86-611

51 FR 21201

NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[C-508-601]

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Oil Country Tubular
Goods From Israel

Wednesday, June 11, 1986

*21201

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the
meaning of the countervailing duty law are being provided
to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of oil country tubular goods (OCTG). The
estimated net subsidy is 2.69 percent ad valorem during the review period. However, consistent
with our stated policy of taking into account program-wide changes that occur before our
preliminary determination, we are adjusting the duty deposit rate to reflect changes in the Bank of
Israel Export Production Fund Program. We also preliminarily determine that critical
circumstances do not exist.

We have notified the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. We
are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Israel
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication
of this notice, and to require a cash deposit or bond on entries of these products in an amount
equal to the duty deposit rate.

If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination on or before August
19, 1986.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1986.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Laura Winfrey, Jessica Wasserman, or Gary
Taverman, Office of Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-1784, 377-1442 or 377-0161.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

Based upon our investigation, we preliminarily determine that there is reason to believe or suspect
that benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel
of OCTG. For purposes of this investigation, the following programs are found to confer subsidies:
1. The Encouragement of Capital Investments Law 5719-1959 (ECIL):
--Preferential Accelerated Depreciation
--Other ECIL Tax Benefits
2. Bank of Israel Export Loans:
--Export Production Fund
--Export Shipments Fund
--Imports-for-Exports Fund
3. Exchange Rate Risk Insurance Scheme.
We preliminarily determine the estimated net subsidy to be 2.69 percent ad valorem, and the duty
deposit rate to be 2.12 percent ad valorem, for all manufacturers, producers, or exporters in
Israel of OCTG.

Case History

On March 12, 1986, we received a petition in proper form from Lone Star Steel Company and CF&I
Steel Corporation. In compliance with the filing requirements of § 355.26 of the Commerce
Regulations (19 CFR 355.26), the petition alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in
Israel of OCTG, directly or indirectly, receive subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of
the Act, and that these imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
We found that the petition contained sufficient grounds upon which to initiate a countervailing
duty investigation, and on April 8, 1986, we initiated an investigation (51 FR 11965). We stated
that we expected to issue a preliminary determination on or before June 5, 1986.
Since Israel is entitled to an injury determination under section 701(b) of the Act, the ITC is
required to determine whether imports of the subject
merchandise from Israel materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Therefore, we notified the ITC of our initiation. On May 7, 1986, the ITC determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports from Israel of OCTG.
We presented questionnaires concerning the petitioners' allegations to the Government of Israel
and Middle East Tube Co., Ltd. ("METCO"), the only manufacturer, producer, or exporter in
Israel of OCTG, in Washington, DC on April 11, 1986. Responses to our questionnaires were
received on May 16 and 21, 1986.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this investigation are "oil country tubular goods," which are hollow steel
products of circular cross-section intended for use in drilling for oil or gas. These products include
oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe of carbon or alloy steel, whether welded or seamless,
manufactured to either American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API (such as proprietary)
specification as currently provided for in the Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated
(TSUSA) under item numbers:
610.3216
610.3219
610.3233
610.3234
610.3242
610.3243
610.3249
610.3252
610.3254
610.3256
610.3258
610.3262
610.3264
610.3721
610.3722
610.3751
610.3925
610.3935
610.4025
610.4035
610.4210
610.4220
610.4225
610.4230
610.4235
610.4240
610.4310
610.4320
610.4325
610.4335
610.4942
610.4944
610.4946
610.4954
610.4955
610.4956
610.4957
610.4966
610.4967
610.4968
610.4969
610.4970
610.5221
610.5222
610.5226
610.5234
610.5240
610.5242
610.5243
610.5244
This investigation includes OCTG in both finished and unfinished condition.
For purposes of its preliminary determination, the ITC ruled that drill

*21202

pipe is a separate "like product" from other types of OCTG. Since neither of the petitioners
manufactures, produces, or wholesale drill pipe, they are not "interested parties" with respect to
drill pipe, within the meaning of section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we will not investigate
sales of drill pipe in this investigation.

Analysis of Programs

Throughout this notice, we refer to certain general principles applied to the facts of the current
investigation. These general principles are described in the "subsidies Appendix" attached to the
notice of "Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order," which was published in the April 26, 1984
issue of the Federal Register (49 FR 18006).

Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, where a response to an allegation
denies the existence of a program, receipt of benefits under a program, or eligibility of a company
or industry under a program, and the Department has no persuasive evidence showing that the
response is incorrect, we accept the response for purposes of the preliminary determination. All
such responses are subject to verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and
the program is otherwise countervailable, the program will be considered a subsidy in the final
determination.
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are measuring subsidies
("the review period") is calendar year 1985. Based upon our analysis of the petition and the
responses to our questionnaires, submitted by the Government of Israel and METCO, we
preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies

We preliminarily determine that subsidies, are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or
exporters in Israel of OCTG under the following programs:

A. The Encouragement of Capital Investments Law 5719-1959 (ECIL)

The purpose of the ECIL is to attract capital to Israel with a view toward developing the
productive capacity of the national economy, improving the balance of payments, absorbing
immigration, and offsetting the economic disadvantages in Israel's development areas.
Petitioners allege that the Government of Israel provides various benefits to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG under the following sections of the ECIL.

1. ECIL Preferential Accelerated Depreciation. Section 42 of the ECIL provides that approved
enterprises may depreciate: 1) machinery and equipment at double the normal rate for five years
and 2) buildings at four times the normal rate. The law states that the accelerated depreciation is
available only to approved enterprises.
The responses gave no indication as to which enterprises are eligible for this program or how the
approval process works. Because government approval is required, there is the possibility that the
government limits this program to specific enterprises. Thus, we preliminarily determine that it
confers countervailable benefits to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG.

For tax programs, we generally determine the value of the subsidy by calculating the amount of the
benefit based on the tax return filed during the review period. According to the responses of the
Government of Israel and METCO, METCO's tax liability was not affected by the application of
these benefits on the tax return filed during the review period. Although we preliminarily
determine that the preferential accelerated depreciation program confers a countervailable benefit
to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG, the estimated net countervaliable
benefit is zero.

2. Other ECIL Tax Benefits. Under the ECIL, approved enterprises are liable for payment of a 30
percent corporate tax on approved fixed assets, while the regular corporate tax rate is 40 percent.
In addition, under section 47 of the ECIL, the maximum tax liability of an approved enterprise may
vary according to the date on which the enterprise was established. Petitioners also allege that
various other tax benefits are available under the ECIL, including a maximum tax rate of 25
percent on income from approved investments. According to the law, the tax benefits are available
to only approved enterprises.

The response gave no indication as to which enterprises are eligible for this program or how the
approval process works. Because government approval is required, there is the possiblity that the
government limits this program to specific enterprises. Thus, we preliminarily determine that it
confers countervailable benefits to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of
OCTG.
As stated in section I.A.1 above, for tax programs we generally determine the value of the subsidy
by calculating the amount of the benefit based on the tax return filed during the review period.
According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO's tax liability was
not affected by the application of these benefits on the return filed during the review period.
Therefore, although we preliminarily determine that these tax benefits confer countervailable
benefits to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG, the estimated net
countervailable benefit is zero.

B. Bank of Israel Loans

Petitioners allege that the Government of Israel provides preferential export financing to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG through three export credit funds
administered by the Bank of Israel:

1. Export Production Fund (EPF). Under the EPF, loans are provided to exporters to enable them to
finance export production. Eligibility for EPF loans is contingent upon exportation. During the
review period, EPF financing was available both in foreign currencies and in new Israeli shekels
(N.I.S.). According to the reponse, in July 1985, the Bank of Israel discontinued EPF financing
in N.I.S. As of that date, EPF financing became available only in
foreign currencies at interest rates not to exceed LIBOR plus two percent.
Because only exporters are eligible for these loans, we preliminarily determine that they are
countervailable to the extent that they are provided at preferential rates. With respect to the
foreign-currency denominated loans, the company reponse states that dollar financing is not
available from private sources in Israel.

Nor were we able to obtain benchmark interest rates for these loans from independent sources.
Therefore, we have relied on our earlier determination regarding Potassium Chloride from
Israel: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination (FR 36122) in deriving our
benchmark.
In that case, we found that the appropriate benchmark for foreign-currency denominated loans
was a so-called "Euro rate" plus two percent. We have continued to apply the two percent premium
and have added it to the nominal London Interbank Offer Rate on U.S. dollar deposits in effect
during the review period.
With respect to N.I.S.-denominated loans, we used as our benchmark the effective rate on Israeli
shekel overdraft accounts during 1985 provided in the Government of Israel reponse.

*21203

Comparing these benchmarks to the interest rates charged on the EPF loans, we also preliminarily
determine that the EPF loans were provided at preferential interest rates, and are, hence,
countervailable.

To determine the benefit provided under this program, we based our calculations on the total value
of the export loans because METCO did not segregate specific loans to OCTG. For the N.I.S.
financing, we calculated the total amount of interest METCO would have paid under the benchmark
and subtracted from that amount, interest METCO actually paid. We then allocated the difference
over total export sales. For the foreign currency financing, we followed the same procedure by
taking the total amount of interest METCO would have paid and subtracted from that amount, the
amount of interest METCO actually paid. We allocated the difference over total export sales.
Adding the benefits from the N.I.S.--and foreign currency-denominated loans, we calculated an
estimated net subsidy rate of 0.58 percent ad valorem.
In cases in which program-wide changes have occurred prior to a preliminary determination, and
where the changes are verifiable, the Department's practice is to adjust the duty deposit rate to
correspond to the eventual duty liability. Because the response states that short-term
N.I.S.-denominated export financing is no longer available, and since METCO had no outstanding
N.I.S.-denominated loans at the end of the review period, we have adjusted the duty deposit rate to
reflect this change. Therefore, the duty deposit rate for this program is 0.01 percent ad valorem.

2. Export Shipments Fund (ESF). Under the ESF, loans are provided to exporters to enable them to
extend credit in foreign currency to their overseas
customers. The financing of the shipment is granted after the shipment of the goods and the credit
is granted for not more than six months.
Because only exporters are eligible for these loans, we preliminarily determine that they are
countervailable to the extent that they are provided at preferential rates. We used as our
benchmark for this fund the foreign currency benchmark described in the "Export Production
Fund" section of this notice. Comparing the benchmark interest rate to the actual rate charged on
these loans, we also preliminarily determine that the loans were provided at preferential rates and
are, hence, countervailable. Applying the methodology described in section I.B.1 above, we
calculate an estimated net subsidy rate of 0.001 percent ad valorem.

3. Imports-for-Exports Fund (IEF). Under the IEF, exporters receive loans denominated in foreign
currency in order to finance imported materials used for export production. Because only
exporters are eligible for these loans, we preliminarily determine that they are countervailable to
the extent that they are provided at preferential rates. We used as our benchmark for this fund the
foreign currency benchmark described in the "Export Production Fund" section of the notice.
Comparing the benchmark interest rate to the actual rate charged on these loans, we also
preliminarily determine that the loans were provided at preferential rates and are, hence,
countervailable. Applying the methodology described in section I.B.1 above, we compared the
benchmark to the preferential
interest rate obtained by METCO on the IEF loans. The benefit was then allocated over METCO's
total exports of OCTG during the review period. On this basis, we calculate an estimated net subsidy
rate of 0.01 percent ad valorem.

C. Exchange Rate Risk Insurance Scheme

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG benefit from
the Exchange Rate Risk Insurance Scheme (EIS) operated by the Israel Foreign Trade Risks
Insurance Corporation Ltd. (IFTRIC). The scheme insures exporters against decreased payments in
foreign-currency receivables resulting from delays in the devaluation of the shekel. According to
petitioners, the premiums charged under this program may be manifestly inadequate to cover the
long-term operating costs and losses of the program.

According to the response of the Government of Israel, the EIS is a mixture of exchange rate
risk insurance and cost escalation schemes. The main purpose of the EIS is to insure the exporter's
revenue (in domestic currency) when it lags behind increases in local costs due to unexpected
fluctuations between exchange rates and domestic price increases. During the past six years,
Israel has had very high inflation rates. The rate of inflation has dropped since August 1985,
but, according to the response, the rate of devaluation of the shekel still lags behind the rate of
inflation. Because of the problems encountered
by the exporter when devaluation lags behind inflation, the EIS aims to cover the exporter during
this period.

The EIS is based on a weighted average of the U.S. dollar, French franc, German mark, Dutch
guilder and British pound. The program also insures the exporter against fluctuations between
those currencies. The scheme is optional and open to any exporter willing to pay a premium to
IFTRIC. Compensation to the exporters is calculated by the change in the rate of devaluation of the
shekel against the other foreign currencies and the change in the consumer price index. If changes
in domestic prices are higher than changes in the rate of the shekel, the exporter is compensated by
an amount equal to the difference of the changes multiplied by the value-added of his exports. But,
if the rate of devaluation is higher than the change in the domestic price index, the exporter must
compensate IFTRIC. Since the premium is paid on the basis of the value-added of the exports, the
rate is the same for all industries.
IFTRIC functions under the assumption that fluctuations between the changes in domestic prices
and the changes in the devaluation of the shekel will be in balance. In 1984, inflation was much
higher than expected and devaluation of the shekel lagged behind the rate of inflation;
consequently, IFTRIC registered a loss in 1984. The government response indicates that IFTRIC
will probably operate at a loss in 1985, but complete data for that year are not yet available.

In determining whether an export insurance program provides a countervailable benefit, we look
to see if the premium rates charged are adequate to cover the program's long-term operating costs
and losses. We examined this program once before, in the countervailing duty investigation
regarding Potassium Chloride from Israel: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination (49 FR 36122). At that time, September 14, 1984, there was insufficient data to
determine that the premiums charged were manifestly inadequate to cover long- term operating
costs. We indicated, however, that EIS was in a loss situation and that we were not making a
conclusive determination on the program's countervailability at that time.
In this case, the response indicates that the program was in a loss position throughout 1984 and
probably will be in a loss in 1985. This, combined with the fact that no data were provided on the
program's premium collections, indemnity payments, or operating costs, lead us preliminarily to
determine that the premiums charged are manifestly inadequate to cover the long-term operating
costs of this program and that this program confers a countervailable benefit on manufacturers,
producers, or

*21204

exporters in Israel of OCTG. We calculated the benefit from this program on the basis of the
best information available by allocating the amount of compensation METCO received from
IFTRIC, after deducting its premium paid, over METCO's total exports during the review period.
This resulted in an estimated net subsidy of 2.10 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

We preliminarily determine that the following programs have not been used by manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG during the review period.

A. Investment Grants

Petitioners allege that under section 40B of the ECIL, approved enterprises may receive
investment grants for the purpose of purchasing assets on industrial buildings, land development,
and building repairs. The amount of the grant varies according to the development zone in which
the project is located, the type of investment and the corporate structure of the enterprise.
According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did not receive
any ECIL investment grants with respect to the manufacture, production, or sale of OCTG during
the review period. The response indicates that METCO received and ECIL investment grant on
other merchandise not subject to this investigation. We will carefully examine the utilization of
these benefits at verification.

B. ECIL Loans

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG may receive
loans on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations under section 24 of the ECIL for the
enlargement of facilities. According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO,
METCO did not receive any ECIL loans with respect to the manufacture, production, or sale of
OCTG during the review period.

C. Property Tax Exemptions on Buildings and Equipment

Petitioners allege that manufactuers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG may benefit
from tax benefits under the ECIL that allow eligible enterprises a five-year exemption from
payment of two-thirds of property taxes on buildings and a ten-year exemption from payment of
one-sixth of property taxes on equipment. According to the responses of the Government of
Israel and METCO, property taxes were abolished for all taxpayers in Israel as of April 1,
1981. METO did pay a special tax on its building and equipment under the Capital Levy on Property
Law (Ad Hoc Provisions), 5745-1985, applicable only during 1985. The same rate was applicable to
all companies in Israel and
according to the response, METCO did not receive an exemption from this tax.

D. ECIL Interest Subsidy Payments

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG receive grants
provided by the Government of Israel for the rebate of interest on loans provided by
commercial banks. The amount of the grant varies according to the development zone in which the
enterprise is located.

In its response, the Government of Israel states that certain investment programs in Israel
approved after July 1, 1985 were provided with a supplementary temporary capital grant.
According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did not apply for
the use of this investment program during the review period.

E. Partial Non-Payment of Employer's Tax

Although not specifically alleged by petitioners, we stated in our Notice of Initiation that this
program may provide benefits to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG.
Under section 55B of the ECIL, employers in approved industrial enterprises located in
Development Zone A or B may be exempt from either one half or all of the employer's tax.
According to the
responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, since April 1, 1980, the employer's tax has
not been levied on the productive sectors to the economy. Therefore, METCO did not receive a
benefit under this program during the review period.

F. Drawback Grants

Although not specifically alleged by petitioners, we included in our Notice of Initiation a reference
to ECIL drawback grants. Section 40E of the ECIL provides that the owner of an approved
enterprise is entitled to a drawback grant with respect to taxes on investments and investment
expenditures. According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did
not receive a drawback grant in connection with investment for the production of OCTG during the
review period, and, as of April 1, 1986, ECIL drawback grants were abolished.

G. Encouragement of Industrial Research and Development Law 5744-1984 (EIRD)

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG may benefit
from research and development grants equal to 50 percent of approved project costs where such
activity is directed at export expansion.

According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did not use EIRD
with respect to the manufacture, production, or sale of OCTG during the review period.

H. Other Benefits

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG may receive
benefits in the form of low-cost development loans, labor training funded by the Ministry of Labor
and working capital to finance export operations. These programs are referenced in the foreword
to the ECIL. According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did
not receive any of the other ECIL benefits listed above during the review period.

I. Bank of Israel Special Export Financing Loans

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Israel of OCTG received
benefits from special export financing loans administered by the Bank of Israel. According to a
memorandum from the Israel Export Institute, special loans to finance penetration of new
markets, introduction of new products, special marketing drives, establishment of foreign sales
offices, market research and special foreign marketing expenditures are available to
exporters.

According to the responses of the Government of Israel and METCO, METCO did not receive
any benefits under the Bank of Israel Special Export Financing Loans during the review period.

III. Programs for Which Additional Information Is Needed

For the following programs, the information submitted by respondents is insufficient to determine
if a subsidy has been provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG.
Therefore, we determine that additional information is needed on the following programs.

A. The Encouragement of Industry (Taxes) Law 5729-1969 (EIL)

Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG receive
benefits under the

*21205

following sections of the EIL. However, the information contained in the response is insufficient to
determine if a subsidy has been provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel
of OCTG.

1. Preferential Accelerated Depreciation. Under section 4A, industrial companies that acquired
new business assets subsequent to tax year 1974 are
entitled to an annual depreciation allowance equal to fifty percent of the depreciable base of the
asset.
2. Reduction in Income Tax Rates. Under section 19(a), industrial companies investing in further
development of their production activities are entitled to a reduced tax rate on income chargeable
to the investment.
3. Tax Deductible Inventory Adjustment. Under section 5A, an industrial company may be entitled
to special deductions based on the value of its end-of- year inventory.

B. Shlom-Hagalil Special Levy

In its response, METCO provided information on the Shlom-Hagalil Special Levy. The duty is paid
on all imported raw material and imported goods incorporated into the exported product at a rate
of 2 percent. According to the response, the drawback is at a rate of 1.25 percent of the f.o.b.
export value and it is calculated as a percentage of the special levy paid on the imported raw
materials included in the exported goods. The response indicates that the drawback is not
excessive, but the information submitted is insufficient to determine if a subsidy has been provided
to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Israel of OCTG.

Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

The petitioners allege that "critical circumstances" exist within the meaning of section 703(e)(1) of
the Act, with respect to imports of OCTG from Israel. In determining whether critical
circumstances exist, we must examine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that:
(a) The alleged subsidy is inconsistent with the Agreement and
(b) There have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
In determining whether imports have been massive over a relatively short period of time, we have
considered the following factors:
1. Whether recent imports have increased significantly;
2. Whether recent import penetration ratios have increased significantly; and
3. Whether recent imports are significantly above average import levels calculated over the last
three years.
3. Whether recent imports are significantly above average import levels calculated over the last
three years.
A review of this information indicates that imports from Israel have not been massive over a
relatively short period of time.
Since we have not found massive imports over a relatively short period of time, we will not
determine whether the alleged subsidies are inconsistent with
the agreement. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend
liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Israel which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and to
require a cash deposit or bond for each entry of this merchandise equal to 2.12 percent ad
valorem. This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

Verification

In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we will verify the data used in making our final
determination. We will not accept any statement in a response that cannot be verified for our final
determination.

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
nonconfidential information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and confidential 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 Secretay for Import Administration.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports materially
injure, or threaten material injury, to a U.S. industry within 45 days after the Department makes its
final determination.

Public Comment

In accordance with section 355.35 of the Commerce Regulations, if requested, we will hold a public
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination
at 2:00 p.m. on July 11, 1986 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 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room
B099, at the above address within 10 days after publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) The party's name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and
(4) a list of the issues to be discussed. In addition, prehearing briefs with at least 10 copies of the
confidential version and seven copies of the non-confidential version must be submitted to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary by July 1, 1986. Oral presentation will be limited to issues raised in the
briefs. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.33(d) and 19 CFR 355.34, written views will be considered if
received not less than 30 days before the final determination or, if a hearing is held, within 10 days
after the hearing transcript is available.
This notice is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: June 5, 1986.

Gilbert B. Kaplan,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 86-13185 Filed 6-10-86; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-05-M