[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4600-4604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1763]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
C-433-806
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final
Antidumping Duty Determinations: Oil Country Tubular Goods (``OCTG'')
From Austria
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Daniel Lessard,
Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189.
Preliminary Determination
The Department preliminarily determines that benefits which
constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of OCTG in Austria. For
information on the estimated net subsidies, please see the Suspension
of Liquidation section of this notice.
Case History
Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal
Register (59 FR 37028, July 20, 1994), the following events have
occurred.
On August 1, 1994, we issued a countervailing duty questionnaire to
the Government of Austria (``GOA'') in Washington, DC, concerning
petitioners' allegations. On August 16, 1994, the GOA responded to the
first section of our questionnaire informing us that Voest-Alpine
Stahlrohr Kindberg (``Kindberg''), an Austrian OCTG producer, accounted
for 100 percent of Austrian exports of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
The Department initiated this investigation based in part on an
allegation that Kindberg was benefitting from subsidies given to a
related party from whom Kindberg purchased inputs for OCTG production
(``upstream subsidy allegation''). On August 22, 1994, the GOA and
Kindberg submitted information pertaining to the upstream subsidy
allegation. On August 29 and 30, 1994, we conducted a verification
relating solely to this information. A report was issued concerning
this verification on October 13, 1994.
On September 15, 1994, the GOA and Kindberg submitted questionnaire
responses. On November 23, 1994, we issued a deficiency questionnaire
to Kindberg and the GOA. We received their responses on December 16,
1994. On January 6, 1995, we requested that respondents submit the
proprietary versions of certain exhibits from Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria,
58 FR 37217 (July 9, 1993) (``Certain Steel''). We received this
information on January 9, 1995.
On August 24, 1994, we postponed the preliminary determination in
this investigation until November 23, 1994, pursuant to section
703(c)(1) of the Act, on the grounds that the case was extraordinarily
complicated (59 FR 43554, August 24, 1994). The preliminary
determination was again extended until January 17, 1995, pursuant to
section 703(g)(1) of the Act (59 FR 60774, November 28, 1994).
On December 5, 1994, we received a request from petitioner to
postpone the final determination in this investigation until the date
of the final antidumping determination in the companion antidumping
investigation of OCTG from Austria, in accordance with 19 CFR
355.20(c)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are OCTG, which are
hollow steel products of circular cross-section. These products include
oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron)
or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether or not conforming to American
Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API specifications, whether
finished or unfinished (including green tubes). These investigations do
not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more
of chromium. The OCTG subject to these investigations are currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') under these item
numbers:
7304.20.10.00.......... 7304.20.40.10 7304.20.10.20
7304.20.30.80.......... 7304.20.10.30 7304.20.10.40
7304.20.10.50.......... 7304.20.10.60 7304.20.10.80
7304.20.20.00.......... 7304.20.20.10 7304.20.20.20
7304.20.20.30.......... 7304.20.20.40 7304.20.20.50
7304.20.20.60.......... 7304.20.20.80 7304.20.30.00
7304.20.30.10.......... 7304.20.30.20 7304.20.30.30
7304.20.30.40.......... 7304.20.30.50 7304.20.30.60
7304.20.30.80.......... 7304.20.40.00 7304.20.40.10
7304.20.40.20.......... 7304.20.40.30 7304.20.40.40
7304.20.40.50.......... 7304.20.40.60 7304.20.40.80
7304.20.50.10.......... 7304.20.50.15 7304.20.50.30
7304.20.50.45.......... 7304.20.50.50 7304.20.50.60
7304.20.50.75.......... 7304.20.60.10 7304.20.60.15
7304.20.60.30.......... 7304.20.60.45 7304.20.60.50
7304.20.60.60.......... 7304.20.60.75 7304.20.70.00
7304.20.80.00.......... 7304.20.80.30 7304.20.80.45
7304.20.80.60.......... 7305.20.20.00 7305.20.40.00
7305.20.60.00.......... 7305.20.80.00 7306.20.10.30
7306.20.10.90.......... 7306.20.20.00 7306.20.30.00
7306.20.40.00.......... 7306.20.60.10 7306.20.60.50
7306.20.80.10.......... 7306.20.80.50
[[Page 4601]] Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, our written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Injury Test
Because Austria is a ``country under the Agreement'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') is required to determine whether imports of OCTG
from Austria materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry. On August 24, 1994, the ITC published its preliminary
determination finding 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 Austria of the subject
merchandise (59 FR 43591, August 24, 1994).
Petitioners
The petitioners are Koppel Steel Corporation; U.S. Steel Group, a
unit of USX Corporation; and USS/Kobe Steel. Co-petitioners in this
investigation are IPSCO Steel, Inc.; Maverick Tube Corporation; and
North Star Steel Company.
Corporate History of Respondent Kindberg
Prior to 1987, the subject merchandise was produced in the steel
division of VAAG, a large conglomerate which also had engineering and
finished products divisions. In 1987, VAAG underwent a major
restructuring and several new companies were formed from the three
major divisions of VAAG. The steel division was incorporated as Voest-
Alpine Stahl GmbH, Linz (``VA Linz''). The production facilities at
Kindberg and Voest-Alpine Stahl Donawitz GmbH (``Donawitz'') were
separately incorporated, with Kindberg and Donawitz becoming
subsidiaries of VA Linz. VAAG became a holding company for these new
companies.
In 1988, VAAG transferred its ownership interest in VA Linz to
Voest-Alpine Stahl AG (``VAS''). At the same time, Kindberg became a
subsidiary of Donawitz. Donawitz and other companies were owned by VAS,
which in turn was owned by VAAG.
In 1989, VAS and all other subholdings of VAAG were transferred to
Industrie und Beteiligungsverwaltung GmbH (``IBVG''). In 1990, IBVG, in
turn, was renamed Austrian Industries AG (``AI''). VAAG remained in
existence, but separate from IBVG and AI, holding only residual
liabilities and non-steel assets.
In 1991, as part of the reorganization of the long products
operations, Donawitz was split into two companies. The rail division
remained with the existing company (i.e., Donawitz), however, the name
of the company was changed to Voest-Alpine Schienen GmbH
(``Schienen''). In addition to producing rails, Schienen also became
the holding company for Kindberg and the other Donawitz subsidiaries.
The metallurgical division of the former Donawitz was incorporated as a
new company and was named Voest-Alpine Stahl Donawitz (``Donawitz
II'').
Equityworthiness
As discussed below, we have determined that the GOA provided equity
infusions, through Osterreichische Industrieholding-Aktiengesellschaft
(``OIAG''), to VAAG in the years 1983, 1984, and 1986, and to Kindberg
in 1987. In order for the Department to find an equity infusion
countervailable, it must be determined that the infusion is provided on
terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Petitioners have
alleged that VAAG and Kindberg were unequityworthy in the years in
which they received equity infusions and that the equity infusions
were, therefore, inconsistent with commercial considerations. According
to Sec. 355.44(e)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations, for a
company to be equityworthy, it must show the ability to generate a
reasonable rate of return within a reasonable period of time. A
detailed equityworthiness analysis can be found in Appendix I of the
Concurrence Memorandum dated January 17, 1995. A summary of that
analysis follows.
In Certain Steel, the Department determined VAAG to be
unequityworthy for the years 1978-84 and 1986. Respondents have not
questioned this determination and no additional information concerning
that period has come to light. Therefore, we preliminarily determine
VAAG to be unequityworthy during the period 1978-84, and for 1986.
With respect to the equityworthiness of Kindberg in 1987, the
Department would normally analyze financial statements of the company
in question for three years prior to the infusion and also consider any
outside studies. In this case, however, since Kindberg was incorporated
effective 1987, its performance before that year is included in the
financial statements of VAAG. An in-depth analysis of VAAG's financial
ratios in the three years prior to the restructuring was undertaken in
Certain Steel. In that case, the Department concluded that VAAG's
financial statements showed poor results during the relevant period
(see the Department's Final Concurrence Memorandum in Certain Steel, at
Appendix 2).
Respondents have submitted information pertaining to the expected
results of the 1987 restructuring to be considered in making our
equityworthiness determination for Kindberg in 1987. Specifically, they
have provided a one page excerpt from a study titled ``VA Neu'' and a
profit and loss forecast. However, the VA Neu study is not translated,
and neither document contains any narrative description or analysis of
the figures contained within it. Moreover, it is not clear from the
responses when these plans were developed or what conclusions they
contain. Absent this information, we are unable to conclude that a
reasonable private investor would be able to properly analyze the
significance of these figures. Therefore, the information contained in
these documents has not been considered in the Department's analysis.
Because we are not able to take this information into account, we
are basing our preliminary equityworthy finding for Kindberg on VAAG's
financial history. While we recognize that VAAG's financial data
includes companies other than Kindberg, without any additional
information we are compelled to rely on the unequityworthiness of VAAG
alone. This is consistent with the analysis in Certain Steel, where the
1987 equityworthiness determination for another VAAG subsidiary was
based on the past performance of VAAG. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine Kindberg to be unequityworthy in 1987.
Allocation of Non-Recurring Benefits
As discussed below, we found that countervailable equity infusions
and grants have benefited the production of the subject merchandise.
Moreover, we found these benefits to be non-recurring because the
benefits are exceptional and the recipient could not expect to receive
them on an ongoing basis (see, GIA, at 37226).
The Proposed Regulations require us to allocate non-recurring
grants and equity infusions over a period equal to the average useful
life of assets in the [[Page 4602]]
industry, unless the sum of grants and equity infusions provided under
a program in a particular year is less than 0.50 percent of a firm's
total sales in that year. If the sum of grants and equity infusions is
less than 0.50 percent, the benefit is expensed in the year of receipt.
See Sec. 355.49(a) of the Proposed Regulations and the General Issues
Appendix to the Final Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel
Products from Austria (``GIA''), 58 FR 37225, 37217 (July 9, 1993).
For those grants and equity infusions which must be allocated over
time, the Proposed Regulations require the Department to use as a
discount rate a company-specific cost of long-term, fixed-rate debt or,
absent such a rate, the average cost of long-term, fixed-rate debt in
the country in question (see Sec. 355.49(b)(2) of Countervailing
Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments,
54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (``Proposed Regulations''). Because a
company-specific rate was not available, we have used the bond rate
designated as being for ``Industry and other Austrian Issuers'' by the
Austrian National Bank Annual Report. In Certain Steel, the Department
determined that these bond rates provide an accurate measure of what it
would cost a large company to raise capital in a given year. The
discount rate provided by respondents was determined in Certain Steel
to be dominated by GOA bonds. Because governments often do not borrow
at the same rate as private companies, we prefer to use a rate which is
reflective of commercial, rather than government, borrowing (see,
Certain Steel, at 37223). Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary
determination, we have used the discount rates applied in Certain
Steel.
I. Analysis of Direct Subsidies
Calculation Methodology
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for
which we are measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1993. In
determining the benefits received under the various programs described
below, we used the following calculation methodology. We first
calculated the benefit attributable to the POI for each countervailable
program, using the methodologies described in each program section
below. For each program, we then divided the benefit attributable to
Kindberg in the POI by Kindberg's total sales revenue, as none of the
programs was limited to either certain subsidiaries or certain products
of Kindberg. Next, we added the benefits for all programs to arrive at
Kindberg's total subsidy rate. Because Kindberg is the only respondent
company in this investigation, this rate is also the country-wide rate.
Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a
response to an allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of
benefits under a program, or eligibility of a company or industry under
a program, and the Department has no persuasive evidence showing that
the response is incorrect, we accept the response for purposes of the
preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are subject to
verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and
the program is otherwise countervailable, the program will be
considered a subsidy in the final determination.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:
A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of OCTG products
under the following programs:
1. Equity Infusions to Voest-Alpine AG (VAAG): 1983, 1984 and 1986.
The GOA provided equity infusions through OIAG to VAAG in 1983, 1984
and 1986, while VAAG owned the facilities which became Kindberg, the
producer of the subject merchandise. The 1983 and 1984 infusions were
given by OIAG pursuant to Law 589/1983. The 1986 equity infusion was
given as an advance payment for funds to be provided under Law 298/1987
(the OIAG Financing Act). Law 589/1983 and Law 298/1987 provide
authority for disbursement of funds solely to companies of OIAG, of
which VAAG is one.
In Certain Steel, the Department determined these equity infusions
to be de jure specific. Respondents did not provide any information
disputing these findings in this proceeding. Moreover, since we have
determined that VAAG was unequityworthy in these years, we
preliminarily determine that these infusions were provided to VAAG on
terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
We have also preliminarily determined that the subsidies provided
to VAAG prior to the 1987 restructuring continue to benefit Kindberg's
production of OCTG, in accordance with the restructuring methodology
discussed in the GIA, at 37265-8. We have applied the following
methodology:
We divided Kindberg's asset value on January 1, 1987, by VAAG's
total asset value on December 31, 1986 (i.e., pre-restructuring). This
ratio best reflects the proportion of VAAG's total 1986 assets that
became Kindberg in 1987.
We applied this ratio to VAAG's subsidy amount to calculate the
portion of these infusions allocable to Kindberg. To calculate the
benefit for the POI, we treated each of the equity amounts as a grant
and allocated the benefits over a 15 year period (our treatment of
equity as grants and our choice of allocation period is discussed in
the GIA, at 37239 and 37225, respectively). We then divided the benefit
by total sales of Kindberg during the POI. On this basis, we determine
the net subsidies for these equity infusions to be 1.37 percent ad
valorem.
2. Grants Provided to VAAG: 1981-86.
The GOA provided grants to VAAG through OIAG pursuant to Law 602/
1981, Law 589/1983, and Law 298/1987. In Certain Steel, the Department
found grants disbursed under Law 602/1981, Law 589/1983 and Law 298/
1987 to be provided specifically to the steel industry and, hence,
countervailable (58 FR 37221). Respondents have not challenged the
countervailability of these grants in this proceeding.
In accordance with the Allocation of Non-recurring Benefits
section, above, we have expensed the grant received in 1981 in that
year. To calculate the benefit from the other grants, we used the
methodology described in Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1983-84, 1986
section, above. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this
program to be 3.68 percent ad valorem.
3. Assumption of Losses at Restructuring by VAAG on Behalf of
Kindberg. In Certain Steel, we determined that, in connection with the
1987 restructuring, VAAG retained all the losses carried forward on its
balance sheet and that no losses were assigned to its newly created
subsidiaries. VAAG later received funds from the GOA under Law 298/1987
to offset these losses. We found that VAAG's subsidiaries benefitted
because a portion of the losses should have been allocated to them. In
the present investigation, petitioners allege that this assumption of
losses provided a countervailable subsidy to Kindberg, a subsidiary of
VAAG.
Respondents argue that, had the losses been allocated, Kindberg
could have used them to offset income taxes from future profits. Under
those circumstances, the allocation of the losses would provide a
countervailable [[Page 4603]] benefit to Kindberg. Therefore, the
assumption of losses by VAAG did not provide a benefit to Kindberg.
While respondents may be correct that in certain circumstances
losses have value, we concluded in Certain Steel that, ``if VAAG had
assigned these losses to its new companies, then each of the new
companies would have been in a * * * precarious financial position''
(Certain Steel, 37221). Respondents' claim does not refute this; it
merely posits that losses could be used to offset future tax
liabilities (if any) of the VAAG subsidiaries. While we will review
this argument further for the final determination, respondents'
assertion is not sufficient to reverse the decision we reached in
Certain Steel. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that
Kindberg benefitted by not assuming any losses.
We calculated the benefit by treating the losses not distributed to
Kindberg as a grant in 1987. Kindberg's share of the losses was
determined by reference to its asset value relative to total VAAG
assets.
To allocate the benefit, we used the methodology described in
Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1983-84, 1986 section, above. On this basis,
we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 1.26 percent ad
valorem.
4. Equity Infusion to Kindberg: 1987. A direct equity infusion from
OIAG to Kindberg was made on January 1, 1987, pursuant to Law 298/1987.
As under Law 589/1983, funds under Law 298/1987 were provided solely to
the steel industry. Therefore, we preliminarily find this infusion to
be specific. Moreover, since we have preliminarily determined that
Kindberg was unequityworthy in 1987, these infusions were made on terms
inconsistent with commercial considerations. Thus, we preliminarily
determine this infusion to be countervailable.
To calculate the benefit for the POI, we treated the equity amount
as a grant and allocated the benefit over 15 years (our treatment of
equity as grants and our choice of allocation period is discussed in
the GIA, at 37239 and 37225, respectively). Because the equity
investment was made directly in Kindberg, and because Kindberg was
separately incorporated as of that year, the entire benefit has been
attributed to Kindberg. The portion allocated to the POI was divided by
total sales of Kindberg during the POI to determine the ad valorem
benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program
to be 5.13 percent ad valorem.
B. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Benefit the Subject
Merchandise
We initiated an investigation of subsidies provided after 1987 to
VA Linz, VAAG and VAS based on petitioners' allegation that subsidies
to these companies benefitted Kindberg. Based on information provided
in the responses, we preliminarily determine that the following
programs did not bestow a benefit on Kindberg. (See January 17, 1995,
Concurrence Memorandum for a further discussion of this issue.)
1. 1987 Equity Infusion to VA Linz
2. Post-Restructuring Equity Infusions to VAAG
3. Post-Restructuring Grants to VAAG
4. Post-Restructuring Grants to VAS
II. Analysis of Upstream Subsidies
The petitioners have alleged that Kindberg receives benefits in the
form of upstream subsidies through its purchase of steel blooms from
Donawitz II.1 Section 771A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), defines upstream subsidies as follows:
\1\ Petitioners originally alleged that the corporate
interaction between Kindberg and Donawitz II is such that subsidies
received by either company would benefit the production of the
subject merchandise. Based on this analysis, petitioners continue to
argue that these companies should be treated as a single entity.
Both approaches are discussed in our January 17, 1995, Concurrence
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``upstream subsidy'' means any subsidy * * * by the
government of a country that:
(1) Is paid or bestowed by that government with respect to a
product (hereinafter referred to as an ``input product'') that is
used in the manufacture or production in that country of merchandise
which is the subject of a countervailing duty proceeding;
(2) In the judgment of the administering authority bestows a
competitive benefit on the merchandise; and
(3) Has a significant effect on the cost of manufacturing or
producing the merchandise.
Each of the three elements listed above must be satisfied in order
for the Department to find that an upstream subsidy exists. The absence
of any one element precludes the finding of an upstream subsidy. As
discussed below, respondents have been able to show that a competitive
benefit does not exist. Therefore, we have not addressed the first and
third criteria.
Competitive Benefit
In determining whether subsidies to the upstream supplier(s) confer
a competitive benefit within the meaning of section 771A(a)(2) on the
producer of the subject merchandise, section 771A(b) directs that:
* * * a competitive benefit has been bestowed when the price for the
input product * * * is lower than the price that the manufacturer or
producer of merchandise which is the subject of a countervailing
duty proceeding would otherwise pay for the product in obtaining it
from another seller in an arms-length transaction.
The Department's proposed regulations (Countervailing Duties:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment, 54 FR
23366 (May 31, 1989)) offer the following hierarchy of benchmarks for
determining whether a competitive benefit exists:
* * * In evaluating whether a competitive benefit exists pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary will determine
whether the price for the input product is lower than:
(1) The price which the producer of the merchandise otherwise
would pay for the input product, produced in the same country, in
obtaining it from another unsubsidized seller in an arm's length
transaction; or
(2) a world market price for the input product.
In this instance, Donawitz II is the sole supplier in Austria of the
input product, steel blooms. However, Kindberg does purchase the input
product from an unrelated foreign supplier. Therefore, we have used the
prices charged to Kindberg by the foreign supplier as the benchmark
world market price.
Because the foreign supplier's prices are delivered, we made an
upward adjustment to the domestic supplier's ex-factory prices to
account for the cost of freight between Kindberg and that supplier.
Based on our comparison of these delivered prices for identical grades
of steel blooms, we found no competitive benefit was bestowed on
Kindberg during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
Kindberg did not receive an upstream subsidy.
Verification
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the
information submitted by respondents prior to making our final
determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from
Austria, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the
merchandise in the amounts indicated below. This suspension will remain
in effect until further notice. [[Page 4604]]
OCTG
Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate--11.44 percent
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 that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations, Import
Administration.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its
final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final
determination.
Alignment With Companion Antidumping Investigation
Pursuant to petitioners' request for an alignment with the
companion antidumping investigation, in accordance with 19 CFR
355.20(c)(1), we are postponing the final countervailing duty
determination in this investigation until April 11, 1995, the date of
the final antidumping duty determination in the companion antidumping
investigation of OCTG from Austria.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
this preliminary determination. The hearing will be held on March 31,
1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3708, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20230. Individuals who wish
to request a hearing must submit a written request within ten days of
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room
B099, 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.
Requests 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. In addition,
ten copies of the business proprietary version and five copies of the
nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary no later than March 23, 1995. Ten copies of the
business proprietary version and five copies of the nonproprietary
version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary no later than March 29, 1995. An interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's
case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in
accordance with Sec. 355.38 of the Commerce Department's regulations
and will be considered if received within the time limits specified
above.
This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: January 17, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-1763 Filed 1-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
