date.
    Also, in its November 27, 1998 supplemental response, Chang Mien 
reported that for its U.S. transactions it was using the date of sale 
employed in its accounting system, i.e., the export declaration date 
for sales through August 31, 1997, and after August 31, 1997, the date 
of shipment. In the preamble to the regulations, the Department 
addressed the issue of why it was appropriate normally to use date of 
invoice, not date of shipment as the uniform date of sale. 
Specifically, the Department noted in the preamble that: (1) date of 
shipment is not among the possible dates of sale specified in note 8 of 
the AD Agreement; (2) date of shipment rarely represents the date on 
which the material terms of sale are established; (3) firms rarely use 
shipment documents as the basis for preparation of financial reports, 
thus making reliance on date of shipment at verification more 
difficult; and (4) concerns regarding possible manipulation by using 
date of invoice do not warrant substituting date of shipment for date 
of invoice.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 
FR 27297, 27349 (May 19, 1997). In this case, Chang Mien has reported 
that the terms of sale changed between the order date and the invoice 
date. Specifically, an analysis of all U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise in the POI reveals that for approximately 94 percent of the 
sales there was a change between the quantity ordered and the quantity 
shipped, and that for approximately 30 percent of the sales, the change 
between the quantity ordered and the quantity shipped was greater than 
the accepted industry tolerances. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for U.S. 
transactions. Accordingly, on December 3, 1998, the Department 
requested that Chang Mien submit a revised U.S. sales listing using 
date of invoice as the sale date. For a further discussion of this 
issue, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in the 
Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products produced by respondents, covered by the description in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section, above, and sold in the home market 
during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions 
listed in the Department's August 3, 1998 questionnaire.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or constructed 
export price (``CEP'') transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting 
price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that 
of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A'') and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of 
the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and 
CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, none of the respondents requested a LOT 
adjustment. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and Taiwan 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer and 
selling expenses for each respondent.

YUSCO

    YUSCO reported one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. 
market. YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market through 
one channel of distribution, directly from the plant to distributors, 
end users, and further manufacturers. In the U.S. market, YUSCO 
reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution, 
directly from the plant to trading companies and distributors.
    The Department examined the selling activities performed within 
each LOT reported. YUSCO's selling activities in the home market were 
comprised of technical advice, warranty services and freight and 
delivery arrangements. YUSCO claimed that there were no other sales 
support activities. None of YUSCO's home market selling activities 
differed by customer category. YUSCO's selling activities in the U.S. 
market were comprised of warranty services and freight and delivery 
arrangements. Sales to trading companies were made on an FOB, FOR, or 
C&F basis and sales to distributors were made on an FOB or CIF basis. 
YUSCO claims that its selling activities did not differ by customer 
category in any other way in the U.S. market. Because there are only 
insignificant differences between the selling functions on sales made 
to home market and U.S. customers, we preliminarily conclude that there 
is one LOT in both the U.S. and home market and that sales to these 
customers constitute the same LOT in each market. Therefore a LOT 
adjustment for YUSCO is not appropriate. For a further discussion of 
the Department's LOT analysis with respect to YUSCO, see Memorandum to 
the File: Analysis of YUSCO in the Preliminary Determination of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 
1998.

Tung Mung

    Tung Mung claimed that there was only one LOT in the home market. 
Tung Mung reported that in the home market it made sales to 
distributors, service centers, and end-users through one channel of 
distribution. Tung Mung offered freight and delivery arrangements and 
warranty services to all customers in the home market. Based

[[Page 106]]

on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that Tung Mung had one LOT 
in its home market.
    In the U.S. market, Tung Mung reported that it sold at one LOT 
through two channels of distribution, (1) a foreign distributor and (2) 
domestic trading companies. In the U.S. market, Tung Mung reported only 
one LOT to customers. Tung Mung reported that it performed identical 
selling functions in the United States and in the home market. These 
selling functions include freight and delivery arrangements and 
warranty services. Therefore, we preliminary conclude that there is one 
LOT in the U.S. and that sales to these customers constitute the same 
LOT in the comparison market and the United States. Therefore a LOT 
adjustment for Tung Mung is not appropriate. For a further discussion 
of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to Tung Mung, see 
Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Tung Mung in the Preliminary 
Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, 
December 17, 1998.

Chang Mien

    Chang Mien reported two LOTs in the home market and two channels of 
distribution. Within both channels of distribution, the merchandise is 
either shipped immediately to the customer or stored in Chang Mien's 
warehouse. In the home market, Chang Mien stated that it performed 
identical selling activities for both channels of distribution such as 
providing inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, 
delivery arrangements, and advertising. Although the selling activities 
offered are identical for each of its customers, an additional selling 
activity is performed for those sales which are stored in inventory. 
However, we preliminarily determine that sales on which inventory 
maintenance is performed do not involve significantly greater resources 
than sales on which inventory maintenance is not performed and, 
therefore, do not constitute a separate LOT. Therefore, because Chang 
Mien performs identical selling activities for each claimed LOT, we 
preliminarily find that the two claimed LOTs constitute one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Chang Mien reported that it sold at one LOT, 
through one channel of distribution, and to one type of customer 
(trading company). For sales in the U.S. market, Chang Mien performed 
the following activities: packing, delivery arrangements (i.e., 
transportation, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance), 
advertising, and warranty services. Based on a comparison of the 
selling activities performed in the U.S. market to the selling 
activities in the home market, we preliminarily conclude that there is 
not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in both 
markets. We preliminarily conclude that U.S. sales are made at the same 
LOT as the home market. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not appropriate. 
For a further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect 
to Chang Mien, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in 
the Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.

Export Price

    For all respondents, we based our calculation on EP, in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was 
sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP 
methodology was not otherwise indicated. Furthermore, we calculated EP 
based on packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:

YUSCO

    We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for 
the following movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight; international freight; 
marine insurance; brokerage and handling expenses; container handling 
fees; and certification fees. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Tung Mung

    We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for 
the following movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight; containerization 
expenses; brokerage and handling expenses; harbor duty fees, and bank 
charges. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Chang Mien

    We made deductions for foreign inland freight, brokerage and 
handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. 
price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act. For further information, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis 
of Chang Mien in the Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
notice.

Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared each of the respondent's volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act. Since each of the respondent's aggregate volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was viable for all respondents. 
Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners in the 
petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that respondents had made sales in the home market at prices below the 
cost of producing the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether respondents made home market sales 
during the POI at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act. See Initiation.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A, interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by 
each respondent in its cost questionnaire response.

[[Page 107]]

B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP for each respondent, adjusted 
where appropriate (see above), to home market sales of the foreign like 
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the 
COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made 
at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable 
movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities,'' pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i), and within an 
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to weighted-average COPs 
for the POI , we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
interest expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade for consumption in Taiwan.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We performed price-to-price comparisons where there were sales of 
comparable merchandise in the home market that did not fail the cost 
test. There were no sales to affiliated customers in the home market 
for any respondent. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for 
physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act.

YUSCO

    For YUSCO's home market sales of products that were above COP, we 
based NV on prices to home market customers. YUSCO classified certain 
home market customers as affiliated, and one of these customers, Yieh 
Mau, reported its downstream sales in the home and U.S. markets. We 
have preliminarily determined that these customers were not affiliated 
because five percent or more ownership does not exist between YUSCO and 
any of these companies. Additionally, the record does not show that 
these customers meet any other of the ``affiliated persons'' criteria 
set forth in Section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, we did not conduct 
an arm's-length test on any of YUSCO's sales.
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made deductions for inland freight and two post-sale 
price adjustments (these adjustments were originally reported as a 
quantity discount and sales promotion discount). In addition, we made 
circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments for differences in direct 
selling expenses (i.e., credit, warranty, and a document handling fee) 
incurred on U.S. and home market sales, where appropriate. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Tung Mung

    For Tung Mung's home market sales of products that were above COP, 
we based NV on prices to home market customers. We made a deduction for 
inland freight and two post-sale price adjustments (these adjustments 
were originally reported as a quantity discount and other discounts) 
pursuant to Section 351.401(c) of the Department's Regulations. We 
calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market customers. In 
addition, we made COS adjustments for differences in direct selling 
expenses (i.e., credit and warranty expenses), where appropriate. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Chang Mien

    For Chang Mien's home market sales of products that were above the 
COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers.
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made a deduction for inland freight. In its December 4, 
1998 submission, petitioners argued that the Department should deny 
Chang Mien's reported home market credit expense and reclassify Chang 
Mien's claimed advertising expenses as indirect selling expenses. For 
the preliminary determination, the Department has accepted Chang Mien's 
home market credit expenses and continued to classify Chang Mien's 
advertising expenses in both the U.S. and home market as direct selling 
expenses. We made COS adjustments for direct selling expenses (i.e., 
credit, warranty, advertising, and bank charges), where appropriate. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise. We made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act. For these EP comparisons, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Tariff Act.

Critical Circumstances

    On October 30, 1998, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of SSSS from Taiwan. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation was filed at least 20 days 
prior to the Department's preliminary determination, we must issue our 
preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the 
preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges 
critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a 
history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in 
the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or

[[Page 108]]

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there 
have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively 
short period.
    To determine that there is a history of dumping of the subject 
merchandise, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing 
antidumping duty order on SSSS in the United States or elsewhere to be 
sufficient. Petitioners did not provide any information indicating a 
history of dumping of SSSS from Taiwan. Furthermore, we investigated 
the existence of antidumping duty orders on SSSS from Taiwan in the 
United States or elsewhere, and did not find any. We were also unable 
to find other information that would have indicated a history of 
dumping of SSSS from Taiwan.
    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling subject merchandise at less than fair value 
and thereby causing material injury, the Department normally considers 
estimated dumping margins of 25 percent or greater for EP sales to 
impute knowledge of dumping and of resultant material injury. In this 
investigation, we have not established calculated estimated dumping 
margins of 25 percent or greater. Based on these facts, we determine 
that the first criterion for ascertaining whether critical 
circumstances exist is not satisfied. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that there is no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist with respect to exports of SSSS from 
Taiwan by respondents (see, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Collated Roofing Nails From Korea, 62 FR 25895, 25898 
(May 12, 1997)). We have not analyzed the shipment data for respondents 
to examine whether imports of SSSS have been massive over a relatively 
short period. Because we do not find that critical circumstances exist 
for all other respondents, we determine that critical circumstances do 
not exist for companies covered by the ``All Others'' rate. We will 
make a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we 
make our final determination in this investigation, if that final 
determination is affirmative.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

All Others Rate

    In accordance with Section 735(c)(5) of the Act, the estimated all-
others rate shall be an amount equal to the calculated estimated 
weight-average dumping margins established for producers individually 
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any 
margins determined entirely under section 776. As a result, the all-
others rate is 2.94 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all 
imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the U.S. 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 export price, as 
indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping 
margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Mien...........................................                .57
Tung Mung............................................                .07
YUSCO................................................               2.94
All Others...........................................               2.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have 
notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after 
the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final 
determination whether imports of SSSS are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 
774 of the Tariff 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. Tentatively, any hearing will be held 
fifty-seven days after publication of this notice at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location 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 
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, each party may make an affirmative 
presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief, and may 
make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's 
rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We intend to issue our final 
determination in this investigation no later than 135 days after 
publication of this notice.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: December 17, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34462 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P