[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 116-124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34464]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-824]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lesley Stagliano or Rick Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0190 or (202) 482-3818, 
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 Italy 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 June 30, 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 (``Initiation'') 63 FR 37521, (July 13, 1998) . 
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 29, 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. Also, from July through October, 1998, 
the Department received numerous responses from respondents aimed at 
clarifying the scope of the investigations. See Memorandum to Joseph A. 
Spetrini, Re: Scope Issues, dated December 14, 1998.
    On July 7, 1998, the Department requested information from the U.S. 
Embassy in Italy to identify producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. On July 21, 1998, the Department requested comments from 
petitioners and other interested parties regarding the criteria to be 
used for model matching purposes. On July 27, 1998, petitioners 
submitted comments on our proposed model matching criteria.
    Also 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 an antidumping questionnaire to Acciai Speciali Terni SpA 
(``AST'') and Arinox SrL (``Arinox''). On September 21, 1998, the 
Department selected AST as a respondent in this investigation. See 
``Selection of Respondents,'' below.
    AST submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on 
September 8, 1998, and AST's responses to sections B through D followed 
on September 28, 1998. Petitioners filed comments on AST's Section A 
through D responses on October 9, October 13, and October 16, 1998. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires for Sections A, B, and C to AST on 
October 23, 1998, and for Section D on November 13, 1998. AST responded 
to our supplemental questionnaires for Sections A, B, and C on November 
6, and November 12, 1998, and to our supplemental questionnaires for 
Section D on December 2, 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 postponed the preliminary determination until no later than 
December 17, 1998. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the 
United Kingdom; 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 Italy. The critical circumstances analysis for the 
preliminary determination is discussed in the ``Critical 
Circumstances'' section of the notice below.

[[Page 117]]

    On December 2, 1998, petitioners submitted comments for use in this 
preliminary determination. Petitioners also submitted comments on 
December 3, 1998, regarding the product concordance for use in this 
preliminary determination.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 15, 1998, AST 
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. AST also included a request to extend the provisional 
measures to not more than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, 
(2) AST accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, 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 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 is 
also excluded from the scope of this investigation. This stainless 
steel strip 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 is also 
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 is also excluded from the 
scope of this investigation. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel

[[Page 118]]

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 is 
also 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 are also 
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 Italian 
producers/exporters with the greatest export volume, as identified 
above. Since AST accounted for more than 70 percent of all known 
exports of the subject merchandise from Italy during the POI, we 
selected it as the sole respondent. See Memorandum from Program 
Managers to Joseph A. Spetrini Re: Selection of Respondents, September 
21, 1998.

Affiliation

    AST has claimed that it is not affiliated with Thyssen AG or any of 
Thyssen AG's affiliates. However, a review of the evidence demonstrates 
that AST is affiliated with Thyssen AG. Pursuant to section 771(33)(E) 
of the Act, the Department will determine that companies are affiliated 
where a company directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds power 
to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares 
of any organization. Here, evidence establishes that AST is 75 percent 
owned by a joint venture company, KTS. KTS, in turn, is 40 percent 
owned by Thyssen Stahl AG, itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thyssen 
AG. Consequently, Thyssen AG has a 33.75 percent equity holding in AST 
and, therefore, because this is greater than five percent, Thyssen AG 
is affiliated with AST within the meaning of section 771(33)(E). See 
Memorandum: Affiliation of AST and Thyssen AG, and AST and A Thyssen 
Affiliate (company A), dated December 17, 1998.
    AST also claimed that because it was not affiliated with Thyssen AG 
or any of Thyssen AG's affiliates, AST was not affiliated with a 
particular U.S. customer, company A. AST stated that company A was 
wholly-owned by Thyssen Inc., N.A. and other evidence establishes that 
Thyssen Inc., is in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thyssen AG. 
Because the Department is precluded under the statute from using sales 
to affiliates in determining CEP or EP, we examined whether AST was 
affiliated to company A. See Section 772 (a) and (b) of the Act. 
Section 771(33)(F) provides the Department with the authority to find 
parties affiliated where two or more persons are directly or indirectly 
controlled by or under common control with any other person. Therefore, 
if evidence demonstrates that Thyssen AG controls both company A and 
AST, then AST and company A are affiliated within the meaning of 
section 771(33)(F). Based on the evidence, we have preliminarily found 
that Thyssen AG has the ability to control AST and company A, and 
therefore, we find that AST and company A are affiliated.
    In codifying a new definition of affiliated persons, the 
legislative history make clear that one of the Department's goals was 
to broaden its ability to analyze commercial relationships for the 
purposes of a dumping analysis and

[[Page 119]]

consistent with economic reality. New section 771(33)(F) defines 
affiliation to include additional control relationships. The 
legislative history also makes clear that the statute does not require 
majority ownership for a finding of control, but rather encompasses 
both legal and operational control. See SAA at 838. A minority 
ownership interest, examined within the context of the totality of the 
circumstances, is a factor that we will consider in determining if one 
party is operationally in control of another. See Certain Cut-To-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil, 62 FR 18486, 18490 (April 15, 1998). 
Additionally, evidence of actual control is not required. See 19 C.F.R. 
351.102(b).
    Because, in essence, company A is wholly-owned by Thyssen AG, 
Thyssen AG has both legal and operational control over company A. With 
regard to AST, Thyssen AG has a substantial minority equity interest in 
AST of 33.75 percent. Under the prior statutory provision, parties were 
deemed ``related'' if any person or persons owned or controlled 20 
percent or more of the voting power or control in both entities. See 
Queen's Flowers de Colombia v. United States, 981 Fed. Supp. 617 (CIT 
1997); section 771(13) of the Act. As Congress intended the Department 
to analyze a broader range of relationships under section 771(33) of 
the Act, a minority equity interest of over 20 percent presumably would 
represent control pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
    However, for our preliminary determination we also examined the 
shareholder agreement forming KTS and other evidence which leads us to 
conclude that, coupled with its 33.75 percent interest in AST, Thyssen 
AG has the ability to control AST. Because most of this evidence is 
proprietary in nature, we are not able to discuss this evidence 
publicly. See Memorandum: Affiliation of AST and Thyssen AG, and AST 
and A Thyssen Affiliate (Company A). In summary, we can say that this 
evidence indicates that Thyssen AG retained the ability to control the 
production and pricing decisions of AST through the joint venture 
company KTS. Because both company A and AST are controlled by Thyssen 
AG within the meaning of section 771(33)(F), we have preliminarily 
found that AST and company A are affiliated. We therefore have 
requested company A to provide all of its downstream sales of subject 
merchandise made during the POI. On December 11, 1998, the Department 
received this downstream U.S. sales information. However, due to the 
timing of the receipt of this information, we were not able to review 
these transactions for the preliminary determination.
    Additionally, on December 11, 1998, AST reported that it could not 
compel two additional resellers in the U.S. market, to which it claims 
to have only an indirect minority interest, to report their downstream 
sales information. Based on the fact that such sales constitute an 
insignificant portion of total U.S. sales (exclusion of which from the 
margin calculation, therefore, is non-distortive), for the purposes of 
the preliminary determination, we have calculated a margin which does 
not account for these sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSSS from Italy to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described 
in the ``export price and constructed export price'' and ``normal 
value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and 
CEPs 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 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

    For its home market sales, and U.S. sales which AST claimed were 
CEP, AST reported the date of invoice as the date of sale, stating that 
the invoice date represented the date when the essential terms of sale, 
i.e., price and quantity, are definitively set, and that up to the 
invoice date, these terms were subject to change. For sales AST claimed 
were EP (``back-to-back'') sales, AST reported the date of shipment 
from Italy as the date of sale because this is when final price and 
quantity terms are determined. However, petitioners alleged that the 
sales documentation provided by AST does not appear to support AST's 
claims that price and quantity may change at any time between the order 
acceptance date (confirmation date) and the shipment 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 23, 1998, the Department requested that AST 
provide additional information concerning the nature and frequency of 
price and quantity changes occurring between the date of order and date 
of invoice for sales in both markets. In addition, we requested that 
AST report all sales during the POI for which AST had issued an order 
acceptance, in addition to those sales invoiced during the POI. AST 
reported this information in its November 12, 1998 submission.
    Normally, the Department has a preference of using invoice date as 
the date of sale. However, the Department may use a date other than 
invoice date if a different date better reflects the date on which the 
material terms of the sale were set. Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14067 (March 
29, 1996); 19 C.F.R. 351.401(i). For AST's home market sales, AST 
submitted information that indicates that date of invoice is the 
appropriate date of sale. See Analysis Memo for AST at page 2. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the date of invoice is 
the appropriate indicator of the actual date of sale for all home 
market sales, because price and quantity are subject to negotiation 
until that time. For the U.S. sales that are EP (direct) sales, we have 
preliminarily determined that the shipment date is the appropriate 
indicator of the actual date of sale because price and quantity are 
subject to negotiation until the date of shipment, a date preceding the 
invoice date. For the U.S. sales that are CEP sales, we used the 
invoice date as the date of sale, because either the material terms of 
sale had not been fixed prior to invoice or the sale did not occur 
prior to importation.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent covered by

[[Page 120]]

the description in the ``Scope of the 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 questionnaire.
    In its supplemental response dated November 12, 1998, AST defined 
``side cuts'' as the 1\1/4\ inch trimmings that result from slitting 
mill-edge coils with a width of 50\1/2\ inches. AST stated that side 
cuts are second quality merchandise because ``the mill edges often 
containing surface defects (like edge laminations) and variable 
width.'' For ``pup coils'', AST stated that during inspection, it 
sometimes is determined that the ends of the coil require cropping due 
to defects (such as cross breaks) that cannot be corrected. AST stated 
that the resulting coils generated from cropping the ends are pup 
coils. Although AST has claimed that pup coils and side cuts are non-
prime merchandise, because AST provided no evidence to support its 
claim that side cuts and pup coils were damaged or defective, thus 
making them non-prime, the Department has treated both side-cuts and 
pup-coils as prime merchandise for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination. Data regarding the quality of side-cuts and pup-coils 
will be reviewed at verification.

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 CEP 
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price comparison sales 
in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that 
of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 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 in the comparison market. 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 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, AST did not request a level-of-trade (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 
Italian markets, including the selling functions, classes of customers 
and selling expenses for AST.
    For its home market sales, Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (``AST'') 
reported: (1) three customer categories--industrial end-users, white 
goods manufacturers, and service centers/distributors; and (2) two 
channels of distribution--direct factory sales (sales of prime 
merchandise) and warehouse sales (the majority of which are sales of 
non-prime merchandise). AST claimed two levels of trade in the home 
market based solely on the quality of subject merchandise, i.e., prime 
vs. non-prime.
    In reviewing AST's LOT in the home market, we asked AST to identify 
the specific differences and similarities in selling functions and/or 
support services between all phases of marketing to customers in the 
home market and the United States. As mentioned above, AST identified 
two channels of distribution in the home market based entirely on 
whether the sale to the customer was of prime or non-prime merchandise. 
For sales of prime merchandise, AST sold to all three of the customers 
mentioned above, and provided the same selling functions to each of the 
customers. Specifically, AST provided freight and delivery, credit, 
technical services, and warranties. For sales of mostly non-prime 
merchandise sold from AST's warehouse, AST performed the same selling 
functions (except for providing warranties) as for sales of its prime 
merchandise, but AST also engaged in the additional selling activities 
of advertising of its mostly non-prime merchandise and maintaining 
inventory of this merchandise at AST's warehouse. Because the selling 
activities engaged in by AST were identical for each customer when 
selling prime merchandise and were identical for each customer when 
selling mostly non-prime from inventory, and because the selling 
activities for both groups of sales were very similar, we preliminarily 
determine that there exists one level of trade for AST's home market 
sales.
    For its U.S. sales, AST reported that its affiliated importer, AST 
USA, made sales to two customer categories--industrial end-users and 
service centers and through three channels of distribution--direct 
factory sales, warehouse sales, and consignment sales. AST claimed two 
levels of trade in the U.S. market based solely on the quality of 
subject merchandise: (1) non-prime; and (2) prime. We examined the 
claimed selling functions performed by AST and its U.S. affiliate, AST 
USA, for all U.S. sales. For sales made directly to the unaffiliated 
U.S. customer (EP sales), AST performed the same selling functions; it 
provided technical and warranty services, arranged for freight and 
delivery, and extended credit. For sales made to AST USA (CEP sales) as 
adjusted, AST engaged in identical selling activities, providing 
technical and warranty services, freight and delivery and credit. In 
making sales from warehousing and consignment sales, AST USA engaged in 
the additional activities of advertising and maintaining inventory.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT 
than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chains of distribution between AST and its home 
market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for home 
market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, 
after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United 
States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home 
market levels of trade constituted more advanced stages of distribution 
than the CEP level of trade.
    Based on our analysis of the chains of distribution and selling 
functions performed for sales in the home market and CEP and EP sales 
in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that both are made at the 
same stage in the marketing process and involve identical selling 
functions. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that AST made sales in 
the home market at the same level of trade as existed in the U.S. 
market for both CEP sales and EP sales.

[[Page 121]]

Thus, an LOT adjustment in this case is not appropriate.
    For matching purposes, we have matched AST's sale of prime 
merchandise in the home market to sales of prime merchandise in the 
U.S. market. We have also matched sales of non-prime merchandise in the 
home market to sales of non-prime merchandise in the U.S. market.

Export Price And Constructed Export Price

    Based on the Department's practice, we examine several criteria in 
determining whether sales made prior to importation through a sales 
agent to an unaffiliated U.S. customer are EP sales, including: (1) 
whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to 
the unaffiliated customer; (2) whether this was the customary 
commercial channel between the parties involved; and (3) whether the 
function of the U.S. selling agent was limited to that of a ``processor 
of sales-related documentation'' and a ``communications link'' with the 
unaffiliated U.S. buyer. Where all three criteria are met, indicating 
that the activities of the U.S. selling agent are ancillary to the 
sale, the Department has regarded the routine selling functions of the 
exporter as merely having been relocated geographically from the 
country of exportation to the United States where the sales agent 
performs them, and has determined the sales to be EP sales. Where one 
of more of these conditions are not met, indicating that the U.S. sales 
agent is substantially involved in the U.S. sales process, the 
Department has classified the sales in question as CEP sales. See 
Viscose Rayon Staple Fibre From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32820, 32821 (June 16, 1998); Certain 
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
13170, 13174 (March 18, 1998).
    AST has classified certain sales transactions which are further-
processed in the United States as EP sales. However, we preliminarily 
determine that such sales are CEP sales. Evidence establishes that AST 
USA contracts with unaffiliated processors to provide substantial 
value-added services for these sales. This necessarily entails 
significant expenses which are added to the price originally negotiated 
between the unaffiliated customer and AST. Under such circumstances, 
the characterization of a further-manufactured sale as an export price 
sale would ignore these substantial expenses related to the sale of 
subject merchandise. Clearly, AST USA's role with regard to these sales 
is more than an ancillary one. Moreover, the Department has always 
analyzed further manufacturing in the context of CEP, pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
At Less Than Fair Value: Large Printing Presses and Components Thereof, 
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany, 61 FR 38166, 38174 
(July 23, 1996).
    For the remaining sales which AST has classified as EP sales, our 
examination leads us to preliminarily conclude that these are EP sales. 
AST ships the subject merchandise directly to the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer and we have no evidence to indicate this is other than a 
customary commercial channel of trade between the parties. 
Additionally, the facts demonstrate that it is AST which sets the terms 
of the sale in Italy prior to importation. AST USA merely provides a 
communication link and processes sales-related documentation by 
transmitting the U.S. customer's request to AST and receiving AST's 
response either confirming or not confirming the order.
    Finally, AST classified sales of subject merchandise sold by AST 
USA after importation and for the account of AST USA as CEP sales. 
These were referred to by AST as warehouse or consignment sales.
    We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology 
was not otherwise warranted, based on the facts of record. We based EP 
on the packed, delivered tax and duty unpaid price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments to starting price 
for billing adjustments, alloy surcharges, and skid charges, and for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, freight equalization charges, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight and foreign inland insurance.
    We calculated CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b) of the 
Act, for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took 
place after importation into the United States, or otherwise warranted 
the application of CEP, as discussed above. We based CEP on the packed, 
delivered, duty paid or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made adjustments to the starting price for price-
billing errors, where applicable. In addition, we made adjustments to 
the starting price by adding alloy surcharges, and skid charges where 
appropriate. We also made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, freight equalization charges, foreign inland freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, foreign inland 
insurance, and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
direct selling expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses and technical 
selling expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling 
expenses. With regard to indirect selling expenses, we have included 
the expense associated with AST's two U.S. shipments that were damaged 
in transit, before reaching the United States. We calculated the 
expense as the difference between the original value of the merchandise 
(as represented by the amount of the insurance claim) less the 
insurance revenue received for these two shipments, and the less value 
of the subsequent sale of this material as secondary merchandise. For 
CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    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 
LTFV analysis. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

[[Page 122]]

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (``Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Argentina'') (58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 
1993); See, 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), citing 
to Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina. 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.

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 was 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 was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales) we compared AST's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Because AST'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the information contained in the timely cost allegation 
filed by the petitioners on June 10, 1998, the Department found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that AST's sales of the 
foreign like product were made at prices which represent less than the 
cost of production, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As 
a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether AST made home market sales during the POI at prices below their 
respective cost of production (COP)s, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act. See Initiation. Before making any fair value 
comparisons, we conducted the COP analysis described below.

Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of AST's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for home market general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, and packing costs. 
We relied on the COP data submitted by AST in its Section D cost 
questionnaire response, except in the following instances where we 
determined the reported costs were improperly valued: (1) We 
recalculated AST's G&A rate using fiscal year data as reported on its 
1997 audited financial statement; (2) we recalculated AST's financial 
expense rate by excluding its financial income offset because it failed 
to support that it was generated from short-term sources. In addition, 
we recalculated the cost of sales denominator to include certain non-
operating income and expense items.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP figures for AST to home market 
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at 
prices below their COPs. 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) 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 COP to home market prices, less any 
applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, alloy surcharges, 
skid charges, rebates, 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 a 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, pursuant to 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. 
For those U.S. sales of SSSS for which there were no comparable home 
market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared the CEP to CV 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of AST's cost of materials, fabrication, selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, profit, 
and packing. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by AST in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Italy. For CV, we made 
the same adjustments described in the COP section above.

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.
    For AST's home market sales of products that were above COP, we 
calculated NV based on FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's-length prices. We made adjustments for price billing errors, 
discounts and rebates where appropriate. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, warehousing, and foreign 
inland insurance expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 
In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, as well 
as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments, where appropriate, for imputed credit, warranty expenses, 
and technical expenses. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) 
and (B) of the Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a home market

[[Page 123]]

match of such or similar merchandise. Where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. For 
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting the weighted 
average home market selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses. Where we compared CV to CEP, we deducted from CV the average 
home market 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 
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 Italy. 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 that critical 
circumstances exist if 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 (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 Italy. Furthermore, we investigated the 
existence of antidumping duty orders on SSSS from Italy in the United 
States or elsewhere and found none. We were also unable to find other 
information that would have indicated a history of dumping of SSSS from 
Italy.
    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 
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 calculated estimated dumping margins of 25 percent or greater. 
With regard to CEP sales, the Department normally consider margins of 
15 percent or greater sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping and 
material injury. In this investigation, we have not calculated 
estimated dumping margins of 15 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 Italy by AST. We have not analyzed the shipment data for AST 
to examine whether imports of SSSS have been massive over a relatively 
short period. (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)). 
Regarding all other exporters, because we do not find that critical 
circumstances exist for AST, 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 Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

The All Others Rate

    Because the Department investigated one company (AST), we used 
AST's margin in this investigation as the all-others rate. As a result, 
the all-others rate is 6.25 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
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 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-
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       average
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AST........................................................        6.25%
All Others.................................................        6.25%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether imports of stainless steel plate in coils 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 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

[[Page 124]]

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 will issue our final determination in 
this investigation no later than 135 days after the date of publication 
in the Federal Register of the preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 17, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34464 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P