[C-557-806]

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Extruded Rubber

Thread from Malaysia

Monday, December 30, 1991

---page 67276---

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1991.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Vincent Kane or Gary Bettger, Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-2815 or 377-2239.

Preliminary Determination

Based on our investigation, we preliminarily determine that benefits which constitute bounties or grants within the meaning of section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Malaysia of the subject merchandise.

Case History

Since the publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Federal Register (56 FR 48158, September 24, 1991), the following events have occurred. On October 1, 1991, we presented a questionnaire to the Government of Malaysia (GOM) in Washington, DC, concerning petitioner's allegations. On October 15, 1991, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its preliminary determination that imports of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

On October 25, 1991, petitioner submitted additional subsidy allegations and requested a 21-day extension of the preliminary decision, which the Department granted. On November 21, 1991, petitioner amended its October 25, 1991, request for extension of the preliminary decision to include an additional seven-day extension, which the Department also granted. Finally, by letter dated December 10, 1991, respondents and their U.S. importers challenged petitioner's standing to file on behalf of the domestic producers of the like product for certain types of extruded rubber thread.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, i.e., 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, i.e., 0.56 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded rubber thread is currently classified under subheading 4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Standing

In their letter of December 10, 1991, respondents challenged petitioner's

---page 67277---

standing. Respondents stated that since they believe that North American Rubber Thread, Inc. does not produce, and may not have the capacity to produce, several categories of extruded rubber thread, the countervailing duty investigation should be terminated with respect to these certain products. Specifically, respondents question whether petitioner produces the following types of extruded rubber thread: (1) Food grade, (2) talc finish, (3) fine gauge, and (4) heat resistant.

The ITC has preliminarily determined in this proceeding that there is one like product, which includes all of the merchandise defined by the scope of this investigation. We have no basis to disagree with the ICT's determination. Accordingly, we determine that petitioner produces a product like the imported product and, hence, has standing to file this investigation.

Analysis of Programs

For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are measuring bounties or grants ("the review period") is calendar year 1990, which corresponds to the fiscal year of four of the five respondent companies. Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Confer Bounties or Grants

In determining the benefits received under the various programs described below we used the following calculation methodology. We first calculated a country-wide rate for each program. This rate comprised the ad valorem benefit received by each firm weighted by each firm's share of exports to the United States. The program rates were then summed to arrive at a country-wide rate for all programs.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 255.20(d), we compared the total ad valorem benefit received by each firm to the country-wide rate for all programs. The rates for Filati and Rubfil were significantly different from the country-wide rate. Therefore, these firms received individual rates. For the remaining three firms, we recalculated the country-wide rate, based solely on the benefits received by these three firms. We then assigned the recalculated overall country-wide rate to these three firms, and all other manufacturers, producers, and exporters, except Filati and Rubfil.

1. Rubber Discount Scheme

Under this program, the GOM provides a rebate of 20 sen per kilogram on natural rubber latex purchased to manufacture products for exports. The natural rubber latex eligible for the discount must be purchased from, or through, the Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation (MARDEC), the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA), or the Rubber Industry Smallholder Development Authority (RISDA). Subsequent to the purchase of the rubber an "authorization letter" from the Malaysian Department of Treasury directs these suppliers to provide the discount in the form of a cash rebate. Because this program is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable.

A firm can precisely calculate the rubber discount rebate for each export transaction at the moment the transaction is made. Therefore, we have focused on rebates earned during the period of review. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Steel Wire Nails from New Zealand (52 FR 37196, October 5, 1987). According to the responses, all respondent companies earned rubber discounts during the period of review.

To calculate the benefit from this discount, we first deducted the amount of fees paid in order to qualify for receipt of the discounts. Companies receiving benefits must pay an outside auditor's fee and an authorization fee to MARDEC. In accordance with section 771(6)(C) of the Act, we have deducted these fees from the rebate amount. Next, we made an allowance to the discount amount for its delayed receipt. Because the government has mandated that companies may apply for the discount only every six months, we have assumed an average deferral of three months before the discount may be received. In accordance with section 771(6)(B) of the Act, we have allowed an offset for this deferral, basing the offset on the opportunity cost to the company measured at the three-month fixed deposit rate.

We divided the ringgit amount of discounts earned by each company in 1990 (net of the fees and offset described above) by that company's total exports, since discounts applied to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 2.78 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for those firms listed below which have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy for those firms is as follows: Filati--3.23 percent and Rubfil--3.16 percent.

2. Export Credit Refinancing (ECR)

The Bank Negara Malaysia, the central bank of Malaysia, provides order-based pre- and post-shipment financing of exports through commercial banks for periods of up to 120 and 180 days, respectively, and "certificate of performance" (CP) based pre-shipment financing. Order-based financing is provided for specific sales to specific markets. CP-based financing, which is a line of credit based on the previous 12 months' export performance, cannot be tied to specific sales in specific markets.

According to the responses, all five respondent companies used export credit financing during the review period. We note that all of the pre-shipment financing received during the period was CP-based.

Because only exporters are eligible for ECR loans, we determine that they are countervailable to the extent that they are provided at preferential rates. In order to determine whether these loans were provided at preferential rates, we compared the interest rate charged to a benchmark interest rate. In past cases involving Malaysia, we used banker's acceptances as the most comparable source of short-term commercial financing. (See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Malaysia (53 FR 13303, April 22, 1988) (Wire Rod)). Since Wire Rod, however, our practice has been to select the predominant source of short-term financing in the country as our benchmark for short-term loans. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, New Steel Rails, Except Light Rails, from Canada (54 FR 31991, August 3, 1989). Also see s 355.44(b)(3) Proposed Substantive Countervailing Duty Regulations, 54 FR 23366, May 31, 1989. Because banker's acceptances account for only a small portion of short-term financing in Malaysia, we have determined to discontinue the use of these loans as a benchmark. Instead, we will rely on the predominant source of short-term financing in Malaysia. In Malaysia, term loans offered by commercial banks are the most predominant form of short-term financing with overdraft loans being the second most predominant form. The average interest rates for these types of financing, however, are not available. Therefore, we have used as our benchmark for ECR loans, the average commercial bank lending rate as an estimate of these rates because over eighty percent of the loans made by commercial banks were either term loans or overdrafts.

---page 67278---

Based on a comparison of the ECR rates and the benchmark rate, we find that ECR loans are provided at preferential rates and, therefore, are countervailable.

To calculate the benefit from ECR loans on which interest was paid in 1990, we used our short-term loan methodology which has been applied consistently in our past determinations. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand (55 FR 1695, January 18, 1990), and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Ceramic Tile from Mexico (53 FR 15290, April 28, 1988); see also Alhambra Foundry versus United States, 626 F. Supp. 402 (CIT, 1985). This methodology is also described in more detail under section 355.44(b)(3) of "Countervailing Duty Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment" (54 FR 23366, May 31, 1989). Because the post- shipment ECR loans were shipment-specific, we included in our calculations only those loans which financed exports of extruded rubber thread to the United States. Because the CP-based, pre-shipment loans were not shipment-specific, we included all CP loans on which interest was paid during the review period.

We compared the amount of interest actually paid during the review period to the amount that would have been paid at the benchmark rate. We then divided each company's interest savings by that company's total exports, in the case of the CP loans, or by its exports to the United States, in the case of post- shipment loans. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above.

On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 1.84 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for those firms listed below which have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy for those firms is as follows: Filati--0.78 percent and Rubfil--1.06 percent.

3. Electricity Discount Program for Exporters

The Electricity Discount Program provided a reduction in the electricity rates charged to qualifying companies. The program was originally implemented in 1985 as a discount for rubber-based manufacturers. That program was, however, terminated and replaced by a new electricity Discount Program in 1989.

The program in effect during our review period provided discounts to companies that produced a manufactured product covered by the Industrial Coordination Act of 1975 and which exported at least 50 percent of their production. The amount of the discount was calculated by computing 20 percent of the ratio of export to total sales and multiplying the amount by the total electricity charge. According to the responses, Heveafil and Rubberflex received discounts from this program during the review period. Because this program is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we divided the total amount of discounts received by each company by that company's total exports because the benefits are not shipment-specific. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.02 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. These two firms did not receive an electricity discount during the review period.

This program was terminated on March 1, 1990. Consistent with our policy of taking into account measurable program-wide changes that occur before the preliminary determination, we are taking into account the termination of the electricity discount program for cash deposit purposes. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary determination, we will not include the net bounty or grant determined for this program in our calculation of the estimated countervailing duty cash deposit rate.

4. Abatement of Income Tax Based on the Ratio of Export Sales to Total Sales

The Investment Incentives Act of 1968 provided for an abatement of income tax based on the ratio of export sales to total sales. This law was repealed effective January 1, 1986, and replaced by the Promotion of Investments Act of 1986. Among other incentives, the new law also provides an abatement of income tax based on export performance. Specifically a portion of income, equal to 50 percent of the ratio of export sales to total sales is exempt from income tax. This program is not available to companies still participating in programs under the repealed Investment Incentives Act of 1968, including pioneer status, or to companies granted pioneer status or an investment tax allowance under the Promotion of Investments Act of 1986. Because this program is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable.

According to the responses, only Heveafil used this program during the review period. In addition to the export abatement, Heveafil used several other tax allowances available to offset taxable income during the review period. As discussed below, we have found certain of these allowances to be countervailable.

During the review period, the combination of countervailable and non- countervailable allowances substantially exceeded taxable income. Because we countervail only that portion of the available export allowances actually used to offset taxable income in the review period, we had to determine first which of the allowances were used and to what extent. Heveafil was unable to document which of the allowances were actually used to offset taxable income. Therefore, we determined that it was reasonable to assume that a company would use the export abatement before any of the other allowances available in this case, because, unlike the other allowances, the export abatement could not be carried forward for use in future tax years.

To calculate the benefit, we determined the total income and development tax savings for each company from this program during the review period and divided it by the company's total exports because these benefits applied to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.73 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. These two firms did not receive an export tax abatement during the review period.

For Heveafil, the export abatement did not fully offset taxable income and, hence, other allowances were used. Therefore, it was necessary to decide which of the remaining countervailable and non-countervailable allowances were used for tax abatement purposes. In making this decision, we took into account the fact that the central purpose of the countervailing duty law is to encourage foreign governments not to provide competitive benefits to their exporting industries. In this investigation, this purpose can best be served by selecting the remaining

---page 67279---

countervailable allowances before selecting any of the non-countervailable allowances available to the companies to offset taxable income. By taking this approach, we have countervailed the full amount of the countervailable, export allowances earned by the companies and left as an unused balance to be carried forward to future tax years the non-countervailable allowances.

5. Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of Indigenous Malaysian Materials Used in Exports

In addition to the Export Abatement discussed above, the Promotion of Investments Act of 1986 provided for an abatement of income tax in the amount of five percent of the ratio of export sales to total sales times the value of indigenous Malaysian materials used in the manufacture of exported products. This program is not available to companies still participating in programs under the repealed Investment Incentives Act of 1986, including pioner status, or to companies granted pioneer status or an investment tax allowance under the Promotion of Investments Act of 1986. According to the responses, Heveafil used this program during the review period.

Because this program is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable. To calculate the benefit, we determined the total income and development tax savings from this program during the review period for each company and divided it by the company's total exports, because these benefits applied to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.09 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. These two firms did not receive an indigenous materials export abatement during the review period.

6. Industrial Building Allowance

Sections 63 through 66 of the Income Tax Act of 1967, as amended, allow an income tax deduction for a percentage of the value of constructed or purchased buildings used in manufacturing. In 1984, this allowance, which had been limited to manufacturing facilities, was extended to include buildings used as warehouses to store finished goods ready for export or imported inputs to be incorporated into exported goods. This program includes a ten percent initial and a two percent annual tax allowance. According to the responses, Heveafil used this program during the review period.

Because this program, as it applies to warehouses, is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable. To calculate the benefit, we determined the total income and development tax savings from this program for each company during the review period and divided it by the company's total exports because these benefits applied to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.00019 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. These two firms did not receive an industrial building allowance during the review period.

7. Double Deduction for Export Promotion Express

Section 41 of the Promotion of Investments Act of 1986 allows companies to deduct expenses related to the promotion of exports twice, once in calculating net income on the financial statement and again in calculating taxable income. According to the responses, only Heveafil used this program during the review period.

Because this program is limited to exporters, we have preliminarily determined it to be countervailable. To calculate the benefit, we determined the total income and development tax savings from this program during the review period and divided it by the company's total exports because these benefits applied to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.03 percent for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of extruded rubber thread except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. These two firms did not double deduct export promotion expenses during the review period.

8. Pioneer Status

Pioneer status is a tax incentive offered to promote investment in the manufacturing, tourist, and agricultural sectors. Pioneer status was first introduced under the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance, 1958. This ordinance was replaced by the Investment Incentives Act (IIA) in 1968, which was subsequently replaced by the Promotion of Investment Act (PIA) of 1986. Under the IIA and the PIA, the Minister of International Trade and Industry may determine products or activities to be pioneer products or activities.

Companies petition for pioneer status for pioneer products or activities. Once a company receives pioneer status, its profits from the designated product or activity are exempt from the corporate income tax, the development tax, and the dividend tax for a period of five years with the possibility of an extension for an additional five years. The five-year extension was abolished effective October 1, 1991.

In evaluating a project for pioneer status, the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority will consider the following factors: (1) The number of companies already established in the industry and the extent of the development of the industry in the country; (2) the level of manufacturing operation or activity proposed by the project; (3) the level of technology already achieved by the particular industry; (4) the level of local content to be achieved by the project; (5) spin-off effects or benefits of the project; (6) the linkages created or the extent of integration with other industries; and (7) the extent of foreign exchange proposed to be earned by the project.

According to the response, export potential has always been one of the considerations in evaluating a project for pioneer status. Nevertheless, companies that produce only for the domestic market may receive pioneer status. Under certain conditions, however, companies must agree to export 80 percent or more of production to receive pioneer status. According to the response, the 80 percent export requirement may sometimes be applied to certain industries after it is determined that the domestic market will no longer support additional producers.

Rubberflex was the only company that used pioneer status during the review period. Rubfil, Filmax, and Filati qualified for the program, but they have not yet begun to use it. While Rubberflex met other requirements for pioneer status, it also had to meet the requirement to export 80 percent of production.

In Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Malaysia: Final Results of Administrative Review (56 FR 14927, April 12, 1991) (Wire Rod), the Department found that pioneer benefits had been approved for over 2,000 companies and almost as many products cutting across numerous industrial

---page 67280---

sectors during the period 1980 to 1989. We concluded, therefore, that no industry or group of industries used the program disproportionately and that the pioneer program a not countervailable. The Wire Rod determination, however, did not specifically address the case where companies had to export 80 percent or more of production to qualify for pioneer status.

After considering the implications of this criterion, the Department has decided to view the pioneer program as a two-faceted program. The first facet comprises those instances where one or more of the criteria described above applies, including favorable prospects for export, but where the export criterion does not carry preponderant weight. This facet of the program is what the Department found non-countervailable in Wire Rod.

In cases where pioneer status is conferred on a company because that company agrees to export 80 percent of its production, however, the program conveys an export subsidy, regardless of the other "neutral" criteria the company is required to meet. This is because receipt of benefits becomes contingent on export performance. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that this facet of the pioneer program bestows an export subsidy.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we determined the total income and development tax savings realized during the review period and divided it by Rubberflex's total exports because these benefits apply to all exports. We then applied the calculation methodology outlined above. On this basis we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 4.04 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters to Malaysia of extruded rubber thread, except for Filati and Rubfil, which have significantly different aggregate benefits and received no benefits under this program during the review period.

II. Program for Which we Need More Information

Research and Development

Created in 1958 under the Laws of Malaysia Act 401, the Malaysian Rubber Research Development Board (MRRDB) is a government agency under the auspices of the Ministry of Primary Industries. It was established to oversee research, technical development and promotional work in support of the Malaysian natural rubber industry. The MRRDB operating units include the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia (RRIM), the Malaysian Rubber Products Research Association (MRPRA), and the Malaysian Rubber Bureau (MRB). According to the response, the results of all of the research performed by MRRDB units is made available to the public.

Both RRIM and MRPRA operate commercial consulting units. These units provide consulting services related to the manufacture of rubber products. Users of these services are billed on a cost plus basis. On one occasion, Rubberflex had several samples of rubber thread analyzed by MRPRA's Rubber Consultants unit. According to the response, this analysis was the only occasion when any of the respondents used services of a MRRDB unit. Respondents indicate that they have never used any of the research and development facilities or services of MRRDB or its various units other than in this one instance.

Respondents claim that RRIM's consulting units provide services to all users on a cost-plus basis. We intend to seek further information on the nature of the services provided, the amounts charged for these services, the basis for the charges, the profitability of the units, and the amounts charged by private providers for these same services.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to be Used

A. Preferential Financing for Bumiputras

B. Allowances of a Percentage of Net Taxable Income Based on the F.O.B. Value of Export Sales

C. Double Deduction for Export Credit Insurance Payments

D. Investment Tax Allowance

E. Allowance of Taxable Income of Five Percent of the Adjusted Income of Companies Due to Capital Participation/Employment Policies

F. Abatement of Five Percent of Adjusted Income

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Exist

A. Preferential Land Pricing

B. Five to Ten Year Tax Holidays

C. Electricity Discount for Rubber-Based Manufacturers

V. Programs Previously Determined not to be Countervailable

Petitioner included these programs in its petition and we incorrectly included them in our initiation in this investigation. Department practice requires that we not initiate on programs previously found not to be countervailable, unless changes in the program or its administration justify further investigation. In these instances, no information was received about changes in the program. Therefore, we are rescinding the investigation as it relates to:

A. Reinvestment Allowance

B. Accelerated Depreciation Allowance

C. Free Trade Zones

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

Petitioner alleges that imports of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia present "critical circumstances." On December 17, 1991, respondents requested that the Department terminate the critical circumstances investigation. Because this request was made only three days before the date of our preliminary determination, we have not had sufficient time to fully consider their argument. We will address this issue in our final determination.

Under section 703(e)(1) of the Act, critical circumstances exist when the Department has a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (1) The alleged subsidy is inconsistent with the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("the Subsidies Code"); and (2) there have been massive imports of the class or kind of merchandise which is subject of the investigation over a relatively short period.

In our preliminary determination we found that the government of Malaysia confers export subsidies on the manufacture, production or exportation of extruded rubber thread. These subsidies are inconsistent with the Subsidies Code.

In preliminary determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there have been massive imports over a relatively short period, we considered the following factors: (1) The volume and value of the imports; (2) seasonal trends; and (3) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In making this determination, our preference is to examine company- specific shipment data on exports to the United States of the subject merchandise.

We asked all respondent companies to supply monthly volume and value shipment data from January 1989 to the present. We have not yet received complete data for November shipments.

Based on our analysis of the monthly shipment data for each respondent company, we have found that imports from three of the five companies have been massive over a relatively short period of time. Therefore, we find that the requirement of section 703(e)(1) are met for the following companies

---page 67281---

exporting extruded rubber thread to the United States.

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

  Company     Critical circumstances

 -----------------------------------

Heveafil .... no

Filmax ...... yes

Rubberflex .. yes

Filati ...... yes

Rubfil ...... no

 -----------------------------------

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information used in 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 extruded rubber thread from Malaysia which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and to require a cash deposit or bond for all entries of this merchandise in the following amounts:

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

        Manufacturer/exporter           Net ad valorem subsidy (percent)

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

Filati Lastex Elastofibre ......................................... 4.01

Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.................................................... 4.21

All other manufacturers or exporters .............................. 9.51

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

This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

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.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination on February 21, 1992, at 10:00 a.m, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to participate in the hearing must submit a request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, room B- 099, at the above address within ten days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 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; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(c) and (d), case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary in ten copies of the business proprietary version and five copies of the nonproprietary version by February 14, 1992, and February 18, 1992, respectively. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, written views will be considered if received not less than 30 days before the final determination is due or, if a hearing is held, within seven days after the hearing transcript is available.

This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671(b)(f)).

Dated: December 20, 1991.

Francis J. Sailer,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.