Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') From the Republic of Korea

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-831]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') From the Republic of

Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Rick Johnson, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to

the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce

(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351,

62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that Stainless Steel Plates in Coils

(``SSPC'') from the Republic of Korea are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at

LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this

notice.

Case History

On April 20, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty

investigations of imports of stainless steel plate in coils from

Belgium,

[[Page 59536]]

Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan (Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Stainless Steel Plates in

Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan

(63 FR 20580, April 27, 1998)(``Notice of Initiation'')). Since the

initiation of this investigation the following events have occurred:

The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to

raise issues regarding product coverage. On May 8, 1998, petitioners

Armco, Inc.; J&L Specialty Steel Inc.; Lukens, Inc.; North American

Stainless; the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC; the Butler

Armco Independent Union: and the Zanesville Armco Independent

Organization, Inc. (``petitioners'') submitted comments to the

Department stating that while they believed the scope of the

investigations was accurate, they wished to clarify certain issues

concerning product coverage.

In May 1998, the Department requested information from the U.S.

Embassy in the Republic of Korea to identify producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise. In May 1998, the Department also requested and

received comments from the petitioners and potential respondents in

these investigations regarding the model matching criteria.

On May 15, 1998, the United States International Trade Commission

(``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

On May 27, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Pohang Iron and Steel Company (``POSCO'') and Sammi

Steel Company, Ltd. (``Sammi'').

On July 1, 1998, the Department received the response to Section A

of the questionnaire from POSCO. Additionally, on July 13, 1998, the

Department received a letter from Sammi stating that it did not export

the subject merchandise to the United States during 1997. We received

POSCO's responses to Sections B, C and D of the questionnaire on July

20, 1998. Petitioners filed comments on POSCO's questionnaire responses

in July, August, and September 1998. We issued supplemental

questionnaires for Sections A, B, C and D to POSCO on July 13, August

4, September 16, September 17, 1998, and October 7, 1998, and received

responses to these questionnaires in July, August, September and

October 1998.

On July 28, 1998, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,

petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary

determination for thirty days. The Department determined that this

investigation was extraordinarily complicated and that additional time

was necessary beyond the thirty days requested by petitioners for the

Department to make its preliminary determination. On August 14, 1998,

the Department postponed the preliminary determination fifty days until

October 27, 1998. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan; Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty

Investigations, 63 FR 44840 (August 21, 1998).

On August 20, 1998, petitioners amended the antidumping petitions

to include Allegheny Ludlum Corporation as an additional petitioner.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain

stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent

or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate

products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm

or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated

and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be

further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it

maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing.

Excluded from the scope of this petition are the following: (1) plate

not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated

and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat

bars.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,

7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55,

7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10,

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,

7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1997, through

December 31, 1997.

Transactions Reviewed

POSCO reported that it made sales of the subject merchandise to

affiliated resellers during the POI. On September 16, 1998, the

Department requested that POSCO report the home market downstream sales

made by its affiliated service centers (see September 16, 1998

supplemental questionnaire). Thus, in determining normal value (``NV'')

(see ``Normal Value'' section of the notice, below), the Department

excluded POSCO's sales to the affiliated service centers and considered

the affiliates' resales of the subject merchandise.

POSCO reported that it made local letter of credit sales (``local

sales'') in the home market which are exempted from value-added tax

requirements because the end-user intends to export its finished

product. Because the statute at section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) defines ``the

price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the

absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting

country * * *,'' we are disregarding home market local sales because

there is knowledge that these sales are not consumed in the foreign

market (emphasis added).

For its home market transactions, POSCO has reported the date of

invoice as the date of sale, i.e., the date when price and quantity are

finalized. However, petitioners have alleged that the home market sales

documentation provided by POSCO did not appear to support POSCO's claim

that price and quantity may change between order and invoice. In August

1998, the Department requested that POSCO describe the type and

frequency of price and quantity changes between order and invoice.

Based on its analysis of the information submitted by POSCO, the

Department found that it required additional information to determine

if date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale. As POSCO's

supplemental response was not due until October 30, 1998, the

Department has not considered this issue for the preliminary

determination. Therefore for the preliminary determination, the

Department is using the invoice date as the date of sale for home

market sales. We intend to revisit this issue after incorporating the

revised data into our analysis and verifying the accuracy of that data.

In calculating export price (``EP'') (see ``Export Price'' section

of the notice, below), the Department determined that those U.S. sales

for which POSCO was

[[Page 59537]]

not paid should be excluded from the U.S. database.

For its U.S. sales, POSCO has reported the date of invoice as the

date of sale, i.e., the date when price and quantity are finalized. For

U.S. sales, petitioners also alleged that the invoice date may not be

the appropriate date of sale. Similarly, the Department requested and

received additional information from POSCO on its use of invoice date

as the date of sale. As described above, the Department found that it

did not have enough information to make a determination whether invoice

date was the appropriate date of sale and requested additional

information from POSCO that was not due until October 30, 1998.

Therefore for the preliminary determination, the Department is using

the invoice date as the date of sale for U.S. sales. We intend to

revisit this issue after incorporating the revised data into our

analysis and verifying the accuracy of that data.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the

Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in the home market

during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like

product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the antidumping

duty questionnaire and the May 27, 1998 reporting instructions.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SSPC from the Republic of Korea to

the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to

NV. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at

the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or constructed export price

(``CEP'') transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales

in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value

(``CV''), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and

administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level

of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade

than CEP, we examined 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 an LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis

for determining whether the 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 Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In this case, POSCO did not claim an LOT adjustment. The Department

notes that in its July 1, 1998 response, POSCO stated that the

downstream sales made by the affiliated service centers were at a

different level of trade than other sales made by POSCO in the POI to

both the U.S. and home market. However, it its October 5, 1998 response

on downstream sales, POSCO reported that all sales in the U.S. and home

market were made at the same level of trade. To ensure that no such

adjustment was necessary, in accordance with principles discussed

above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in

both the United States and Korean markets, including the selling

functions, classes of customer and selling expenses.

In both the U.S. market and the HM market, POSCO reported one level

of trade. POSCO sold through three channels of distribution in the U.S.

market: (1) From POSCO Steel Sales and Services Co., Ltd.

(``POSTEEL''), POSCO's affiliated company responsible for the majority

of home market sales and all U.S. sales, to one unaffiliated end-user;

(2) from POSTEEL through Pohang Steel American Corp. (``POSAM''),

POSCO's U.S. subsidiary; and (3) from POSTEEL to unaffiliated Korean

trading companies for resale in the U.S. POSCO also sold through three

channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Directly from its mill

to two unaffiliated end users; and (2) through POSTEEL to unaffiliated

end-users and domestic trading companies. Additionally, POSCO has

reported the home market downstream sales in HM Channel 3. The

affiliates' resales were made exclusively to end-users with one

exception.

For sales in HM Channel 1, POSCO performed all sales-related

activities including arranging for freight and delivery, providing

computerized accounting and sales systems, market research, warranty,

sales negotiation, after sales service, and quality control. The same

selling functions were performed in HM Channel 2; however, it was

POSTEEL, not POSCO which performed all the major selling functions.

Finally, in HM Channel 3, POSCO stated that the affiliated resellers

sold their sales on a delivered or ex-factory basis.

POSCO performed similar selling functions in the U.S. market as in

the home market including making freight and delivery arrangements and

offering warranties and technical advice. As in sales in HM Channel 2,

POSTEEL performed the major selling functions for U.S., regardless of

channel of distribution. POSTEEL made the international freight

arrangements except in the case of U.S. Channel 3 in which it sold FOB

Pohang Port. Also, in U.S. Channel 2, POSAM invoiced the U.S. customer

and for many sales, arranged for delivery to the customer from the U.S.

port. Finally, as in the home market, POSCO reported that it did not

provide inventory maintenance or advertising in the U.S. market.

Therefore, based on the information on the record, we preliminarily

conclude that POSCO performed similar selling functions in the U.S.

market and HM Channels 1 and 2 and that a LOT adjustment is not

warranted for comparisons between the U.S. market and HM Channels 1 and

2. However, as POSCO's response detailing the type of selling functions

performed by the affiliated service centers was not due until October

30, 1998, the Department could not make a determination for this

preliminary determination whether the affiliated service centers'

resales (HM Channel 3) were sold at a different level of trade than

other home market channels or U.S. channels. Thus, the Department will

consider this issue for the final determination. For a further

discussion of the Department's LOT analysis, see Memorandum to the

File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination, October

27, 1998.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

We based our calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772 (a)

of the Act, because the subject merchandise

[[Page 59538]]

was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP

methodology was not otherwise indicated.

POSCO classified all of its sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States as EP sales in its questionnaire response, including

those sales made prior to importation through POSAM, POSCO's wholly

owned U.S. subsidiary. We examined several factors to determine whether

sales made prior to importation through POSAM to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States are EP sales. These factors are: (1)

whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to

the unaffiliated U.S. customer without being introduced into the

physical inventory of the affiliated selling agent; (2) whether the

sales follow customary commercial channels between the parties

involved; and (3) whether the function of the U.S. selling agent is

limited to that of a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a

``communication link'' with the unrelated U.S. buyer. Where the factors

indicate that the activities of the U.S. selling agent are ancillary to

the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or customs clearance), we

treat the transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S. selling agent is

substantially involved in the sales process (e.g., negotiating prices),

we treat the transactions as CEP sales. See Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997); Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries v. United States, Slip Op. 98-82 at 6 (CIT, June 23,

1998).

Concerning the first two criteria, the record indicates that

POSCO's sales through POSAM were shipped directly from the manufacturer

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and that this was the customary

commercial channel. In determining whether the U.S. affiliate acted

solely as a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a

``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. customer, we reviewed

the selling functions performed by POSAM and the sales process for

these sales. Although POSAM performed a variety of selling functions on

behalf of POSCO in connection with POSCO's SSPC sales in the United

States, including forwarding inquiries and confirmations to and from

the customer and POSTEEL, invoicing customers, arranging for freight to

the customer from the U.S. port, collecting payment, and serving as

importer of record, POSCO has stated that POSTEEL determined price and

terms of sale and performed all other sales related activities. We will

conduct an in-depth examination of the most appropriate classification

of POSCO's U.S. sales through POSAM (i.e., CEP versus EP) at

verification. However, based on POSCO's record statements, we

preliminarily determine that POSCO's U.S. sales of SSPC through POSAM

qualify as EP sales. For further discussion of this issue, see

Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary

Determination for POSCO, October 27, 1998.

We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, brokerage

and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight

(where applicable), U.S. brokerage and wharfage charges (where

applicable) and U.S. Customs duties in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an

amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

For a further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum to the File:

Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination for POSCO,

October 27, 1998. As noted in the ``Transactions Reviewed'' section of

the notice, above, the Department's use of POSCO's date of invoice as

the date of sale for the U.S. in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) is

dependent upon the results of our analysis.

Normal Value

After testing home market viability and whether home market sales

were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-

Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this

notice.

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. Since

POSCO'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. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on the cost allegation submitted by the petitioners in the

petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that POSCO had made sales in the home market at prices below the cost

of producing the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(2)(A)(i)

of the Act. As a result the Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether POSCO made home market sales during the POI at prices

below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the

Act. See Notice of Initiation.

When the annual inflation rate in the country under investigation

exceeds 25 percent, the Department considers that inflation to be

significant and often uses a modified questionnaire. See, e.g., Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta

from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30315 (June 14, 1996).

Although the inflation rate in Korea in December 1997, was 8.19

percent, the annual inflation rate during the POI did not exceed 25%

(see International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics:

Producer Prices (July 1998; March 1998; December 1997; July 1997)).

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it is not appropriate to

send out the Department's modified cost questionnaire in this case.

We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of POSCO's cost of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A, interest

expenses, and packing costs. We used the information from POSCO's

Section D supplemental questionnaire response to calculate COP.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average COP for POSCO, adjusted where

appropriate (see above), to home market sales of the foreign like

product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the

COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made

at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable movement

[[Page 59539]]

charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less

than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product

because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in

``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's

sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the

COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial

quantities'', 773(b)(2)(c)(i), within an extended period of time in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases because

we compared prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI , we also

determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the

below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices

below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,

interest expenses and profit. We calculated the COP included in the

calculation of CV as noted above, in the ``Calculation of COP'' section

of the notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we

based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the

respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign

like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the

foreign country.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices

above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We made

adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the

merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market

customers. We made a deduction for inland freight. We made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments or deductions for credit, warranty

expense and interest revenue, where appropriate. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

Our preliminary analysis of Federal Reserve dollar-won exchange

rate data shows that the won declined rapidly at the end of 1997,

losing over 40% of its value between the beginning of November and the

end of December. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many

times more severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate

during the previous eight years. Had the won rebounded quickly enough

to recover all or almost all of the initial loss, the Department might

have been inclined to view the won's decline at the end of 1997 as

nothing more than a sudden, but only momentary drop, despite the

magnitude of that drop. As it was, however, there was no significant

rebound. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the decline

in the won at the end of 1997 was so precipitous and large that the

dollar-won exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply

fluctuated during this time, i.e., as having experienced only a

momentary drop in value. Therefore, in making this preliminary

determination, the Department used daily rates exclusively for currency

conversion purposes for HM sales matched to U.S. sales occurring

between November 1 and December 31, 1997.

The Department makes this determination without the benefit of

extensive case precedent dealing with this area of our currency

conversion policy. The Department therefore welcomes comments from

interested parties on all aspects of our analysis and the time period-

specific exchange rates used. For the purposes of the final

determination, the Department will also analyze the implications, if

any, of the decline in the won during 1997 for price averaging and

whether multiple averages are warranted. The Department is studying

this issue in Mushrooms from Indonesia. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of

Final Determination: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR

41783 (August 5, 1998).

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

Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject

merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date 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 weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the

chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain

in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins

are as follows:

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

Weighted-

average

Exporter/Manufacturer margin

percentage

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

POSCO...................................................... 2.77

All Others................................................. 2.77

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

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the

ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of

this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must

be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no

later than 50 days after the publication of the preliminary

determination, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, no later than 55 days after the publication of the preliminary

determination. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,

if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held 57 days after the publication of the preliminary

determination, time and room to be determined, at the U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

[[Page 59540]]

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 briefs. If

this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final

determination by January 10, 1999.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: October 27, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-29547 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P