[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31264-31268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-810]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Turkey

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge, or Robert James at 
(202) 482-3518, (202) 482-1131, or (202) 482-0649, respectively; 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

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 Tariff Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Preliminary Determinations

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

Case History

    On October 18, 2001, the Department initiated antidumping 
investigations of cold-rolled steel 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. The 
petitioners in this investigation are Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV 
Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corp., NUCOR Corporation, Steel 
Dynamics, Inc., United States Steel LLC, WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton 
Steel Corporation. 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).
    In the initiation the Department set aside a period for all 
interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. For a 
complete discussion of all scope exclusion requests submitted in the 
context of the on-going cold-rolled steel investigations, 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. Since the initiation of these investigations the 
following events have occurred.
    On November 13, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) notified the Department that it preliminarily 
determined there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the 
United States is materially injured by reason of imports of the subject 
merchandise 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. See Cold-Rolled 
Steel 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 57985 
(November 19, 2001).
    On November 8, 2001, the Department issued Section A, Question 1 of 
the antidumping questionnaire to Borcelik Celik Sanayii ve Ticaret 
A.S.(Borcelik), Eregli Demir ve Celik, and Cargill Tarim Sanayii ve 
Ticaret, requesting volume and value information for the POI for each 
exporter. We received the information requested on November 22,

[[Page 31265]]

2001, and November 26, 2001. Based on this information, the Department 
selected Borcelik, the largest exporter/producer by volume and value, 
as the respondent in this investigation. See Memorandum to Joseph A. 
Spetrini, ``Selection of Respondents,'' dated November 29, 2001.
    Based on our examination of Turkey's inflation indices, we 
determined the Turkish economy was experiencing high inflation during 
the POI. ``High inflation'' is a term used to refer to a high rate of 
increase in price levels. Investigations involving exports from 
countries with highly inflationary economies require special 
methodologies for comparing prices and calculating constructed value 
and cost of production. Generally a twenty-five percent inflation rate 
has been used as a guide for assessing the impact of inflation on AD 
investigations and reviews (see Policy Bulletin No. 94.5, ``Differences 
in Merchandise Calculations in Hyper-inflationary Economies,'' dated 
March 25, 1994). Based upon our examination of the consumer price and 
wholesale price indices, which indicated that Turkey experienced an 
inflation rate of over sixty percent during the POI, we find Turkey's 
economy experienced high inflation. See 2000 and 2001 issues of the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    On November 30, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Borcelik. We requested that Borcelik respond to 
sections A through D.
    Respondent submitted its initial response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire on December 21, 2001. We received Borcelik's 
sections B through D response on January 22, 2002. Petitioners filed 
comments regarding the section A response on January 14, 2002, and on 
February 11, 2002, regarding the remaining portions of respondent's 
questionnaire response. We issued the following supplemental 
questionnaires to respondent: (i) section A on February 6, 2002, and 
(ii) sections B, C, and D on March 5, 2002. Respondent filed a response 
to our section A and sections B through D supplemental questionnaires 
on March 1, 2002 and April 1, 2002, respectively. Petitioners filed 
comments regarding the section A supplemental questionnaire on April 1, 
2002, and on April 12, 2002, regarding the sections B, C, and D 
supplemental questionnaires.

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), and is in accordance with our regulations. See section 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1) of the Department's regulations.

Scope of 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, 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.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products 
produced by Borcelik, covered by the description in the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' above, and sold in Turkey 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 the following 
fourteen criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: hardening and 
tempering, painting, carbon level, quality, yield strength, thickness, 
thickness tolerance, width, edge finish, form, temper rolling, 
leveling, annealing, and surface finish. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on 
the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in 
the Department's November 30, 2001 questionnaire. If there was no home 
market foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we used 
constructed value (CV).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled steel from Turkey were 
made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the 
export price (EP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.
    Because Turkey's economy experienced high inflation during the POI, 
as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home market 
sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred. This 
methodology minimizes the extent to which calculated dumping margins 
are overstated or understated due solely to price inflation that 
occurred in the intervening time period between the U.S. and home 
market sales.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff 
Act because Borcelik sold the merchandise directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to the date of 
importation, and because constructed export price (CEP) methodology was 
not otherwise appropriate. We based EP for Borcelik on the C&F price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 
Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, and 
import duties.

Normal Value

Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared Borcelik'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 
Tariff Act. As Borcelik's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home 
market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in 
the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-length Test

    To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we 
compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
discounts, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested 
models of the foreign-like product, prices to the affiliated party were 
on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated 
parties, we determined sales

[[Page 31266]]

made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 
351.403(c). If these affiliated party sales satisfied the arm's-length 
test, we used them in our analysis. Merchandise sold to affiliated 
customers in the home market made at non-arm's-length prices were 
excluded from our analysis because we considered them to be outside the 
ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). Where the exclusion of 
such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, we made a comparison to the next most similar model.
    In addition to its other home market sales, Borcelik reported the 
sales to it's home market affiliate, Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve 
Ticaret A.S. (Kerim Celik). These sales account for more than 5 percent 
of the total of Borcelik's home market sales during the POI. See 19 CFR 
351.403(d). The respondent stated its affiliate, Kerim Celik, cut and 
slit most of the hot-rolled coils purchased from Borcelik, and the 
subject merchandise would have a low likelihood of matching to U.S. 
sales of coiled material. Since Borcelik's sales to Kerim Celik were 
not at arm's-length, the Department required Borcelik to report home 
market downstream sales by Kerim Celik for this preliminary 
determination. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27356 (May 19, 1997).

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the cost allegation submitted by 
petitioners in the original petition, and in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect Turkish producers had made sales of cold-rolled 
steel in the home market at prices below the cost of production (COP). 
As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether Borcelik made home market sales during the POI at prices below 
their respective COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Tariff Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of Borcelik's cost 
of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an 
amount for home market SG&A expenses, interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We relied on the COP data provided by Borcelik in its original 
and supplemental section D cost questionnaire responses except for the 
following change. We deducted packing expenses from the denominators in 
the general and administrative and financial expense rate calculations. 
See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, dated April 26, 2002, Re: Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for Preliminary Determination on file in 
room B-099 of the Main Commerce building.

B. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices

    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Borcelik to the 
home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether these 
sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to 
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined 
whether such sales were made (1) in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
    On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and 
billing adjustments. See section 773(f)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act, where less 
than twenty percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at 
prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of 
that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where twenty 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 
addition, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act, we also 
determined whether such sales were made at prices which would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In such a 
case, because we compared prices to POI-average costs, we also 
determined such sales were not made at prices which would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining above cost 
sales in our analysis, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Tariff Act.
    We found that for certain models of cold-rolled steel, more than 
twenty percent of the home-market sales by Borcelik were made within an 
extended period of time at prices less than the COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded these below-cost sales and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act. For those U.S. sales of cold-
rolled steel for which there were no comparable home market sales in 
the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP to constructed value (CV) 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. See ``Price-to-
CV Comparisons,'' below.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

    If no sales made in the ordinary course of trade in the home market 
remain, NV shall be based on CV. See section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff 
Act. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of Borcelik's cost of materials, 
fabrication, SG&A, interest, U.S. packing, and an amount for profit. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A 
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Borcelik in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market. For 
selling expenses we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses. We used the CV data the respondent provided in its sections B 
through D supplemental questionnaire responses.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV for Borcelik based on the prices of home market 
sales that passed the COP test. We made deductions, where appropriate, 
from the starting price for billing adjustments, foreign inland 
insurance and inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in 
the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made 
adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) for imputed credit expenses 
(offset by interest revenue) and warranties. Finally, we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or 
similar

[[Page 31267]]

merchandise within the contemporaneous period (i.e., within the same 
month as the U.S. sale). For selling expenses, we used the weighted-
average home market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff 
Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home 
market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff 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 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 
expenses and profit. For EP the U.S. LOT is also the level of the 
starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, 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 pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. 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 implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from Borcelik about the marketing stages involved in its 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by Borcelik for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and home market 
sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. Generally, if the reported levels of 
trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should 
be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are 
different for different categories of sales, the functions and 
activities may be dissimilar.
    In the home market Borcelik reported two channels of distribution 
(sales by Borcelik and sales through its affiliated producer/service 
center) and two levels of trade (unaffiliated end users and affiliated 
end users). For both channels of distribution in the home market, 
Borcelik performed similar selling functions, including providing 
customer advice or product information, warranty services, the 
coordination of freight and delivery, and advertising. While we note 
that inventory maintenance was provided for home market sales through 
the affiliated service center/reseller and the intensity of the selling 
activity, providing technical service, may differ, we do not agree that 
these variations in the selling activities supports Borcelik's claim of 
two distinct levels of trade in the home market.
    First, we note Borcelik did not describe the selling activities for 
sales through its affiliated producer/service center. In addition, 
Borcelik provided the same sales process description for both channels 
of distribution; therefore, we are not persuaded that the processing of 
customer orders is affected by affiliation. Furthermore, Borcelik's 
questionnaire responses contradict its claim that the selling activity 
``providing technical service'' is more significant with respect to 
affiliated producers/resellers. For example, Borcelik claims it 
provides more technical services to unaffiliated and affiliated end-
users than to its affiliated service center/reseller. However, we note 
that in Borcelik's section B response, the company did not report any 
direct technical service expenses. Instead, Borcelik reported technical 
service expenses within indirect selling expenses without regard to 
end-users and resellers. See Borcelik's January 22, 2002 response on B-
49. According to respondent's supplemental section A questionnaire 
response, ``there are no customer categories to which Borcelik would 
not have provided technical assistance during the POI.'' See Borcelik's 
March 1, 2002 response on page 32. Although the respondent claims more 
technical assistance is provided to affiliated and unaffiliated end-
users than to the service center/reseller, and inventory is maintained 
by the affiliated service center/reseller, we do not find that these 
differences support Borcelik's claim that there are two separate levels 
of trade in the home market. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
home market sales in the two channels of distribution constitute a 
single level of trade.
    In the U.S. market Borcelik had only EP sales (i.e., sales made 
directly from Borcelik to U.S. trading companies). Borcelik reported 
one channel of distribution for sales of subject merchandise and one 
level of trade (to importers) during the POI. See Borcelik's December 
21, 2001 response at pages A-13 through A-18. We found no differences 
in the selling functions performed by Borcelik on sales to U.S. 
importers and those performed for sales in the home market. For 
example, on sales to both home market customers and to unaffiliated 
U.S. importers, Borcelik provided customer advice, product information, 
warranty services, technical services, and arranged freight and 
delivery. See Borcelik's December 21, 2001 response at page A-18. The 
Department has preliminarily determined the record does not support 
Borcelik's claim that home market sales through the service center are 
at a different LOT than the U.S. EP sales. Accordingly, because we find 
the U.S. EP sales and the home market sales to be at the same lot, no 
LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act is 
warranted for Borcelik. For a more detailed discussion regarding the 
basis for our LOT determination, refer to our Preliminary Determination 
Analysis Memorandum for Borcelik, dated April 26, 2002.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales based on the 
daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones Service, as published in the 
Wall Street Journal. The Department's preferred source for daily 
exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal 
Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Turkish 
lira. Section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act directs the Department to use a 
daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. 
dollars unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the 
Department's practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by more than 2.25 
percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates for 
the 40 business days immediately prior to the date of the actual daily 
rate to be classified. When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, 
we substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with 
established practice. Further, section 773A(b) of the Tariff Act 
directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment period when a 
currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained movement has 
occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates exceeds the 
weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent of eight 
consecutive weeks. For

[[Page 31268]]

an explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency 
Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).

Verification

    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
cold-rolled steel from Turkey that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated 
preliminary dumping margin indicated in the chart below. This 
suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. 
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borcelik Celik Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Borcelik)..........        18.34
All Others.................................................        18.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Borcelik was the only respondent used in our calculations, we 
used Borcelik's weight-average margin as the ``all others'' rate.

ITC Notification

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

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must 
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, 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. In accordance with section 774 of the 
Tariff Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held fifty-
seven days after publication of this notice, time and room to be 
determined, 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 
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. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. We intend to make our final determination no later 
than 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is published in accordance with sections 733(f) 
and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-11199 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P