Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Elastic Rubber Tape from India

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-815]

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Elastic

Rubber Tape from India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Craig W. Matney,

or Alysia Wilson, Office 1, Group I, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

4087, (202) 482-1778, or (202) 482-0108, 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

[[Page 5026]]

to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') regulations are

to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1, 1998).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that elastic rubber tape (``ERT'') from

India is being, or is 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

Since the initiation of this investigation on September 8, 1998

(see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Elastic

Rubber Tape from India, 63 FR 49546 (September 16, 1998) (``Notice of

Initiation'')), the following events have occurred:

On October 15, 1998, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'')

published its preliminary determination 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

India of the subject merchandise (63 FR 55407).

On October 9, 1998, the Department issued the antidumping duty

questionnaire to Garware Elastomerics Limited (``GEL''), the only

producer/exporter of ERT in India. GEL submitted its responses to

Section A on November 6, 1998, and then Sections B and C of the

questionnaire on November 23, 1998. Also on November 23, 1998, the

Department requested that GEL report the value and volume of its

imports into the United States during the period of April through

December 1998 in connection with the petitioners' allegation of

critical circumstances. GEL submitted this information to the

Department on December 9, 1998, and additional export data on December

29, 1998.

On December 17, 1998, the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire to GEL. GEL submitted part of its supplemental response

on December 29, 1998, and the remainder on January 11, 1999.

On December 23, 1998, the Department received a timely allegation

by Fulflex, Inc., Elastomer Technologies Group, Inc., and RM Engineered

Products, Inc., (referred to hereinafter as ``the petitioners'') that

GEL made sales in its home market below the cost of production. On the

basis of the information contained in the petitioners' allegation, we

initiated a sales-below-cost investigation (see Memorandum to Susan

Kuhbach, January 26, 1999).

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is elastic

rubber tape. Elastic rubber tape is defined as vulcanized, non-cellular

rubber strips, of either natural or synthetic rubber, 0.006 inches to

0.100 inches (0.15 mm to 2.54 mm) in thickness and \1/8\ inches to 1\5/

8\ inches (3 mm to 42 mm) in width. Such product is generally used in

swim wear and underwear.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at

subheading 4008.21.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is 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 July 1, 1997, through June

30, 1998.

Adverse Facts Available

On October 9, 1998, the Department issued a questionnaire to GEL

requesting, among other things, the variable cost-of-manufacture data

and total unit cost of manufacture for the U.S. and home market sales.

GEL requested an extension for the due date of the questionnaire

response. The Department granted the extension. However, GEL did not

supply the variable cost data and total unit cost data in its response

nor did it indicate that it was unable to compile this information

within the deadline or otherwise. On December 17, 1998, the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting this data and additional

data. GEL requested an extension of this questionnaire deadline, which

the Department granted. However, GEL did not submit the variable cost

data and total unit cost data by the extended deadline. For more

information, see Memo to the File, ``Time Extension for Supplemental

Questionnaire and Variable Cost of Manufacture Data,'' dated January 4,

1999 and Memo to the File ``Missing Variable Cost of Manufacture

Data,'' dated January 12, 1999.

Because GEL failed to respond to our requests for the variable

cost-of-manufacture and total unit cost data as requested in the

original and supplemental questionnaires, we are unable to calculate a

difference-in-merchandise adjustment to use in our price-to-price

comparison when there are no sales of identical products in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales. Accordingly, we must resort to facts

available for this information. Section 776(a) of the Act states that

(a) in general, if an interested party or any other person, fails to

provide information by the deadlines for submission of the information

or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e) of section 782, the Department shall, subject to 782(d), use the

facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination

under this title. Because GEL failed to provide the necessary variable

cost-of-manufacture data, under section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the

Department is required to apply, subject to sections 782(c)(1), (d) and

(e), the facts otherwise available.

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that, if an interested party,

promptly after receiving a request from the Department for information,

notifies the Department that it is unable to submit the information in

the requested form and manner and submits a full explanation and

suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the

information, the Department shall consider the ability of the

interested party to submit the information in the requested form and

manner, and it may modify such requirements to the extent necessary to

avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. In the instant

proceeding, GEL did not indicate that it could not submit the variable

and total cost-of-manufacture data in the form or manner requested.

Nevertheless, in accordance with section 782(d) of the Act, we

again asked GEL to provide this information in our December 17, 1998,

supplemental questionnaire. GEL did not provide the requested data in

its response to the supplemental questionnaire, even though we granted

an extension of the due date for the response. We notified the

respondent that its request to extend further the due date for this

material to January 29, 1999, was unacceptable because this information

was necessary to perform calculations for a preliminary determination

due three days prior to GEL's proposed date. For more information, see

Memo to the File, ``Time Extension for Supplemental Questionnaire and

Variable Cost of Manufacture Data,'' dated January 4, 1999. Thus, in

accordance with section 782(d) of the Act, we provided GEL an

opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiencies.

Finally, section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department,

when reaching its determination, shall not decline to consider

information provided by the respondent that is

[[Page 5027]]

already on the record. Accordingly, the Department used the information

GEL submitted to calculate the preliminary dumping margin on sales with

identical matches and has applied facts available only to U.S. sales

with non-identical matches.

Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the use of

facts available for GEL's variable cost-of-manufacture and total unit

cost data is required in this case. In selecting the facts available,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse

inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with

requests for information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H. Rep. No. 103-316 (``SAA''), at 870.

GEL did not provide the information as requested in our

questionnaires, despite various extensions of the deadlines for the

submission of this information. Therefore, we have determined that GEL

has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with our request for information. In its response to our first

request for this information, GEL indicated that it was not providing

the variable and total cost information as requested. GEL's offer to

submit this information in response to the possible initiation of a

cost-of-production (``COP'') investigation does not excuse its failure

to provide the data in the time and manner requested. This information

was needed to perform calculations for the preliminary determination.

The cost allegation was not made until December 14, 1998, and the

Department did not initiate a cost investigation until January 26,

1999. Therefore, at the time GEL completed its original response to the

Department, it was unaware that a COP questionnaire would be issued. We

find that GEL did not cooperate to the best of its ability and,

therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an

adverse inference when selecting from among the facts otherwise

available. As adverse facts available, we are assigning a dumping

margin of 66.51 percent, derived from the petition, for those U.S.

sales which did not have identical matches in the home market. See, the

Notice of Initiation.

Section 776(c) of the Act directs that, when the Department relies

on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts

otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal.

When analyzing the petition prior to the initiation of this

investigation, we reviewed all of the data upon which the petitioners

relied in calculating the estimated dumping margins, and we adjusted

those calculations where necessary. See Initiation Checklist dated

September 8, 1998. The estimated dumping margin of 66.51 percent was

based on the highest price-to-price margin contained in the petition,

as adjusted by the Department. For purposes of this preliminary

determination, we have corroborated that estimated margin. See, Notice

of Initiation and Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, dated January

26, 1999, for a detailed explanation of corroboration of the

information in the petition.

Date of Sale

In their December 9, 1998 submission, the petitioners objected to

GEL's use of date of invoice as the date of sale. The petitioners

argued that, given the fact that GEL begins production of subject

merchandise pursuant to a purchase order, the purchase-order date is

the date when the material terms of sale are set and, thus, the

appropriate date to use as the date of sale. They further argue that

the Department's dumping margin calculation would be distorted by using

GEL's reported date of sale due to the significant fluctuations in the

exchange rate during the POI.

After a review of the petitioners' comments and the method by which

GEL made sales in both the home market and U.S. market, we

preliminarily determine that the date of invoice is the appropriate

date of sale in this investigation.

Section 351.401(i) of our regulations states that, in identifying

the date of sale,

[t]he Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded

in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of

business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date

of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date

better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer

establishes the material terms of sale.

According to GEL's response, product mix, product specifications,

destination, and the quantity of a customer's original order can change

until the date of shipment, which is the same as the company's date of

invoice. Additionally, GEL indicated that the order can be canceled as

late as the date of shipment or invoice date. Consequently, we have

used the invoice date as the date of sale for GEL for purposes of this

preliminary determination.

We intend to verify GEL's claims concerning changes between the

date of shipment and the date of invoice. Based upon the outcome of our

verification, we will determine whether it is appropriate to continue

to use the date of invoice as the date of sale. We will consider

whether, in fact, there were any changes to the material terms between

the original order and the date of invoice. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple

Fruit from Thailand, 63 FR 7392 at 7394-7395 (February 13, 1998).

Critical Circumstances

The petitioners alleged in the petition that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of ERT from India. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation was filed at least 20 days

prior to our preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary

critical circumstances determination not later than the preliminary

determination.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that, if a petitioner alleges

critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (A)(i) there is a history

of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the

person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew

or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be

material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been

massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short

period.

With respect to the second criterion, whether imports of ERT have

been massive over a relatively short period, GEL submitted its U.S.

sales import data for subject merchandise for an eight-month period

beginning with April 1998 and ending with November 1998. Section

351.206(h) states that, unless the imports during a ``relatively short

period'' have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during

a period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, the

Secretary will not consider the imports massive. Furthermore, the

Secretary will normally consider a ``relatively short period'' the

period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least

three months later. We compared GEL's exports in the three-month period

September through November 1998 (post-petition period) to its exports

in the three months prior to the filing of the petition, June through

August 1998. This comparison indicates that there was a decrease in

GEL's

[[Page 5028]]

exports to the United States in the post-petition period.

Based on these facts, we determine that the second criterion for

finding that critical circumstances exist is not satisfied. Therefore,

we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist

with respect to exports of ERT from India by GEL. As a result, we have

not analyzed information pertaining to the first criterion. We will

make a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we

make our final determination in this investigation.

Affiliation

For the purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department

finds that GEL and Elastomer Inc. (EI), a U.S. reseller of subject

merchandise, are affiliated parties. Section 771 (33)(G) of the Act

states that ``{a}ny person who controls any other person * * *'' is

affiliated with that person. The statute explains further that ``a

person shall be considered to control another person if the person is

legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or

direction over the other person.'' In determining control, the

Department considers the following factors, among others: debt

financing; franchise or joint venture agreements; corporate or family

groupings; close supplier relationship in which the supplier or buyer

becomes reliant upon the other. However, control will not exist on the

basis of these factors unless the relationship has the potential to

affect decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the

subject merchandise or foreign like product. See 19 CFR 351.102(b).

In the instant proceeding, information on the record indicates that

GEL's relationship with EI has the potential to affect decisions

regarding the pricing of subject merchandise. Additionally, the nature

of the relationship calls into question whether EI has a distinct

operating personality outside its relationship with GEL. Specific

information supporting our conclusion cannot be addressed in the notice

due to its proprietary nature. For more information, see Memorandum to

Richard W. Moreland From Case Team ``Affiliation of GEL and

Elastomer,'' dated January 20, 1999.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of ERT from India to the United States

were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price

(``EP'') or the constructed export price (``CEP'') to the normal value

(``NV''), as described below in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed

Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice where the

products were identical. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of

the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and CEPs for comparison to

weighted-average NVs. Where there were no home market sales of

merchandise identical to the merchandise being sold in the United

States, we applied the 66.51 percent rate described above in the

``Adverse Facts Available'' section of this notice.

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 CEP transaction. The NV

LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For

EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from exporter to importer. 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 LOT than EP or

CEP, 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 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).

We reviewed information from GEL regarding the marketing stage

involved in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a

description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for

each channel of distribution. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of

the Act and the SAA at 827, in identifying LOTs for EP and home market

sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting

prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the

selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of

expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if

claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are

different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities

of the seller should be dissimilar.

Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers,

and level of selling expenses for GEL's EP and CEP sales, we found that

sales were made at a single stage in the marketing process in both the

home market and the United States. However, we found that the stage of

the marketing process in the home market and that in the United States

were substantially dissimilar. In particular, we found GEL's home

market sales involved greater selling activities than its U.S. sales.

Some of the activities that GEL performs for its home market sales in

excess of those its performs for U.S. sales include calling on new

customers, making site visits to existing clients and the provision of

post-sale services. We also note that GEL sells to end-users in the

home market while its U.S. EP customers and its U.S. importer for its

CEP sales are all resellers. Therefore, we have preliminarily found

that sales in both markets are at different LOTs.

While we have found GEL's home market and U.S. sales to be at

different levels of trade, there is no information on the record of

this investigation to provide an appropriate basis for determining a

LOT adjustment. In addition, as described above, we have preliminarily

found the LOT in the home market to be more remote than that in the

United States. Based on the foregoing, we are granting GEL a CEP offset

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

United States Price

GEL claimed an upward adjustment to its U.S. price for a ``duty

drawback'' program. As stated in Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel

Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR 47632 at 47635), September 10, 1997,

we determine whether an adjustment to U.S. price for a respondent's

claimed duty drawback is appropriate when the respondent meets both

parts of our two-part test. There must be (1) a sufficient link between

the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw

materials imported and used in the production of the final exported

product. Because GEL has not provided adequate information to meet

either part of the test, we have not made an adjustment to EP or CEP.

We will issue a supplemental questionnaire seeking additional

documentation regarding

[[Page 5029]]

whether GEL's use of this program meets our two-part test, and we will

revisit this issue for our final determination.

Export Price

For GEL's sales not made through its affiliate, we used EP

methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to importation and because CEP

methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on the packed

prices to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions,

where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight,

international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and

brokerage and handling. We also made a deduction, where appropriate,

for rebates.

Constructed Export Price

For GEL's sales through its U.S. affiliate, we used CEP

methodology, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the

first sale of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser was made

by GEL's affiliate in the United States. We based CEP on the packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions for discounts. We also made deductions

for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, brokerage

and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

duties, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehouse expenses. In accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses

associated with economic activities occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and other

indirect selling expenses. Section 772(d)(3) of the Act directs the

Department to deduct profit allocated to the CEP sale. However, we note

that GEL did not make a profit during the POI. Therefore, no profit was

deducted.

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, we

compared GEL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product

to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. As respondent's

aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product

exceeded five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we have determined that the home market is viable

for GEL, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Normal Value

We based NV on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated customers

in the home market. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the

starting price for inland freight, inland insurance, pursuant to

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

We also made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts. We made

adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct

selling expenses incurred on home market sales and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales. Since

GEL had no U.S. direct selling expenses other than those we deducted

from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d)

of the Act, we made no additions to NV in making COS adjustments. We

also made adjustments, where applicable, to offset commissions in CEP

calculations in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). Where commissions

were paid on sales of a particular U.S. product but not on the home

market comparison product, we made our adjustments by subtracting

commissions from U.S. price and then deducting from NV the lesser of

the amount of commissions paid on the U.S. product or the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on home market sales of the

comparison product, including inventory carrying costs. Conversely,

where commissions were paid on sales of the home market comparison

product but not on the U.S. product, we subtracted commissions from NV

and then deducted from U.S. price the amount of indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying costs. In addition, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Cost of Production

Based on a timely allegation by the petitioners on December 23,

1998, we initiated an investigation of sales below COP with respect to

GEL's home market sales pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act (see

January 26, 1999, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Team). As a result

of the Department's COP investigation, the Department requested that

GEL answer Section D of the original questionnaire concerning the COP

of merchandise sold in the home market. Due to the timing of the

initiation of our COP investigation, we are unable to include a COP

analysis in this preliminary determination. However, we intend to issue

a COP analysis memorandum for GEL prior to verification and we will

conduct a cost verification.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the

exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by

the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773(A) of the Act.

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 or constructed export price.

We preliminarily determine that the weighted-average margin for GEL is

62.01 percent. Because we only investigated one producer/exporter,

GEL's rate will also serve as the ``all others'' rate. The suspension-

of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

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

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 threatening 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 March 5, 1999, and rebuttal briefs no later than March 10,

1999. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues

should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such

[[Page 5030]]

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 on March 15, 1999, 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.

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 the following information: (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 no later than April 12, 1999.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

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

Dated: January 26, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-2455 Filed 2-1-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P