[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8291-8299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-846]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 19, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan, John Totaro, LaVonne 
Jackson or Keir Whitson, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4243, (202) 482-1374, (202) 482-0961, and (202) 482-1394, 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 (1998).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-
Quality Steel Products (``hot-rolled steel'') from Japan 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 October 15, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, Japan, and 
the Russian Federation. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products from Brazil, Japan, and the Russian Federation, 63 FR 56607 
(October 22, 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. Throughout the month of 
November, the Department received numerous filings from respondents and 
other interested parties proposing amendments to the scope of these 
investigations. On January 6, 1999 and January 27, 1999, petitioners 
(Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX 
Corporation, Ispat Inland Steel, LTV Steel Company, Inc., National 
Steel Corporation, California Steel Industries, Gallatin Steel Company, 
Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., Steel 
Dynamics, Weirton Steel Corporation, the Independent Steelworkers 
Union, and the United Steelworkers of America) filed letters agreeing 
to amend the scope of these investigations to exclude those products 
for which Itochu International, Inc., Nippon Steel Corp., and others 
had requested exclusion (see Scope Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, 
February 12, 1999).
    On October 22, 1998, the Department requested comments from 
petitioners and respondents regarding the criteria to be used for model 
matching purposes. On October 22 and 27, 1998, petitioners and 
respondents (Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, Companhia Siderurgica 
Paulista, Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais, Nippon Steel 
Corporation, NKK Corporation, Kawasaki Steel, Sumitomo Metal 
Industries, Ltd., and Kobe Steel Ltd.) submitted comments on our 
proposed model-matching criteria.

[[Page 8292]]

    On November 16, 1998, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary finding of threat of material injury in this case. 
Additionally, on November 25, 1998, the ITC published its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports of the subject merchandise from Japan (63 FR 65221). On October 
19, 1998, the Department issued section A of an antidumping 
questionnaire to Nippon Steel Corporation (``NSC''), NKK Corporation 
(``NKK''), Kawasaki Steel Corporation (``KSC''), Sumitomo Metal 
Industries (``Sumitomo''), Kobe Steel, Ltd. (``Kobe''), and Nisshin 
Steel Co. Ltd. (``Nisshin''). On October 30, 1998, the Department 
issued a memorandum which identified the respondents whose sales the 
Department would examine for purposes of this investigation. (See 
Respondent Selection section, below.) As a result of this decision, on 
October 30, 1998, the Department issued sections B-E of an antidumping 
questionnaire to NSC, NKK, and KSC (the chosen ``respondents''); the 
remaining three companies were excused from responding to the section A 
questionnaires the Department had sent them. Nevertheless, on November 
12, 1998, Nisshin submitted a letter stating that it had not exported 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
investigation (``POI'').
    On November 16, 1998, we received section A questionnaire responses 
from NSC, NKK, and KSC. Petitioners filed comments on NSC's, NKK's, and 
KSC's section A questionnaire responses on November 30, 1998 and 
December 1, 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires for section A 
to NSC, NKK, and KSC on December 4, 1998. On December 11, 1998, we 
issued a letter to respondents informing them that the Department would 
consider these supplemental questions for section A to have been issued 
on January 4, 1999, in order to adhere to the schedule provided to all 
interested parties at the time of initiation. On December 21, 1998, we 
received responses to sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire from 
NSC, NKK, and KSC. Petitioners filed comments on NSC's, NKK's, and 
KSC's section B-D questionnaire responses on December 28, 1998. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires for sections B, C and D to NSC, NKK, 
and KSC on January 4, 1999, and received responses to these 
questionnaires on January 25, 1999.
    In addition, on November 10, 1998, KSC requested to be excused from 
responding to section E (``Further Manufacturing'') of the Department's 
questionnaire due to certain problems associated with obtaining the 
requisite information. After a review of the material placed on the 
record, the Department instructed KSC on January 4, 1999, to respond to 
section E of the Department's questionnaire. However, on January 25, 
1999, instead of responding to section E of the Department's 
questionnaire, KSC argued that it was still unable to obtain the 
requested information and reiterated its request to be excused from 
providing the further manufactured sales in the United States. With 
regard to NSC and NKK, although both companies were sent section E of 
the questionnaire, both companies responded by stating that they did 
not perform any further manufacturing operations on imports of subject 
merchandise.
    In the petition filed on September 30, 1998, petitioners alleged 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of hot-rolled steel from 
Brazil, Japan, and the Russian Federation. On November 23, 1998, in the 
investigations of Japan and the Russian Federation, the Department 
issued its preliminary critical circumstances determination (63 FR 
65750 November 30, 1998). In these determinations, the Department 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of 
hot-rolled steel from Japan and the Russian Federation.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a 
rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils 
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of 
thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm 
and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal 
mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a 
closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm 
and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without 
patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included 
within the scope of these investigations.
Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (``IF'')) steels, 
high strength low alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the substrate for motor 
lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added 
to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, 
regardless of HTSUS definitions, are products in which: (1) iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) 
the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the 
elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively 
indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are 
outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this 
investigation:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
     SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

[[Page 8293]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               C                    Mn           P           S          Si          Cr          Cu         Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14%....................  0.90% Max   0.025% Max  0.005% Max  0.30--0.50  0.50-0.70%  0.20--0.4  0.20% Max
                                                                     %                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches;
    Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-
88,000 psi.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               C                    Mn           P           S          Si          Cr          Cu         Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.16%....................  0.70-0.90%  0.025% Max  0.006% Max  0.30--0.50  0.50-0.70%  0.25% Max  0.20% Max
                                                                     %
Mo............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........
0.21% Max.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum;
    Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               C                    Mn           P           S          Si          Cr          Cu         Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14%....................  1.30-1.80%  0.025% Max  0.005% Max  0.30-0.50%  0.50-0.70%  0.20-0.40  0.20% Max
                                                                                             %
V(wt.)........................  Cb          ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........
0.10 Max......................  0.08% Max   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum;
    Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               C                    Mn           P           S          Si          Cr          Cu         Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.15% Max.....................  1.40% Max   0.025% Max  0.010% Max  0.50% Max   1.00% Max   0.50% Max  0.20% Max
Nb............................  Ca          Al
0.005% Min....................  Treated     0.01-0.07%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield 
Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses  0.148 inches 
and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength 
= 80,000 psi minimum.
     Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily 
with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to 
and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by 
either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/
mm2 and an elongation percentage  26 percent for 
thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 
N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 
 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above.
     Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in 
coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, 
with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 
0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 
0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 
7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain 
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this 
investigation, including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high 
strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may 
also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 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,

[[Page 8294]]

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 (with respect to each respondent) 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 Japanese producers/exporters with the 
greatest export volume, as identified above. These companies accounted 
for more than 90 percent of all known exports of the subject 
merchandise during the POI. For a more detailed discussion of 
respondent selection in this investigation, see Respondent Selection 
Memorandum, dated October 30, 1998.

Date of Sale

    For its home market and U.S. sales, NSC reported the date of 
shipment, NKK reported the date of shipment for home market sales, and 
date of invoice for U.S. sales, and KSC reported the date of invoice as 
the date of sale for both U.S. and home market sales. NSC, NKK, and KSC 
all stated that the invoice/shipment date best reflects the date on 
which the material terms of sale are established and that price and/or 
quantity can and do change between order confirmation date and invoice/
shipment date. Petitioners, however, have alleged that the sales 
documentation provided by respondents indicates that the order 
confirmation date appears to be the date when the material terms of 
sale are set for a majority of these respondents' sales of hot-rolled 
steel. Given the relevance of petitioners' comments and the nature of 
marketing these types of made-to-order products, we determined that 
petitioners' claims have some merit. Consequently, on December 4, 1998, 
and January 4, 1999, the Department requested respondents to provide 
additional information concerning the nature and frequency of price and 
quantity changes occurring between the date of order confirmation and 
date of invoice. We also asked respondents to report the order 
confirmation date for all home market and U.S. sales and to ensure that 
the entire universe of sales with order or invoice dates within the POI 
were properly reported. On December 21, 1998 and January 25, 1999, NKK 
reiterated that invoice/shipment date is the most appropriate date of 
sale and requested that it not have to report sales based on order 
confirmation date. NSC and KSC provided the requested data in 
accordance with the Department's instructions.
    The Department is preliminarily using the dates of sales reported 
by each respondent (date of shipment for NSC, invoice/shipment date for 
NKK, and invoice date for KSC). We intend to fully examine this issue 
at verification, and we will incorporate our findings, as appropriate, 
in our analysis for the final determination. If we determine that order 
confirmation is the most appropriate date of sale, we may resort to 
facts available for the final determination to the extent that this 
information has not been reported by the respondents. Due to the 
complexity of this issue, we invite all interested parties to submit 
comments on this issue in accordance with the schedule set forth in 
this notice.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in Japan during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eleven 
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison market sales of the foreign like product: paint, quality, 
carbon content, strength, thickness, width, coiled or non-coiled, 
temper rolling, pickling, edge trim, and patterns. These 
characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. 
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 listed 
in the antidumping questionnaire and reporting instructions.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of hot-rolled steel from Japan 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, or the constructed 
export price (``CEP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed 
Export Price'' section of this notice. 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. In accordance with section 
772(a) and (c) of the Act, we calculated EP for all of NSC's sales, all 
of NKK's sales, and the sales KSC reported as EP sales since the 
subject merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. In accordance, with section 772 (b), 
(c) and (d) of the Act, we calculated CEP for all of KSC's reported CEP 
sales as the merchandise was sold in the United States by or for the 
account of the producer or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, before or after the date of importation.

Export Price

    We based our calculation for certain sales 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. We calculated EP 
based on packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States.
    For NSC, NKK, and KSC we made company-specific adjustments to the 
EP 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 (including ocean freight), marine 
insurance fees, and brokerage and handling expenses; discounts and 
rebates, and billing adjustments. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP for KSC, in accordance with section 772(b) of the 
Act when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made in the 
United States by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter 
after the subject merchandise was imported into the United States.
    We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
made deductions from the starting price for discounts, credit, and 
commissions. We also made deductions for the following movement 
expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act: inland freight from plant/warehouse to port of exportation, 
foreign brokerage expenses, international freight (including ocean 
freight), marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to the 
unaffiliated customer, U.S. warehouse expenses, and U.S. Customs 
duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted 
selling expenses

[[Page 8295]]

associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and other 
U.S. indirect selling expenses. In accordance with section 773(d)(3) of 
the Act, we also deducted an amount for profit. In accordance with 
section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenues 
realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses 
associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses 
incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of 
total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home 
market.
    Although KSC performs further manufacturing on imported 
merchandise, KSC did not provide transaction-specific information on 
these sales in the United States. KSC is affiliated with two further 
manufacturers in the United States. With regard to further manufactured 
sales by its affiliate VEST Inc. (``VEST''), KSC reported that it was 
unable to retrieve the requested data due to difficulties with the 
computer system and other complications. After a review of the 
information on the record, the Department determined that further 
manufactured sales through VEST account for less than five percent of 
total U.S. sales. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, 
the Department is disregarding these sales and not utilizing these 
transactions in its margin calculation.
    With regard to KSC's further manufactured sales via its other 
affiliated further manufacturer, California Steel Industries, Inc. 
(``CSI''), KSC argued that, due to conflicts of interest, CSI was 
unable and unwilling to provide transaction-specific further 
manufacturing information. After a review of the information placed on 
the record, the Department determined that these sales account for a 
substantial portion of KSC's U.S. sales. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides, that if an interested party: (A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d), use facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that 
adverse inferences may be used where an interested party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's requests for information. See Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d 
Sess. 870 (1994). In the instant case, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that KSC's and CSI's failure to respond to section E of the 
Department's questionnaire satisfies the requirements of section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C), as well as section 776(b). Therefore, the 
Department has based its margin on adverse facts available. As facts 
available, we used the highest calculated margin for U.S. sales that 
fell within the mainstream of KSC's transactions. In selecting the 
adverse margin, the Department sought a margin that was indicative of 
KSC's customary selling practices and was rationally related to the 
transactions to which the adverse facts available were being applied. 
The selected margin is also sufficiently adverse to effectuate the 
statutory purpose of adverse facts available, which is to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete information in a 
timely manner. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40422, 40428, (July 
29, 1998).
    Section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on 
secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course 
of an investigation or review, it shall to the extent practicable 
corroborate that information from independent sources that are 
reasonably at their disposal. Because the information used to establish 
the facts available margins for KSC's further manufactured sales was 
information KSC submitted in the course of the investigation, rather 
than secondary information, no corroboration of this data is necessary.

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.
A. 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 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)(C) of the Act. Since 
each 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.
B. Arm's Length Test
    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
length prices (if any) 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 prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts, rebates, billing 
adjustments, 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 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated 
party were at arm's length and used those sales in determining NV. 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 Notice of 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). Where the 
exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate 
comparison product, we made a comparison to the next most similar 
product.
C. Downstream Sales
    Pursuant to section 351.403 of the Department's regulations, the 
Department does not normally require the reporting of downstream sales 
if total sales of the foreign like product by a firm to all affiliated 
customers account for five percent or less of the firm's total sales of 
the foreign like product. In general, the Department does not believe 
it necessary or appropriate to require the reporting of downstream 
sales in all instances. Questions concerning the reporting of 
downstream sales are complicated, and the resolution of such questions 
depends on a number of considerations, including

[[Page 8296]]

the nature of the merchandise sold to and by the affiliate, the volume 
of sales to the affiliate, the levels of trade involved, and whether 
sales to affiliates were made at arm's length. In addition, the 
Department normally will not require the respondent to report the 
affiliate's downstream sales unless the sales to the affiliate fail the 
arm's length test. The Department believes that imposing the burden of 
reporting small numbers of downstream sales often is not warranted, and 
that the accuracy of determinations generally is not compromised by the 
absence of such sales.
    In the instant case, NSC and KSC requested that they be excused 
from reporting a small percentage of home market downstream sales due 
to overwhelming burdens in obtaining the information and the fact that 
these downstream sales will not constitute appropriate matches for 
their U.S. sales of subject merchandise. After examining the data 
placed on the record, the Department has preliminarily determined that 
there are sufficient matches of sales in the home market and that the 
downstream sales in question account for less than three percent of 
each firm's total home market sales of subject merchandise. For 
purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department is 
disregarding this small percentage of downstream sales. The Department 
intends to thoroughly examine this issue at verification and will 
incorporate our findings, as appropriate in our analysis for the final 
determination. If we determine that these downstream sales were 
appropriate matches to U.S. sales, or where the data is readily 
available, we may resort to facts available for the final determination 
to the extent that this information has not been reported by the 
respondents.
D. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
    Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners in the 
original petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that each of the 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)(i) 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 
Notice (63 FR 56607, October 22, 1998).
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
for hot-rolled steel based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, 
and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by each 
respondent in its cost questionnaire response, except, as discussed 
below, in specific instances where the submitted costs were not 
appropriately quantified or valued.

NSC

    We excluded from NSC's COP and CV data the reconciliation 
adjustment related to differences between the control number 
(``CONNUM'') specific cost and NSC's costs in its normal books and 
records.

NKK

    We recalculated NKK's G&A expense rate based on NKK's company-wide 
G&A. Additionally we included the loss on outage for a blast furnace 
accident in G&A expense and the mill movement expenses in the base used 
for the G&A rate calculation. We disallowed NKK's adjustment for 
alleged double counting of certain cost of manufacturing items. 
Finally, we recalculated interest expense using the recalculated total 
cost of manufacturing for each CONNUM.

KSC

    We recalculated Kawasaki's general and administrative (``G&A'') 
expense rate by including losses on disposal of fixed assets, special 
retirement expenses, and past service portion of pension cost.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP by CONNUM for each respondent, 
adjusted where appropriate (see above), to home market sales prices 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. We compared the COP to home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect 
selling expenses.
3. 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'' 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.

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 arm's 
length and/or cost test. We made comparisons on an actual weight to 
actual weight basis. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for 
physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs.

NSC

    We calculated NV based on prices to affiliated customers that 
passed the arm's length test and sales to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made adjustments for physical differences in the 
merchandise, where necessary in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the 
Act. We made deductions for quantity and sales promotion discounts, 
rebates and movement expenses. We found after reviewing the information 
placed on the record that NSC's reported home market freight expenses 
(INLFTCH) are inclusive of both affiliated and unaffiliated freight 
costs. The Department requested NSC to provide analyses demonstrating 
that expenses for freight services provided by affiliated suppliers 
were based on a market rate. However, NSC did not provide these 
comparisons. In addition, the Department was unable to determine which 
freight expenses were paid to affiliated or unaffiliated companies. 
Therefore, the Department, for this

[[Page 8297]]

preliminary determination has disallowed this adjustment in the home 
market. In addition, we made circumstance-of-sale (``COS'') adjustments 
for differences in credit and warranty expenses, where appropriate in 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In our NV calculations, 
we did not use a certain portion of NSC's reported downstream sales 
because the sales by NSC to its affiliated reseller passed the arm's 
length test (see Arm's Length Test section, above).

NKK

    We calculated NV based on prices to affiliated customers that 
passed the arm's length test and sales to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made adjustments for physical differences in the 
merchandise, where necessary. We made deductions for quantity and sales 
promotion discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, direct selling, and 
movement expenses. In addition, we made COS adjustments for differences 
in credit and warranty expenses, where appropriate in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii). In our NV calculations, we did not use a 
certain portion of NKK's reported downstream sales because the sales by 
NKK to its affiliated reseller passed the arm's length test (see Arm's 
Length Test section, above).

KSC

    We calculated NV based on prices to affiliated customers that 
passed the arm's length test and on sales to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made adjustments for physical differences in the 
merchandise, where necessary. We made deductions for quantity and sales 
promotion discounts, rebates and movement expenses, direct selling 
expenses, and processing fees. In addition, we made COS adjustments for 
differences in credit and warranty expenses, where appropriate in 
accordance with section 776(a)(6)(C)(iii). In our NV calculations, we 
did not use a certain portion of KSC's reported downstream sales 
because the sales by KSC to its affiliated reseller passed the arm's 
length test (see Arm's Length Test section, above).

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 sales in the 
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive 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 export sale from 
the exporter to the affiliated 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, no respondent requested a LOT adjustment; 
however, KSC requested a CEP offset. To determine whether a LOT 
adjustment was necessary, in accordance with principles discussed 
above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in 
both the United States and Japanese markets, including the selling 
functions, classes of customer and selling expenses for each 
respondent. Results of the LOT analysis for each respondent are 
summarized below. For a complete discussion and the results of the LOT 
analysis, please see the Department's memorandum on Level of Trade, 
dated February 12, 1999.

NSC

    In the home market, NSC sold to unaffiliated and affiliated trading 
companies and to end-users. In the U.S. market, NSC sold only to 
trading companies and reported all sales on an EP basis. Based on our 
analysis we find that NSC performed essentially the same level of 
selling functions for all three groups of sales.
    NSC claims that there is no difference in the selling functions 
between the home market and U.S. channels of distribution. When 
comparing NSC's U.S. sales to its home market sales, we found that NSC 
performed essentially the same level of selling functions in both the 
United States and home market. Based on our examination of the 
information on the record, we agree with NSC that it sold merchandise 
at the same LOT in the home market and the U.S. market. Therefore, we 
have not made a LOT adjustment because all price comparisons are at the 
same LOT and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act 
is not appropriate.

NKK

    In the home market, NKK sold to unaffiliated and affiliated trading 
companies and to end-users. NKK reported its sales to unaffiliated 
trading companies and end-users as the same level of trade. NKK 
performed essentially the same level of selling functions for all three 
types of home market sales. Therefore, we find that there is one level 
of trade in the home market. In the U.S. market, NKK sold only to 
unaffiliated trading companies.
    NKK claims that there are differences in the selling functions 
between the home market and U.S. channels of distribution and therefore 
its home market and U.S. sales should be considered made at different 
levels of trade. When comparing NKK's U.S. sales to its home market 
sales, we found that NKK provided different levels of selling functions 
with respect to its U.S. and home market sales. For example, NKK 
provided different levels of promotion, technical advice, warranty, 
financing, delivery, and inventory and warehousing services in the U.S. 
and in Japan. Based on our examination of the information on the 
record, we preliminarily determine that NKK sold merchandise at one LOT 
in the home market and a different LOT in the U.S. market. However, 
after a review of the data on the record, we do not have information 
which would allow us to examine pricing patterns between the relevant 
levels of trade based on respondent's sales of subject merchandise in 
the home market or other record information on which such an analysis 
could be based. Therefore, we do not have an appropriate basis upon 
which to determine a LOT adjustment. As a result, we have not made a 
LOT adjustment. For a complete discussion of LOT, please see the 
Department's memorandum on Level of Trade, dated February 12, 1999.

KSC

    KSC stated that it sold subject merchandise through five channels 
of trade during the period of investigation, three in the home market, 
and two in the United States. KSC's U.S. sales were made to 
unaffiliated trading companies and reported as EP sales, or through its

[[Page 8298]]

U.S. affiliate, Kawasho International, and reported as CEP sales. Its 
three home market channels of trade involved sales to unaffiliated 
trading companies; sales to unaffiliated end-users; and sales through 
its affiliated reseller, Kawasho. For the last group of sales, the 
Department conducted its LOT analysis based on Kawasho's sales to the 
first unaffiliated customer.
    The Department first examined whether any differences existed with 
respect to the selling functions performed by KSC in making sales to 
its three types of home market customers. The information on the record 
indicates that there is a difference between the selling functions 
performed in selling to end-users, directly or via affiliated trading 
companies, as compared to the other home market channel of trade. 
Therefore, using the information on the record, the Department 
preliminarily determined that KSC sells at two levels of trade in the 
home market.
    Regarding KSC's U.S. EP sales, the Department found that evidence 
existed to differentiate the selling functions between sales made to 
unaffiliated trading companies for sales to the United States and sales 
made at the two different levels of trade in the home market. Based 
upon our analysis, we found a difference in the selling functions 
performed on EP sales as compared to sales at each of the two distinct 
levels of trade in the home market. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily determined that the information on the record justifies 
treating KSC's EP sales as having been made at a different LOT from the 
two home market levels of trade. However, we do not have information 
which would allow us to determine whether there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the relevant LOTs in the home 
market. Therefore, we do not have an appropriate basis to determine a 
LOT adjustment.
    Regarding KSC's U.S. CEP sales, we examined the selling functions 
performed by KSC in the home market in making sales to the two levels 
of trade, and the selling functions performed by KSC in making sales to 
its affiliate, Kawasho International, in the United States. For these 
CEP sales we determined that fewer and different selling functions were 
performed in making CEP sales to Kawasho International than in making 
sales at any of the two home market LOTs. Therefore, information on the 
record justifies treating CEP sales and the two groups of home market 
sales as having been made at different levels of trade.
    We next examined whether a LOT adjustment was appropriate when 
KSC's CEP sales are compared to the home market levels of trade. The 
Department makes this adjustment when it is demonstrated that a 
difference in LOTs affects price comparability. However, where the 
available data do not provide an appropriate basis upon which to 
determine a LOT adjustment, and where the NV is established at a LOT 
that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision). In the instant case, we were unable to 
quantify the LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act, as we found that none of the LOTs in the home market matched 
the LOT of the CEP transactions. Because of this, we were unable to 
calculate a LOT adjustment. Instead, because we determined that all of 
KSC's home market sales were made at levels of trade more advanced than 
the LOT of KSC's U.S. sales, we granted a CEP offset and applied this 
to comparisons between KSC's CEP sales and all HM sales.

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.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides, that if an interested party: 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, as provided in section 782(i), the 
Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d), use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the URAA, H.R.Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 
(1994). In the instant case, the Department determined that the failure 
of KSC and its U.S. affiliate to respond to section E of the 
Department's questionnaire satisfies the requirements of section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C). Therefore, in accordance with the statutory 
requirements, the Department applied adverse facts available. As 
adverse facts available we used the highest calculated dumping margin 
found for any individual product (i.e., CONNUM) as the dumping margin 
for all sales via KSC's affiliated further manufacturer.
    The Department also used facts available in determining the margins 
for certain U.S. sales by NSC. NSC reported the majority of U.S. sales 
on an actual weight basis. In addition, it reported all comparable 
merchandise in the home market on an actual weight basis. However, it 
reported a small quantity of U.S. sales on a theoretical weight basis. 
Due to the fact that NSC did not provide conversion factors for these 
U.S. sales upon the Department's request, we preliminarily assigned the 
highest calculated margin by CONNUM as facts available for these 
transactions. In addition, NSC did not provide full costs for certain 
CONNUMs.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used where an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 
(1994). As facts available, we used the highest calculated margin for 
U.S. sales that fell within the mainstream of NSC's and KSC's 
transactions. In selecting the adverse margin, the Department sought a 
margin that was indicative of NSC's and KSC's customary selling 
practices and was rationally related to the transactions to which the 
adverse facts available were being applied. The selected margin is also 
sufficiently adverse to effectuate the statutory purpose of adverse 
facts available, which is to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete information in a timely manner. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40422, 40428, (July 29, 1998).
    NKK reported all its U.S. and home market sales on an actual weight 
basis, with the exception of less than one percent of home market 
sales. Although the Department requested conversion factors for these 
transactions, NKK refused to provide conversion factors for these 
sales. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary determination, we 
used adverse facts available as the adjusted price for these 
transactions used in calculating NV. As adverse facts available for 
each CONNUM we assigned the highest calculated adjusted price for that 
CONNUM to the relevant transactions within that CONNUM.

[[Page 8299]]

All Others Rate

    Recognizing the impracticality of examining all producers and 
exporters in all cases (see SAA at 873), section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 
Act provides for the use of an ``all others'' rate, which is applied to 
non-investigated firms. This section states that the all others rate 
shall generally be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and 
producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis 
margins, and any margins based entirely upon the facts available. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned to all other exporters of 
Japanese hot-rolled steel, an ``all others'' margin that is the 
weighted average of the margins calculated for NSC, NKK and KSC.

Verification

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

Critical Circumstances

    The Department notes that it will request company specific export 
information from NSC, NKK, and KSC, for our final determination. We 
invite interested parties to comment on the issue of critical 
circumstances, and we will consider these comments and the company 
specific data in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the 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 which is 90 days prior to 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 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
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nippon Steel Corporation...................................        25.14
NKK Corporation............................................        30.63
Kawasaki Steel Corporation.................................        67.59
All Others.................................................        35.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission (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 hot-rolled steel 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 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). If this investigation proceeds 
normally, we will make our final determination no later than April 28, 
1999.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-4196 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P