[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31231-31235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-614-803]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From New Zealand

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala or Tracy Levstik, 
AD/CVD Enforcement Office V, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1784 or (202) 482-2815, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 
2001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain cold-rolled carbon steel 
flat products (cold-rolled steel) from New Zealand are being sold, or 
are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value, as 
provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margin of sales at 
LTFV is shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on October 18, 2001. \1\ See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, 
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New 
Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, 
and Venezuela, 66 FR 54198 (October 26, 2001) (Initiation Notice). 
Since the initiation of this investigation, the following events have 
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, 
Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., United States Steel 
Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton Steel Corporation, 
(collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2001, we solicited comments from interested parties 
regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes, and we 
received comments on our proposed matching criteria on November 8, 
2001. On November 8, 2001, we received model match comments from 
petitioners and respondents. On November 26, 2001, we informed NZS of 
our revised model match criteria.
    On November 13, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is being materially 
injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from 
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, 
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, 
Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela of certain cold-
rolled steel products. See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From 
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, 
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, 
Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 66 FR 57985 
(November 19, 2001).
    The Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to BHP New 
Zealand Steel Limited (NZS) on November 19, 2001. \2\ During the period 
December 2001 through March 2002, the Department received responses to 
the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 
Section D requests information on the cost of production of the 
foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise 
under investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2002, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners 
made a timely request to postpone the

[[Page 31232]]

preliminary determination. On February 22, 2002, the Department 
published a Federal Register notice postponing the deadline for the 
preliminary determination until no later than April 26, 2002. (See 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina (A-357-816), Australia (A-602-804), Belgium (A-423-811), 
Brazil (A-351-834), the People's Republic of China (A-570-872), France 
(A-427-822), Germany (A-428-834), India (A-533-826), Japan (A-588-859), 
Korea (A-580-848), the Netherlands (A-421-810), New Zealand (A-614-
803), Russia (A-821-815), South Africa (A-791-814), Spain (A-469-812), 
Sweden (A-401-807), Taiwan (A-583-839), Thailand (A-549-819), Turkey 
(A-489-810) and Venezuela (A-307-822), 67 FR 8277 (February 22, 2002)).
    On March 25, 2002, the petitioners requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of NZS. We did so on April 
19, 2002.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 
2001. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters 
prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., September 
2001).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act 
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a 
request to postpone the final determination from the respondent, NZS, 
on April 24, 2002. In its request, NZS consented to the extension of 
provisional measures to no longer than six months.
    Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, the request 
for postponement is made by an exporter that accounts for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no 
compelling reason to deny the respondent's request, we have extended 
the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135th 
day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in 
the Federal Register and have extended provisional measures to no 
longer than six months.

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, as 
well as a complete discussion of all scope exclusion requests submitted 
in the context of the on-going cold-rolled steel investigations, please 
see the ``Scope Appendix'' attached to the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, published concurrently with 
this preliminary determination.

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. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producer/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits us 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. Using company-specific 
export data for the POI, which we obtained from a variety of sources 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) 
numbers that correspond to the subject merchandise, we found that there 
was one producer/exporter, NZS, who may have exported cold-rolled steel 
to the United States during the POI. Therefore, we designated NZS as 
the only mandatory respondent and sent it the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire.

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we have preliminarily 
applied partial adverse facts available to NZS for purposes of 
determining normal value (NV). Given that NZS failed to report the 
downstream sales for an affiliated reseller as we requested in our 
original section A questionnaire and supplemental section A 
questionnaire, we have preliminarily determined that NZS did not act to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, we have applied partial adverse 
facts available for sales made by the affiliated reseller, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act. Due to the proprietary nature of the 
documentation supporting this issue, for further discussion, see the 
Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad from Bernard Carreau Re: Use of Facts 
Available for NZS for the Preliminary Determination in the 2000-2001 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from New Zealand, dated April 26, 2002.
    As adverse facts available, for each model sold to the affiliated 
reseller, we have used the highest home-market price of a product NZS 
sold to unaffiliated customers for the same model during the period of 
investigation to represent the downstream sales prices made to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. (See Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United 
Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Partial Recession of Administrative Reviews, and Notice of 
Intent To Revoke Orders in Part, 66 FR 8931 (February 5, 2001)).
    The facts available methodology used in this preliminary 
determination assumes that the products sold to the reseller are an 
appropriate surrogate for those sold by the reseller to the first 
unaffiliated customer. We note, however, that it appears that the 
affiliated reseller may engage in further processing of the cold-rolled 
products it purchases from NZS. Specifically, NZS has stated that the 
affiliated reseller ``further processes the cold rolled coil it 
purchases by slitting and/or cutting the coils into sheets.'' \3\ We 
will continue to evaluate the information available, and, as 
appropriate, we may reconsider our facts available methodology and 
selection for the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NZS' section A submission of December 10, 2001, at page 
A-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled steel from New Zealand by 
NZS to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the constructed 
export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the 
Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice, 
below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
compared POI weighted-average CEPs to weighted-average NVs.

[[Page 31233]]

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by NZS in the home market during the POI 
that fit the description in the Scope of Investigation section of this 
notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales 
to sales made in the home market, where appropriate. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
the respondent in the following order of importance: hardening and 
tempering; painted; carbon level; quality; yield strength; minimum 
thickness; thickness tolerance; width; edge finish; form; temper 
rolling; leveling; annealing; and surface finish.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we CEP for those 
sales where the merchandise was sold (or agreed to be sold) in the 
United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter. In this case, we calculated CEP based on the packed prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We 
found that all of NZS' U.S. sales are CEP sales because the merchandise 
was sold through NZS' U.S. affiliate, BHP Steel Americas Inc. (BHPSA) 
in the United States, within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. 
These sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made 
after the date of importation.We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling 
and U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and 
merchandise processing fees). In addition, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling 
expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the 
United States, specifically, indirect selling expenses (including 
inventory carrying costs), credit expense and warranty expense.
    For those U.S. sales for which NZS did not report a date of 
payment, we have used the signature date of the preliminary 
determination (i.e., April 26, 2002) in the calculation of imputed 
credit expenses. In addition, we used NZS' revised weighted average 
interest rate, which correctly used the Federal Reserve's weighted-
average data for commercial and industrial loans of one-month's to one-
year's duration, to calculate credit expense in the U.S. market.\4\ For 
further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Tracy Levstik 
and Salim Bhabhrawala Re: Calculations Performed for NZS for the 
Preliminary Determination in the 2000-2001 Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
New Zealand, dated April 26, 2002. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to 
arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
calculated the CEP profit rate using NZS' financial statements pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.402(d)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NZS' submission of April 12, 2002, at page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

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 the respondent's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable for the respondent.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market 
which were determined not to be at arm's length were excluded from our 
analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we 
compared the prices of sales of comparison products to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts, rebates and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) 
and in accordance with our practice, where the prices to the affiliated 
party were on average less than 99.5 percent of the prices to 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were not at arm's length. See e.g., Notice of Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR at 60472, 
60478 (November 10, 1997), and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties: Final Rule (``Antidumping Duties''), 62 FR at 27295, 27355-56 
(May 19, 1997). See 19 CFR 351.403; Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355-
56. None of NZS' sales to its affiliated reseller passed the arm's-
length test.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    On March 25, 2002, the petitioners made a timely sales below cost 
allegation against NZS. Based on the allegation and in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of cold-rolled steel from New Zealand 
were made at prices below the COP. See the Memorandum to Gary Taverman 
from the Team Re: The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost 
of Production for BHP New Zealand Steel Limited (NZS), dated April 19, 
2002. As a result, the Department is conducting an investigation to 
determine whether NZS made sales in the home market at prices below the 
COP during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. On 
April 19, 2002, we instructed NZS to complete a section D 
questionnaire. Given the proximity of the preliminary determination, we 
did not receive NZS' section D response in time to analyze it for the 
preliminary determination, but will do so for the final determination.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's-
length in New Zealand. We adjusted, where applicable, the starting 
price for discounts and rebates. We made deductions for movement 
expenses, including inland freight (plant to distribution warehouse and 
plant/warehouse to customer) and warehousing under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. No other adjustments to NV were 
claimed or allowed.

[[Page 31234]]

E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we calculate NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. transaction. Sales 
are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing 
stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 
differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, 
condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of 
marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Steel Plate from South 
Africa). To determine whether the comparison market sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e. the chain of 
distribution), including the selling functions, class of customer 
(customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of 
sale.
    The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison 
market, or when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we 
derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. 
For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, 
it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
importer. 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. 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 difference in the levels 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Steel 
Plate from South Africa.
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from NZS about the marketing stages involved in the 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, 
if a party reports LOTs that are different for different categories of 
sales, the functions and activities may be dissimilar.
    NZS reported two channels of distribution in the home market, with 
two customer categories (i.e., distributors and original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs)). The first home market channel of distribution, 
coded in its submissions as channel 2, included sales made by NZS to 
unaffiliated home market distributors and OEMs. The second home market 
channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 3, 
included sales made by NZS to an affiliated reseller (until October 23, 
2000) and to unaffiliated home market OEMs. According to NZS, ``there 
is no difference between channels 2 and 3 * * * (NZS) created channel 3 
for the response to show affiliated sales * * * separately.'' \5\ We 
compared these two channels of distribution and determined that sales 
to the two customer categories in both channels were the same in all 
respects except regarding the determination of sales prices. NZS 
maintains supply agreements with distributors and uses a set price list 
and volume rebate structure whereas for its OEM customers, NZS 
negotiates price and rebates on a sale-specific basis. Due to the fact 
that these channels are the same with respect to all other selling 
activities, that is, forecasting and planning services, account 
management and sales support, product development and marketing 
support, order processing, managing customer complaints and technical 
support, and freight, warehousing and delivery services, we 
preliminarily determine that home market sales in these two channels of 
distribution constitute a single LOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NZS' supplemental A response of January 31, 2002 at page 
27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the U.S. market, all of NZS' sales are CEP sales. NZS reported 
that its CEP sales are through one channel of distribution (coded in 
its submissions as channel 1), that is, they are BHPSA's sales to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers. The selling activities performed for the 
channel include forecasting and planning sales (performed by NZS and 
BHPSA), account management and sales support (performed by NZS and 
BHPSA), order processing between NZS and BHPSA (performed by NZS and 
BHPSA), order processing between BHPSA and unaffiliated customers 
(performed by BHPSA), and managing customer complaints (NZS and BHPSA). 
We therefore preliminarily conclude that NZS had only one LOT for its 
CEP sales.
    In determining whether separate levels of trade actually existed 
between CEP sales and home market sales, we examined the chains of 
distribution, customer categories, and selling functions related to 
these sales reported in the home market and the United States. In 
determining LOTs for CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. After making CEP deductions from the end 
user price, we noted that the only difference was related to product 
development and marketing support services offered only in the home 
market and not for CEP sales. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. On 
this basis, it appears that the LOT of NZS' home market sales do not 
involve significantly different selling functions than the LOT of the 
CEP sales, and that the distinctions do not constitute a difference in 
LOT between sales in the two markets. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon 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 entries of certain 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from New Zealand, that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We are also 
instructing 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 CEP, as indicated below. These instructions suspending 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Exporter/producer                          margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BHP New Zealand Steel Limited (NZS)........................         7.10
All Others.................................................         7.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31235]]

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

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, 
pursuant to section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 
75 days after our final determination whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    All parties will be notified of the specific schedule for 
submission of case and rebuttal briefs. In general, case briefs for 
this investigation must be submitted to the Department no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification report. Rebuttal briefs 
must be filed within five days after the deadline date for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Public versions of all comments and 
rebuttals should be provided to the Department and made available on 
diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two 
days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs.
    We will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-11191 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P