[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9670-9685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-357-817]


Notice of Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination 
and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Argentina

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

ACTION: Preliminary determination of countervailing duty investigation.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that 
countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers or 
exporters of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
Argentina.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suresh Maniam or Jarrod Goldfeder at 
(202) 482-0176 or (202) 482-0189, respectively; Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determination

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the ``Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
``Department'') regulations are to our regulations as codified at 19 
CFR part 351 (2001).

The Petitioners

    The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel 
Corp., United States Steel LLC., LTV Steel Co., Inc., Steel Dynamics, 
Inc., National Steel Corp., Nucor Corp., WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton 
Steel Corp. (collectively, ``the petitioners'').

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the publication of the 
notice of initiation in the Federal Register (see Notice of Initiation 
of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Argentina, Brazil, France, and the Republic of 
Korea, 66 FR 54218 (October 26, 2001) (``Initiation Notice'')).
    On November 2, 2001, we issued a countervailing duty questionnaire 
to the Government of Argentina (``GOA'') and Siderar Sociedad Anonima 
Industrial Y Comercial (``Siderar''), a producer/exporter of the 
subject merchandise from Argentina. Our decision to select Siderar to 
respond to our questionnaire is explained in the Memorandum to Susan H. 
Kuhbach, ``Respondent Selection,'' dated November 2, 2001, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department 
building.
    On November 30, 2001, we extended the time limit for the 
preliminary determination of this investigation to January 28, 2002. 
See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 
Brazil, France, and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Determinations in Countervailing Duty Investigations, 66 FR 
63523 (December 7, 2001).
    On November 15, 2001, Emerson Electric Co. submitted a request to 
exclude certain merchandise from the scope of this investigation. On 
February 22, 2002, the petitioners submitted an objection to this 
request. See section below on ``Scope of the Investigation: Scope 
Comments'' for an analysis of these submissions and the Department's 
determination.
    We received a questionnaire response from the GOA and Siderar on 
December 21, 2001. The petitioners submitted comments regarding these 
questionnaire responses on January 2, 2002.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOA and Siderar on 
January 22, 2002, and received responses to these questionnaires on 
February 6, 2002.
    On January 18, 2002, we further extended the time limit for the 
preliminary determination in this investigation until February 25, 
2002. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, Brazil, France, and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Determinations in Countervailing Duty 
Investigations, 67 FR 3482 (January 24, 2002).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced) flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 
products. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, 
see the Appendix to this notice.

Scope Comments

    In the Initiation Notice, we invited comments on the scope of this 
proceeding. On November 15, 2001, we received a request from Emerson 
Electric Company (``Emerson'') to amend the scope of this 
investigation, as well as the concurrent countervailing and antidumping 
duty investigations pertaining to subject merchandise. Specifically, 
Emerson requested that the scope be amended to exclude all types of 
nonoriented coated silicon electrical steel, whether fully- or semi-
processed, because such products are not treated in the marketplace as 
carbon steel products.
    On February 22, 2002, we received a response to the Emerson request 
from the petitioners. The petitioners objected to excluding these 
products from the scope and have explained that the scope language is 
not overly inclusive with respect to these products. Therefore, we 
determine that nonoriented coated silicon electric steel is within the 
scope of these proceedings.
    The Department has also received several other scope exclusion 
requests in the cold-rolled steel investigations. We are continuing to 
examine these exclusion requests, and plan to reach a decision as early 
as possible in the proceedings. Interested parties will be advised of 
our intentions prior to the final determinations and will have the 
opportunity to comment.

Injury Test

    Because Argentina is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') is required to determine whether imports of the 
subject merchandise from Argentina materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, a U.S. industry. On November 19, 2001, the ITC 
published its preliminary determination finding that there is a 
reasonable indication of material injury or threat of material injury 
to an industry in the United States by reason of imports of certain 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina. See Certain 
Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, 
China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, 
Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,

[[Page 9671]]

Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 66 FR 57985 (November 19, 
2001).

Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    On February 21, 2002, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting 
alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the 
final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigations 
(see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, Australia, 
Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, 
New Zealand, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, 
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 
66 FR 54198 (October 26, 2001)). The companion antidumping duty 
investigations and this countervailing duty investigation were 
initiated on the same date and have the same scope. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final 
determination in this investigation with the final determination in the 
antidumping duty investigations of certain cold-rolled carbon steel 
flat products.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') for which we are measuring 
subsidies corresponds to Siderar's fiscal year, July 1, 2000 through 
June 30, 2001.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are 
allocated over a period corresponding to the average useful life 
(``AUL'') of the renewable physical assets used to produce the subject 
merchandise. Section 351.524(d)(2) creates a rebuttable presumption 
that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 
1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (``the IRS Tables''). 
For certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products, the IRS Tables 
prescribe an AUL of 15 years.
    In order to rebut the presumption in favor of the IRS tables, the 
challenging party must show that the IRS tables do not reasonably 
reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the 
industry in question, and that the difference between the company-
specific or country-wide AUL and the IRS tables is significant. 19 CFR 
351.524(d)(2)(i). For this difference to be considered significant, it 
must be one year or greater. 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(ii).
    In this proceeding, Siderar has calculated a company-specific AUL 
of 8 years. We preliminarily determine that this AUL is not distortive 
and that it is significantly different from the 15-year AUL prescribed 
by the IRS Tables. Therefore, we are using this AUL to identify those 
subsidies that potentially give rise to a countervailable benefit 
during the POI.
    We note that subsidies to Siderar's predecessors (Sociedad Mixta 
Siderugica (SOMISA) and Propulsora Siderugica S.A.I.C (Propulsora)) 
were previously allocated over 15 years. See Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 52974 (October 10, 1997). We note 
further that subsidies to Siderar were allocated over 15 years in Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 66 FR 37007 (July 16, 2001). 
In both cases, to allocate subsidies, the Department used the 15-year 
AUL prescribed by the IRS Tables. At the time of the former case, 
however, it was not the Department's policy to permit companies to 
request a company-specific allocation period; and the latter case was 
decided on the basis of adverse facts available.
    Because the 8-year company-specific AUL calculated by Siderar was 
calculated pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(iii)) and is significantly 
different from the AUL prescribed by the IRS Tables (as defined in 19 
CFR 351.524(d)(ii)), the Departments regulation at 19 CFR 351.524(d)(i) 
directs that we use it. The use of this 8-year company-specific AUL 
means that all benefits received prior to Siderar's 1993 fiscal year 
provided no benefit to Siderar in the POI. Accordingly, in this 
preliminary determination, we have not discussed the merits of any 
arguments relating to any alleged subsidies received prior Siderar's 
1993/1994 fiscal year.

Equityworthiness and Creditworthiness

    The petitioners claim that SOMISA was unequityworthy from 1984 
through 1990. In the Initiation Notice, we stated that we would examine 
the equityworthiness of SOMISA during this period should we find any 
countervailable equity infusions received in those years. 66 FR at 
54226. However, because of the use of Siderar's 8-year, company-
specific AUL, any non-recurring subsidies received in the years of 
alleged unequityworthiness would be fully allocated prior to the POI. 
Accordingly, because Siderar would not benefit in the POI from any 
equity infusions received in 1986 through 1990, there is no need to 
examine its equityworthiness for the that period.
    The petitioners also alleged that Siderar was uncreditworthy during 
1992. We stated in the Initiation Notice that we would examine 
Siderar's creditworthiness in 1992 if we found that SOMISA received any 
non-recurring grants, loans, or loan guarantees in 1992. Id. However, 
because of our decision to use Siderar's 8-year, company-specific AUL, 
any non-recurring subsidies received in 1992 would be fully allocated 
prior to the POI. In addition, no countervailable loans or loan 
guarantees were received in 1992. Accordingly, because Siderar did not 
benefit in the POI from any countervailable non-recurring grants, loans 
or loan guarantees received in 1992, there is no need to examine its 
creditworthiness for that year.

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill

    The Zero Tariff Turnkey Bill is a program established by Resolution 
502/95 of the Ministry of Economy. The purpose of the program is to 
provide an incentive to import goods and equipment that will be used to 
modernize productive processes in Argentina. The program achieves this 
objective by allowing for the importation of new merchandise and 
equipment without the payment of import duties. Resolution 502/95 was 
repealed in 2000 and replaced with a modified version established by 
Resolution 1089/00.
    In the original questionnaire and in a supplemental questionnaire, 
we asked the GOA to provide information regarding the distribution of 
benefits among industries and companies for the year the benefit was 
approved and for the prior three years. The GOA provided us in both 
responses with what appears to be the distribution of benefits for the 
years 1996/1997 only. Although this information indicates that the 
program is not specific, the GOA did not claim that it could not 
provide more recent data. Therefore, because it is unclear at this 
stage whether the provided data provided by the GOA is the relevant 
data, for specificity purposes, we have preliminarily made an 
assumption that the benefits are de facto specific. We intend to 
clarify prior to the final determination the specificity of this 
program during the POI. We note, however, that, despite this assumption 
of specificity, the benefits from the program to Siderar for the POI 
are

[[Page 9672]]

insignificant, amounting to only 0.01 percent ad valorem.
    Because this program provides a duty exemption, we have 
preliminarily found the benefit as recurring, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.524(a) and (c). Prior to the final determination, we intend to 
clarify whether these benefits are tied to capital assets and consider 
whether they should be treated as non-recurring.
    To calculate the subsidy rate, we multiplied the value of the 
imported goods by the applicable duty rate. Because this entire amount 
was rebated, we treated the entire amount as a benefit in the POI. We 
divided this benefit by Siderar's total sales in the POI. Accordingly, 
we preliminarily determine Siderar's POI benefit from this program to 
be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable

A. ``Committed Investment'' Into APSA

    According to the petitioners, at the time of APSA's privatization 
in 1992, the GOA required all bidders to commit to invest $100 million 
in equity into APSA during the two years following the company's sale. 
The petitioners allege that the GOA sold APSA at a price that was below 
fair market value, thereby inducing Propulsura, the eventual purchaser, 
to agree to the investment commitment. The petitioners argue that the 
investment commitment constituted an indirect equity infusion in which 
the GOA ``directed or entrusted'' Propulsura to make an infusion in 
APSA, an unequityworthy company. The petitioners suggest two ways to 
address the committed investment required by the GOA: 1) as revenue 
forgone and 2) as an equity infusion ``directed'' by the GOA.
    Regarding the first approach, the petitioners rely upon the 
Department's finding in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Mexico: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 
FR 14549 (March 13, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Discussion of Analysis of Programs: Committed Investment 
(``Mexican Plate''). In Mexican Plate, we found that the government of 
Mexico forwent revenue owed to it when it allowed the bidders to use a 
commitment to invest in the company in the future as a partial 
equivalent to the payment of cash for the company at the time of sale.
    In Mexican Plate, the benefit occurred at the time that revenue was 
forgone by the government, i.e., at the time the company was sold. In 
this case, any revenue forgone from the committed investment would have 
taken place at the time of the sale of the company, which was in 1992. 
As stated above, however, because of the use of Siderar's 8-year 
company-specific AUL in this investigation, any benefits received in 
1992 would be fully allocated prior to the POI. Therefore, we have not 
made a determination of whether the GOA actually forwent revenue 
because, regardless of whether it did, Siderar did not benefit in the 
POI.
    The second approach advocated by the petitioners is based on our 
treatment of the committed investment in Argentina Hot-Rolled. In that 
case, we treated the same committed investment that is under 
investigation in this case as non-recurring grants received in the 
years in which the investments were made. See Notice of Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, 66 FR 109901, 10997 (February 21, 2001). That decision, 
however, was made on the basis of adverse facts available, and the 
methodology used in that case for the treatment of the committed 
investment reflected an adverse inference by the Department.
    We believe that the revenue forgone analysis performed in Mexican 
Plate is the appropriate examination to be used in the case of 
committed investments. However, because the petitioners have, in part, 
relied on Argentina Hot-Rolled in making their allegations, we have 
examined the merits of this allegation in light of Argentina Hot-
Rolled. We note several problems with the petitioners' second approach. 
First, unlike in Argentina Hot-Rolled, the GOA and Siderar have 
cooperated fully in this investigation and, therefore, our 
determination in Argentina Hot-Rolled is not instructive. Second, an 
examination of the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
in light of the approach used in Argentina Hot-Rolled reveals 
significant issues with regard to the specificity of any benefits and 
the nature of the financial contribution. Finally, even assuming 
arguendo that these investments were countervailable, the resulting 
subsidy rate would be small enough that it does not raise the overall 
subsidy rate above de minimis. As a result, because the 
countervailability of this program does not make a difference in the 
outcome of this preliminary determination, we find that no further 
examination of this approach is needed. Based on all of the above, we 
find this program not countervailable.
    B. Export Subsidies: Reintegro
    The Reintegro program entitles Argentine exporters to a rebate of 
various internal and domestic taxes levied during the production, 
distribution, and sales process on many exported products. The 
Reintegro is calculated as a percentage of the FOB invoice price of an 
exported product. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Honey from Argentina, 66 FR 50613 (October 4, 2001), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Programs Determined to 
Confer Subsidies: Federal Programs--Argentine Internal Tax 
Reimbursement/Rebate (Reintegro)'' (``Honey Final'').
    In order to determine whether a countervailable benefit is provided 
by programs that rebate cumulative indirect taxes, the Department 
normally examines whether the amount remitted or rebated exceeds the 
amount of prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes paid on inputs consumed 
in the production of subject merchandise, making normal allowances for 
waste. 19 CFR 351.518(a)(2). If the amount rebated exceeds the amount 
of prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes paid, the excess amount is a 
countervailable benefit. Id.
    However, 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4) states that the Department will 
consider the entire amount of the tax rebate or remission to confer a 
benefit unless:

    1. The government in question has in place and applies a system 
or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production 
of the exported products and in what amounts, and to confirm which 
indirect taxes are imposed on these inputs, and the system or 
procedure is reasonable, effective for the purposes intended, and is 
based on generally accepted commercial practices in the country of 
export; or
    2. If the government in question does not have a system or 
procedures in place, if the system is or procedure is not 
reasonable, or if the system or procedure is instituted and 
considered reasonable, but is found not to be applied or not be 
applied effectively, the government in question has carried out an 
examination of actual inputs involved to confirm which inputs are 
consumed in the production of the exported product, in what amounts, 
and which indirect taxes are imposed on the inputs.

19 CFR 351.518 (a)(4)(i) and (ii).

    According to the GOA, the government has no written procedures or 
guidelines for the operation of this rebate system. However, the GOA 
claims that it does receive information from the industry regarding the 
actual incidence of indirect taxes, which it takes into account in 
setting the

[[Page 9673]]

Reintegro rate. These rates are adjusted from time to time at the 
discretion of the Ministry of Economy.
    The Department has previously examined the Reembolso, the 
predecessor to the Reintegro. In the most recent examination, Honey 
from Argentina: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination 
on Honey from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 14521, 14524 (March 
13, 2001), we stated that:

    [T]he GOA established a rebate system in 1971, which was known 
as the ``reembolso'' program. In 1986, Decree 1555/86 was 
promulgated to implement the reembolso program in a manner 
consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In May 
1991, the GOA issued Decree 1011/91, which renamed the reembolso 
program as Reintegro and modified the legal structure of the 
program. Under Decree 1011/91, Reintegro rebated indirect taxes 
only. Decree 1011/91 has been the relevant governing decree since 
1991. The nature and structure of the program have remained 
unchanged since then, although the Ministry of Economics modifies 
Reintegro rebate levels from time to time.

    Moreover, in Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review, Carbon 
Steel Wire Rod From Argentina, 64 FR 28978 (May 28, 1999), we stated 
that:

    [W]e found that the legal structure of the reembolso program was 
changed by Decree 1011/91 in May 1991. Specifically, the Department 
found that the rebate system was changed to cover only the 
reimbursements of the indirect local taxes and does not cover import 
duties, except reimbursement of duties paid on imported products 
which are re-exported.

    In Honey Final, we found that the Reintegro program provides a 
countervailable benefit in the full amount of the Reintgro rebate 
because the GOA was unable to demonstrate that it had a reasonable and 
effective system in place for its honey industry. However, while this 
was true for the honey industry, because systems or procedures may 
differ from industry to industry, we have examined the system or 
procedure in place for the steel industry.
    In previous steel cases, the Department determined that, for the 
steel industry, the GOA carries out an appropriate examination of 
actual inputs to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of 
the exported products. See, e.g., Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled 
Products From Argentina: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 18006, 18009-10 
(April 26, 1984) (and its subsequent reviews) and Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, 49 FR 46564, 46566 (November 27, 
1984) (and its subsequent reviews).
    In this case, Siderar claims that it submits its tax incidence 
study to the GOA on a regular basis (and provided to the Department, in 
this investigation, its studies for the fiscal years 1998/1999 and 
2000/2001). Because the GOA has used these studies in its determination 
of the Reintgro rate (which are similar to the studies examined by the 
GOA in previous cases) and regularly updates these rates, we continue 
to find, consistent with our past cases, that the GOA has appropriately 
examined the actual inputs involved in the production of the subject 
merchandise.
    Because of the above, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.518(a)(2), we then 
examined the extent to which Siderar received rebates in excess of its 
prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes on the production of subject 
merchandise. According to the GOA, the Reintgro rate applicable for 
subject merchandise for the POI was 7.5 percent (except for a brief 
period in which it was reduced to 0.5 percent). Based on our 
calculation methodology from previous cases, we examined Siderar's 
2000/2001 tax incidence study and found that the company's actual POI 
prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes for the production of the subject 
merchandise exceeded 7.5 percent. Because Siderar's actual incidence of 
tax was higher than the Reintegro rate, we find no countervailable 
benefit to Siderar in the POI. Accordingly, we preliminarily find this 
program not countervailable.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    Based on the information provided in the responses and/or the use 
of Siderar's 8-year company-specific AUL, we determine that Siderar did 
not receive benefits under the following programs during the POI:

A. Equity Infusions

B. Assumption of Debt and Liquidation Costs

C. Subsidies Under Decree 1144/92

D. Export Subsidies: Pre- and Post-Export Financing

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 75 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to 
be held 57 days from the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the 
reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. An 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    In addition, six copies of the business proprietary version and six 
copies of the nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be 
submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the 
publication of this notice. As part of the case brief, parties are 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies 
of the business proprietary

[[Page 9674]]

version and six copies of the nonproprietary version of the rebuttal 
briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 
days after the filing of case briefs. Written arguments should be 
submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if 
received within the time limits specified above.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 25, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

[[Page 9675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.028


[[Page 9676]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.029


[[Page 9677]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.030


[[Page 9678]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.031


[[Page 9679]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.032


[[Page 9680]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.033


[[Page 9681]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.034


[[Page 9682]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.035


[[Page 9683]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.036


[[Page 9684]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04MR02.037


[[Page 9685]]


[FR Doc. 02-5106 Filed 3-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C