59 FR 61870
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-475-817]
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Oil Country
Tubular
Goods ("OCTG") From Italy
Friday, December 2, 1994
*61870
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas McGinty or Peter Wilkniss, Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5055 and
(202) 482-0588, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department preliminary determines that
benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the
*61871
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended ("the Act"), are being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of OCTC in Italy. For information on the estimated net
subsidies, please see the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.
Case History
Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register (59 FR 37028,
July 20, 1994), the following events have occurred.
On August 1, 1994, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the
Government of Italy ("GOI") and the Commission of the European Communities
("EC"), in Washington, D.C., concerning petitioner's allegations. On August 8, 1994,
the GOI responded to the first section of our questionnaire informing us that
Dalmine S.p.A. ("Dalmine"), an Italian OCTG producer, accounted for more
than 85 percent of the Italian exports of the subject merchandise to the United
States during the POI. The GOI, the EC, and Dalmine submitted questionnaire
responses on October 7, 1994. On October 18, 1994, we issued deficiency
questionnaires to these parties. We received responses from the GOI, Dalmine, and
the EC on November 7, 1994.
On August 24, 1994, we postponed the preliminary determination in this
investigation until November 23, 1994 (59 FR 43554, August 24, 1994).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are OCTG, which are hollow steel
products of circular cross-section. These products include oil well casing, tubing,
and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and allow),
whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute ("API") or non-API
specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes). These
investigations do not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or
more of chromium. The OCTG subject to these investigations are currently classified
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") under these item numbers:
7304.20.10.00 .... 7304.20.40.10 . 7304.20.10.20
7304.20.30.80 .... 7304.20.10.30 . 7304.20.10.40
7304.20.10.50 .... 7304.20.10.60 . 7304.20.10.80
7304.20.20.00 .... 7304.20.20.10 . 7304.20.20.20
7304.20.20.30 .... 7304.20.20.40 . 7304.20.20.50
7304.20.20.60 .... 7304.20.20.80 . 7304.20.30.00
7304.20.30.10 .... 7304.20.30.20 . 7304.20.30.30
7304.20.30.40 .... 7304.20.30.50 . 7304.20.30.60
7304.20.30.80 .... 7304.20.40.00 . 7304.20.40.10
7304.20.40.20 .... 7304.20.40.30 . 7304.20.40.40
7304.20.40.50 .... 7304.20.40.60 . 7304.20.40.80
7304.20.50.10 .... 7304.20.50.15 . 7304.20.50.30
7304.20.50.45 .... 7304.20.50.50 . 7304.20.50.60
7304.20.50.75 .... 7304.20.60.10 . 7304.20.60.15
7304.20.60.30 .... 7304.20.60.45 . 7304.20.60.50
7304.20.60.60 .... 7304.20.60.75 . 7304.20.70.00
7304.20.80.00 .... 7304.20.80.30 . 7304.20.80.45
7304.20.80.60 .... 7304.20.20.00 . 7304.20.40.00
7305.20.60.00 .... 7504.20.80.00 . 7306.20.10.30
7306.20.10.90 .... 7306.20.20.00 . 7306.20.30.00
7306.20.40.00 .... 7306.20.60.10 . 7306.20.60.50
7306.20.80.10 .... 7306.20.80.50
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Injury Test
Because Italy is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section
701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") is required to
determine whether imports of OCTG from Italy materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry. On August 3, 1994, the ITC preliminarily
determined 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 Italy of the subject merchandise (59 FR 42286, August 17, 1994).
Petitioner
The petition in this investigation was filed by IPSCO Steel, Inc., Maverick Tube
Corporation, Koppel Steel Corporation, North Star Steel Ohio, and USS/Steel Group.
Corporate History of Respondent Dalmine
Prior to its liquidation in 1988, Finsider S.p.A. ("Finsider") was the holding company
for all state-owned steel companies in Italy. Dalmine was an operating company
wholly owned by Finsider. After Finsider's liquidation, a new government-owned
holding company, ILVA S.p.A. ("ILVA"), was created. ILVA took over the former
Finsider companies, among them Dalmine, which became a subsidiary of ILVA in
1989, when Finsider's shareholding in Dalmine was transferred to ILVA.
Between 1990 and 1993, Dalmine itself was restructured. Dalmine became a
financial holding company, with industrial, trading, and service shareholdings. As
part of its restructuring, Dalmien made several asset purchases, sold two of its
subsidiaries to private parties, and closed several manufacturing facilities. As of
December 31, 1993, the Dalmine Group consisted of a holding company (Dalmine
S.p.A.), four wholly-owned, and one majority- owned, manufacturing companies,
and a number of sales and service subsidiaries.
During the POI, ILVA was owned by the Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale
("IRI"), a holding company which was wholly-owned by the GOI.
Spin-Offs
In its questionnaire response, Dalmine reported that between 1990 and 1991, as
part of its overall restructuring process, the company sold two "productive units" to
private buyers. According to Dalmine, these sales involved assets that do not
produce the subject merchandise. Based on our analysis of Dalmine's response with
respect to the productive units sold, we preliminarily determine that the amount of
potentially spun-off
*61872
benefits is insignificant. Therefore, we have not evaluated whether these benefits are
attributable to sales of the subject merchandise for purposes of this preliminary
determination. (See Final Concurrence Memorandum dated November 23, 1994.)
Equityworthiness
Petitioner has alleged that Dalmine was unequityworthy in 1989, the year it
received an indirect equity infusion from the GOI, through ILVA S.p.A. ("ILVA"),
and that the equity infusion was, therefore, inconsistent with commercial
considerations.
In its questionnaire response, Dalmine has provided evidence that private
investors, unrelated to Dalmine or the GOI, purchased a significant
percentage of the 1989 equity offering, on the same terms as ILVA. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines that ILVA's purchase of Dalmine's shares was
consistent with commercial considerations. (See section 355.44(e)(1)(i) of the
Proposed Regulations published on May 31, 1989, at 54 FR 23366.)
Creditworthiness
Petitioner has alleged that Dalmine was uncreditworthy in every year between 1979
and 1993. In accordance with section 355.44 of the Proposed Regulations, we
examined Dalmine's current, quick, times interest earned, and debt-to-equity ratios,
in addition to its profit margin. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily determine
that Dalmine was creditworthy from 1979 through 1993. (See Creditworthy
Memorandum, November 23, 1994). Specifically, although a number of the financial
indicators are weak for certain years, none of the indicators are weak over the
medium or long term, and when examined together on a yearly basis, the indicators
support the determination that Dalmine was creditworthy in every year examined.
In addition, Dalmine received comparable long-term, commercial loans from
private lenders in several of the years examined. While we have based our
preliminary creditworthiness determination on the company's financial indicators,
the fact that Dalmine received a number
of long-term commercial loans during this period supports our finding.
Benchmarks and Discount Rates
Dalmine did not take out any long-term fixed rate lira denominated loans or other
debt obligations in any of the years of the government loans under investigation.
Therefore, in accordance with section 355.44(b)(4) of the Proposed Regulations, we
used, as the benchmark interest rate, the Bank of Italy reference rate. We have
determined that this rate constitutes the best approximation of the cost of
long-term borrowing in Italy and the only long- term fixed interest rate
commonly available in Italy. (See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Italy ("Certain Steel from
Italy"), 58 FR, 37327 (July 9, 1993).)
We have also used this rate as the discount rate for allocating over time the benefit
from non-recurring grants for the same reasons as explained in Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Spain, 58 FR
37374, 37376 (July 9, 1993).
For long-term loans denominated in other currencies, we used, as the benchmark
interest rate, the average long-term fixed interest rate denominated in the same
currency. (See section E--Article 54 Loans below.)
Calculation Methodology
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are
measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1993. In determining the benefits
received under the various programs described below, we used the following
calculation methodology. We first calculated the benefit attributable to the POI for
each countervailable program, using the methodologies described in each program
section below. For each program, we then divided the benefit attributable to
Dalmine in the POI by Dalmine's total sales revenue, as none of the programs was
limited to either certain subsidiaries or products of Dalmine. Next, we added the
benefits for all programs, including the benefits for programs which were not
allocated over time, to arrive at Dalmine's total subsidy rate. Because Dalmine is the
only respondent company in this investigation, this rate is also the country-wide
rate.
Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a response to an
allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of benefits under a program, or
eligibility of a company or industry under a program, and the Department has no
persuasive evidence showing that the response is incorrect, we accept the response
for purposes of the preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are
subject to verification. If
the response cannot be supported at verification, and the program is otherwise
countervailable, the program will be considered a subsidy in the final
determination.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we
preliminarily determine the following:
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
A. Benefits Provided Under Law 675/77
Law 675/77 was enacted in 1977 to bring about restructuring and reconversion in
the following industrial sectors: (1) electronic technology; (2) the manufacturing
industry; (3) the agro-food industry; (4) the chemical industry; (5) the steel
industry; (6) the pulp and paper industry; (7) the fashion sector; and (8) the
automobile and aviation sectors. Law 675/77 also sought to promote optimal
exploitation of energy resources, and ecological and environmental recovery.
A primary goal of this legislation was to bring all government industrial assistance
programs under a single law. Other goals were (1) to reorganize and develop the
industrial sector as a whole; (2) to increase employment in the South; and (3) to
maintain employment in depressed areas. Among other measures
taken, the Interministerial Committee for the Coordination of Industrial Policy
("CIPI") was created as a result of Law 675/77. CIPI approves individual projects in
each of the industrial sectors listed above.
Six main programs were provided under Law 675/77: (1) Interest contributions on
bank loans; (2) mortgage loans provided by the Ministry of Industry at subsidized
interest rates; (3) interest contributions on funds raised by bond issues; (4) capital
grants for projects in the South; (5) personnel retraining grants; and (6) VAT
reductions on purchases of capital goods by companies in the South. Dalmine
reported that it received benefits under items (1), (2), and (5) above.
In its response, the GOI asserts that the steel and automobile industries did not
receive a "disproportionate" share of benefits associated with interest contributions
when the extent of government investment in those industries is compared to the
extent of investment in other industries. However, in keeping with past practice, we
did not consider the level of investment in the individual industries receiving
benefits under Law 675/77. Instead, we followed the analysis outlined in
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58
*61873
FR 37295, 37295 (July 9, 1993), of comparing the share of benefits received by the
steel industry to the collective share of benefits provided to other users of the
programs.
According to the information provided by the GOI, the two dominant users of the
interest contribution program were (1) the Italian steel industry which accounted
for 33 percent of the benefits, and (2) the auto industry which accounted for 34
percent of the benefits. Likewise, with respect to the mortgage loans, the two
dominant users were the auto and steel industries which received 45 percent and 31
percent of the benefits, respectively.
In light of the above evidence, we preliminarily determine that the steel industry
was a dominant user of both the interest contribution and the mortgage loan
programs under Law 675/77 because the steel industry has been a dominant user of
these programs. (See section 355.43(b)(2)(iii) of the Proposed Regulations.)
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that benefits received by Dalmine under
these programs are being provided to a specific enterprise or industry or group of
enterprises or industries. On this basis, we preliminarily find Law 675/77 financing
to be countervailable.
Under the interest contribution program, Italian commercial banks provided loans
to industries designated under Law 675/77. According to the responses of the GOI
and Dalmine, the interest owed by the recipient companies was partially offset by
interest contributions from the GOI. Dalmine received bank loans with interest
contributions under Law 675/77 which were outstanding in the POI.
Because Dalmine knew that it would receive the GOI interest contributions over
the life of the loan when it obtained the loans, we consider the contributions to
constitute reductions in the interest rates charged rather than grants (see Certain
Steel from Italy at 37335).
Under the mortgage loan program, the GOI provides long-term loans at subsidized
interest rates. Dalmine received financing under this program which was
outstanding in the POI.
To determine whether these programs conferred a benefit, we compared the
effective interest rate paid by Dalmine to the benchmark interest rate, discussed
above. Based on this comparison, we preliminarily determine that the financing
provided under these programs is inconsistent with commercial considerations, i.e.,
on terms more favorable than the benchmark financing.
To calculate the benefit from these programs, we used our standard long-term loan
methodology as described in section 355.49(c)(1) of the Proposed Regulations. We
then divided the benefit allocated to the POI for each program by Dalmine's total
sales in 1993. On this basis, we determine the net subsidy from these programs to be
0.47 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy
of the subject merchandise.
With respect to retraining grants provided to Dalmine under Law 675/77, it is the
Department's practice to treat training benefits as recurring grants. (See Certain
Steel General Issues Appendix at 37226). Since the only grant reported under this
program was received by Dalmine in 1986, any benefit to Dalmine as a
result of this grant cannot be attributed to the POI. Therefore, we determine that
retraining benefits provided under Law 675/77 conferred no benefit to Dalmine
during the POI.
B. Grants Under Law 193/84
According to the GOI, Articles 2, 3, and 4 of Law 193/84 provide for subsidies to
close steel plants. As stated in Art. 20 of Law N. 46 of 17/2/1982, steel enterprises
producing seamless pipes, welded pipes, conduits and welded pipes for water and
gas are the recipients of these subsidies. As benefits under this program are limited
to the steel industry, we preliminarily determine that Law 193/84 is de jure specific
and, therefore, countervailable. In this investigation, information provided by
Dalmine indicates that the company received grants under Law 193/84.
To calculate the benefit during the POI, we used our standard grant methodology
(see section 355.49(b) of the Proposed Regulations). We then divided the benefits
attributable to Dalmine under Law 193/84 in the POI by Dalmine's total sales. On
this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy to be 0.75 percent ad valorem
for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject
merchandise.
C. Exchange Rate Guarantee Program
This program, which was enacted by Law 796/76, provides exchange rate
guarantees on foreign currency loans from the European Coal and Steel Community
("ECSC) and The Council of European Resettlement Fund ("CER"). Under the
program, repayment amounts are calculated by reference to the exchange rate in
effect at the time the loan is agreed upon. The program sets a ceiling and a floor on
repayment to limit the effect on the borrower of exchange rate changes over time.
For example, if the lire depreciates five percent against the DM (the currency in
which the loan is taken out), borrowers would normally find that they would have to
repay five percent more (in lire terms). However, under the Exchange Rate
Guarantee Program, the ceiling would act to limit the increased repayment amount
to two percent. There is also a floor in the program which would apply if the lire
appreciated against the DM. The floor would limit any windfall to the borrower.
In Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, the Department found this program to be not
countervailable because of incomplete information regarding the specificity of the
program. The Department stated that, because the determination was reached while
lacking certain important information, the finding of non- countervailability would
not carry over to future investigations.
In this investigation, information provided by the GOI shows that the steel
industry received 25% of the benefits under the program. Based on this information,
the Department preliminarily determines that the steel industry was a dominant
user of exchange rate guarantees under Law 796/76 and, thus, that benefits
received by Dalmine under the law are being provided to a specific enterprise or
industry or group of enterprises or industries. (See section 355.43(b)(2)(iii) of the
Proposed Regulations.) Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the exchange
rate guarantees offered under the program are countervailable to the extent they
are provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
Dalmine provided information that it could have purchased an exchange rate
guarantee from commercial sources. However, Dalmine's information pertained to
1993, not to the period when the government-provided guarantees were taken out.
The GOI's response indicates that commercial exchange rate guarantees were not
available in 1986, the year in which the loan and the guarantee were received.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine the benefit to Dalmine to be the total amount
of GOI payments on these loans made during the POI by the GOI. (Because the
amount the government will pay in any given year will not be known until that year,
benefits can only be calculated on a year- by-year basis.) We divided the GOI's
payments in 1993 by Dalmine's 1993 total sales. On this basis, we determine the
estimated net subsidy from this program to be 0.20
*61874
percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and
exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be not Countervailable
A. 1988/89 Equity Infusion
In November 1989, Dalmine completed an equity rights offering which allowed
existing shareholders to purchase seven new shares for every ten shares they
already owned. The new shares were offered at a price of LIT 300 per share. At that
time, ILVA owned 81.7 percent of Dalmine's equity, with the remaining 18.3 percent
owned by private investors. Pursuant to the rights offering, ILVA subscribed to its
full allotment of the new shares. The remainder of the new shares were purchased by
private shareholders. All shares were purchased at LIT 300 per share.
Petitioner argues that although Dalmine's shares were nominally publicly traded,
the vast majority of Dalmine shares were indirectly owned by the GOI and,
therefore, shares were not purchased in adequate volume by private investors to
establish a valid benchmark. Specifically, petitioner contends that in 1991 ILVA
owned 99.9 percent of Dalmine and, therefore, Dalmine's shares were in fact not
publicly traded. Consequently, because essentially no private purchases were being
made, the market price at the time of the equity
infusion cannot serve as a valid benchmark. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that it
is highly likely that the remaining shares not purchased by ILVA were purchased
indirectly by the GOI through other holding companies.
In response to our questionnaire, Dalmine provided a list of all purchasers of shares
in the 1989 offering. There is not evidence to indicate that the shares not purchased
by ILVA were purchased by other government controlled or owned entities, as
petitioner suggests. Moreover, the extent of ILVA's ownership in 1991 is not
relevant to the choice of a benchmark for the equity investment in 1989.
We have preliminarily determined that, because 18.3 percent of the equity infusion
was purchased by private shareholders, the sale of these shares provides the
market-determined price for Dalmine's equity. Furthermore, in accordance with
section 355.44 (e)(1) of the Department's Proposed Regulations, we preliminarily
determine that the equity infusion is not countervailable because the
market-determined price for Dalmine's shares is not less than the price paid by ILVA
for those shares.
B. European Social Fund ("ESF") Grants
The ESF was established by the 1957 European Economic Community Treaty to
increase employment and help raise worker living standards.
As described in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, the ESF receives its funds from the
EC's general budget whose main revenue sources are customs duties, agricultural
levies, value-added taxes collected by the member states, and other member state
contributions.
The member states are responsible for selecting the projects to be funded by the EC.
The EC then disburses the grants to the member states which manage the funds and
implement the projects. According to the EC, ESF grants are available to (1) people
over 25 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months; (2) people under 25
who have reached the minimum school-leaving age and who are seeking a job; and
(3) certain workers in rural areas and regions characterized by industrial decline or
lagging development.
The GOI has stated that the ESF grants received by Italy have been used for
vocational training. Certain regions in the South are also eligible for private sector
re-entry and retraining schemes. Since 1990, the vocational training grants have
been available to unemployed youths and long-term unemployed adults all over
Italy, according to the GOI. Before 1990, however, the GOI gave preference to
certain regions in Italy.
In Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, we determined that this program was not
regionally specific and not otherwise limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or
group of enterprises or industries. Furthermore, we noted that to the extent there is
a regional preference (i.e., southern Italy) in the
distribution of ESF benefits, it has not resulted in a countervailable benefit to the
production of the subject merchandise, which is produced in northern Italy.
The GOI's response in this investigation is consistent with the information provided
in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this
program is not limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or
industries and, therefore, is not countervailable.
C. ECSC Article 54 Loans
Under Article 54 of the 1951 ECSC Treaty, the European Commission provides loans
directly to iron and steel companies for modernization and the purchase of new
equipment. The loans finance up to 50 percent of an investment project. The
remaining financing needs must be met from other sources. The Article 54 loan
program is financed by loans taken by the Commission, which are then re-lent to
iron and steel companies in the member states at a slightly higher interest rate than
that at which the Commission obtained them.
Consistent with the Department's finding in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, we
preliminarily determine that this program is limited to the iron and steel industry.
As a result, loans under this program are specific.
Of the Article 54 loans Dalmine had outstanding during the POI, some were
denominated in U.S. dollars and others were in Dutch guilders ("NLG"). To determine
whether the loans were provided on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations, we used benchmark interest rates for the currencies in which the
loans were denominated. That is, for the U.S. dollar loans we used the average
interest rate on long-term fixed-rate U.S. dollar loans obtained in the United States,
as reported by the Federal Reserve. For the NLG denominated loan, we used the
average long-term bond rate for private borrowers in the Netherlands, as reported
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD").
Because the interest rate spaid on Dalmine's Article 54 loans are higher than the
benchmark interest rates, the Department preliminarily determines that loans
provided under this program are not preferential and, therefore, not
countervailable.
D. 1989 Provisional Payment in Connection With 1989 Equity Infusion
In March 1989, ILVA made a payment to Dalmine in anticipation of purchasing new
shares in Dalmine. The payment was provisional in nature because EC authorization
of the capital increase was necessary, and if authorization was not granted, the
money would have been repaid to ILVA. The capital increase
was not finalized until November 1989, due to delays in EC approval. At that time,
the payment became equity capital.
Consistent with the Department's position in Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy
(Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel), 59 FR 18357 (April 18, 1994), we preliminarily
determine that the funds provided by ILVA to Dalmine are countervailable.
*61875
During the period March-November 1989, Dalmine had use of the money and paid
no interest on it.
Therefore, we have treated the funds provided by ILVA to Dalmine as an
interest-free short-term loan from March 1989 to November 1989.
Because any benefit from this interest-free loan would be allocable entirely to 1989,
no benefit is attributable to the POI.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Not Used
Based on the information provided in the responses, we preliminarily determine
that the following programs were not used. This determination is subject to
verification.
1. Preferential IMI Export Financing Under Law 227/77
2. Preferential Insurance Under Law 227/77
3. Retraining Grants under Law 181/89
4. Benefits under ECSC Article 56
Verification
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information
submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs
Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Italy, which are
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or
bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated below. This
suspension will remain in effect until further notice.
OCTG
Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate--1.42 percent
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and
nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC
access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided
the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under
an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Investigations, Import Administration.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to
afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary
determination. The hearing will be held on January 23, 1995, at the U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written
request within ten days of the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, room B099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2)
the number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to
be discussed. In addition, ten copies of the business proprietary version and five
copies of the nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary no later than January 13, 1995. Ten copies of the business
proprietary version and five copies of the nonproprietary version of the rebuttal
briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than January 20, 1995.
An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments
included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be
submitted in accordance with section 355.38 of the Commerce Department's
regulations and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671b(f)).
Dated: November 23, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-29612 Filed 12-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M