NOTICES

                        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                               [C-557-401]

       Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determinations; Certain Textile Mill
                      Products and Apparel From Malaysia

                          Tuesday, March 12, 1985

 *9852

 AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
 Commerce.

 ACTION: Notice.

 SUMMARY: We determine that no benefits which constitute bounties or grants within the
 meaning of the countervailing duty law are being provided to manufacturers,
 producers, or exporters in Malaysia of certain textile mill products and apparel. The net
 countervailable benefits are de minimis, and therefore our final determinations are
 negative.

 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 1985.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Loc Nguyen, Office of Investigations, Import
 Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
 Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230;
 telephone: (202) 377-0167.

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Final Determinations

 For purposes of these investigations, the following programs are found to confer
 countervailable benefits:
 - Tax Incentives for Exports.
 - Preferential Short-Term Financing.
 The estimated net countervailable benefit is 0.22 percent ad valorem for textile mill
 products and 0.27 percent ad valorem for apparel. These amounts are de minimis.
 Therefore, we determine that no 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 certain textile mill
 products and apparel.

 Case History

 On July 20, 1984, we received a petition from the American Textile Manufacturers
 Institute (ATMI), the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU), and
 the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), on behalf of the U.S.
 industries producing certain textile mill products and apparel. In compliance with the
 filing requirements of § 355.26 of our regulations (19 CFR 355.26), the petition alleged
 that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Malaysia of textile mill products and
 apparel receive, directly or indirectly, benefits which constitute bounties or grants within
 the meaning of section 303 of the Act.
 We found that the petition contained sufficient grounds upon which to initiate
 countervailing duty investigations, and on August 9, 1984, we initiated such
 investigations (49 FR 32641).
 These investigations were initiated by the Department under the title "Certain Textiles and
 Textile Products from Malaysia." Because of the number of products covered, and the
 differences in those products, the Department determined that it should conduct separate
 investigations--one of textile and non-apparel textile products, and one of apparel.
 Because of the potential for confusion, as apparel can also be considered a textile
 product, we changed the titles of these investigations to "Certain Textile Mill Products and
 Apparel from Malaysia." The scope of these investigations remains the same as announced
 in the initiation and the preliminary determinations.
 We stated that we expected to issue preliminary determinations by October 15, 1984. On
 September 21, 1984, we determined these investigations to be "extraordinarily
 complicated," as defined in section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we extended the
 period for making our preliminary determinations by 65 days until December 17, 1984
 (49 FR 40198).
 Since Malaysia is not a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section
 701(b) of the Act and the merchandise being investigated is dutiable, sections 303 (a)(1)
 and (b) of the Act apply to these investigations. Accordingly, petitioners are not required
 to allege that, and the U.S. International Trade Commission is not required to determine
 whether, imports of these products cause or threaten material injury to U.S. industries.
 Due to the scope of these investigations, we employed a two-step questionnaire process.
 We presented a preliminary questionnaire to the government of Malaysia in Washington,
 D.C., on August 24, 1984. Based on the responses to the preliminary questionnaire, we
 identified the four textile mill products producers and exporters, and the six apparel
 producers and exporters who account for at least 60 percent of the textile mill products
 and apparel exported to the United States. Two additional companies made timely
 requests for exclusion. These twelve firms were selected to respond to the detailed
 company questionnaire. On October 24, 1984, we presented the detailed government and
 company questionnaires to the government of Malaysia in Washingon, D.C. The responses
 to our detailed questionnaires were received on November 26, 1984.
 On December 21, 1984, we published our preliminary determinations that benefits
 constituting subsidies were being provided to manufacturers, producers or exporters in
 Malaysia of certain apparel, and that no benefits constituting subsidies were being
 provided to manufacturers, producers, and exporters of certain textile mill products (49
 FR 49651).
 With regard to the two apparel companies, Eastern Garment Mfg. Co. Sdn. Bhd. ("Eastern")
 and Palace Garment Mfg. Sdn. Bhd. ("Palace"), which had requested exclusion, Eastern's
 response indicated that it received benefits which were de minimis, and it was, therefore,
 excluded from the preliminary determination. Palace, however, received countervailable
 benefts above the de minimis rate of 0.50 percent, and we, therefore, included Palace in
 the suspension of liquidation pursuant to the preliminary determination.
 We conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of the government of Malaysia
 and the textile and apparel companies between January 9 and January 21, 1985, In
 Malaysia.
 On February 2, 1985, a proposed suspension agreement was initialed which provided for
 the renunciation of all subsidies by the producers and exporters accounting for more
 than 85 percent of the total exports of textile mill products and more than 85 percent of
 the total exports of apparel from Malaysia to the United States. On March 1, 1985, the
 Malaysian respondents informed the Department that they no longer wished to enter into
 a suspension agreement.
 At the request of both petitioners and respondents, we held a hearing on February 13,
 1985, to allow the parties an opportunity to address the issues arising in the
 investigations. We received pre-hearing briefs from the respondents and petitioners on
 February 6 and 7, respectively. Post-hearing briefs were received on February 22.

 Standing of Petitioners

 The issue of whether the petitioners have standing has been protracted and contentious.
 We addressed this issue initially in our preliminary determinations. See Textile Mill
 Products and Apparel from Indonesia, 49 FR 49672 (1984). At that time, we determined
 that ATMI did not have standing. However, we determined that the eight individual U.S.
 companies, substituted as petitioners by 

*9853

 amendments to the petitions dated
 December 3, 1984, did have standing with respect to textile mill products. In addition, we
 determined that the two unions, ACTWU and ILGWU, had standing with respect to
 apparel.
 After the preliminary determinations, various respondents continued to argue that
 petitioners lack standing, and that the Department should rescind its initiations of these
 investigations. On January 16, 1985, various respondents in the Philippines, Thailand,
 Colombia, and Malaysia investigations filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to
 enjoin the disclosure pursuant to administrative protective order of confidential
 information to petitioners' counsel. The plaintiffs in these cases argued, inter alia, that
 disclosure was improper, because the investigations were invalid due to petitioners'
 alleged lack of standing. The court denied plaintiffs' motions for temporary restraining
 orders. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for dismissal and the cases were dismissed.
 In the meantime, the Department had sent questionnaires to petitioners and to those U.S.
 companies that had expressed opposition to the investigations. The purpose of these
 questionnaires was to enable the Department to determine the extent of the opposition
 and whether rescissions of the initiations were appropriate. The Department received
 very limited responses to these questionnaires from companies that had expressed
 opposition to the petitions. The Department did receive some additional information
 from petitioners.
 For purposes of these final determinations, the Department reaffirms its preliminary
 decisions concerning standing. ATMI lacks standing as an interested party, because this
 trade association has failed to establish that a majority of its members produce any of the
 152 like products involved in these investigations. 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E). The eight
 companies have standing because collectively they are interested parties for all of the like
 products involved, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C), and because they have filed on behalf of the
 concerned textile mill products industry. The two unions have standing because they are
 interested parties, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(D), and because they, too, have filed on behalf of the
 concerned apparel industries.
 Respondents' arguments that petitioners lack standing challenge the basis of our
 investigations, and we will address their arguments herein. Although the various
 respondents expressed their arguments somewhat differently, the gravamen of their
 respective arguments was the same.

 1. The Standing of the Eight Companies

 With respect to the eight companies, respondents argue that the companies have failed to
 establish affirmatively that they have filed "on behalf of" the industries involved.
 Respondents rely on Gilmore Steel Corp. v. United States, 585 F Supp. 670, 676 (Ct. Int'l.
 Trade 1984), in which the court stated that in order to have standing a petitioner "[m]ust
 also show that a majority of [the] industry backs its petition."
 We do not believe that the holding of Gilmore requires petitioners to establish
 affirmatively that a majority of the relevant industries back their petitions. In Gilmore,
 unlike the present case, a majority of the U.S. industry affirmatively opposed Gilmore's
 petitions, and so indicated to the Department. Under these circumstances, the court held
 that Gilmore lacked standing. However, this holding does not amount to a requirement
 that a petitioner somehow prove, when a petition is filed, that at least 51 percent of an
 industry has expressed itself in support of a petition. To the extent that language in
 Gilmore suggests such a requirements, such language is dictum. Moreover, when the
 Department promulgated the current countervailing duty regulations, it rejected a
 proposal "[t]hat petitioners be required to state the position of other industry members
 on the petition." 45 FR 4935 (1980). We continue to believe that such a requirement is
 unduly burdensome, is unwarranted, and is not required by the statute. Nothing in the
 statute or its legislative history indicates that Congress intended that anyone wishing to
 file a petition be required to poll all of the domestic industry.
 In the instant investigations, the eight companies continue to receive the support of
 ATMI, whose members account for over 85 percent of U.S. textile mill products
 production. Moreover, in light of the inadequacy of information provided by those who
 expressed opposition to the petitions, the Department cannot presume that a majority of
 a particular industry opposes the petitions. We cannot presume even that there is any
 substantial opposition.
 The other principal argument against the standing of the eight companies is that the
 amendments to the petitions, substituting the eight companies as petitioners, were
 untimely, and that petitioners cannot cure an allegedly defective petition by amendment.
 The statute provides that a "[p]etition may be amended at such time, and upon such
 conditions, as the [Department] * * * may permit." 19 U.S.C. 1671a(b)(1). This language
 grants the Department considerable discretion. Moreover, the legislative history does not
 detract from this discretionary authority. S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st. Sess. 46
 (1979); H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 50 (1979).
 In seeking guidance on the exercise of this discretionary authority to permit amendments
 to petitions, we find Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 5 C.I.T. 178 (1983), instructive.
 In that case, a situation analagous to the instant one existed. The court had ruled that
 COMPACT, an "umbrella" organization, lacked standing to challenge a Department
 determination, because COMPACT was not an interested party within the meaning of
 section 771(9). Subsequently, COMPACT moved to substitute as plaintiffs three of its
 member unions which were interested parties and which the court found had been parties
 to the administrative proceeding. The Government and defendant-intervenors opposed
 the motion to substitute on the grounds that it was unjustifiably late and prejudiced their
 interests. The court ruled in favor of the unions, because it was
 [i]nclined to exercise its discretion in a lenient manner, where it sees the late emergence
 of the correct party as understandable in the context of a relatively new and complex
 field of litigation.
 id, at 179.
 Given the circumstances of these investigations, we are inclined at this time to follow the
 example of leniency set by the court. The standing rules for countervailing duty and
 antidumping investigations are still in the process of development. Moreover, the
 acceptance by the Department of ATMI as an interested party in Textiles, Apparel, and
 Related Products from the People's Republic of China, 48 FR 46600 (1983), although
 incorrect in hindsight, gave ATMI some reason to believe that the Department would
 accept it as an interested party for purposes of the instant investigations. As soon as
 ATMI realized that the Department was likely to correct its error, ATMI substituted the
 eight companies as petitioners. Thus, under these circumstances, we consider the
 amendments to the petitions to be timely.
 As for prejudice to respondents as a result of the amendments, the only real prejudice is
 that the focus of their standing arguments had to shift from ATMI to the companies.
 However, these arguments were largely restatements of the same Gilmore-type
 arguments that respondents had made from the outset 

*9854

 of these investigations.
 Thus, we cannot conclude that the substitution of the eight companies created any undue
 hardship for respondents.

 2. The Standing of the ACTWU and the ILGWU

 The question of the standing of the ACTWU and the ILGWU is more difficult. It is an issue
 of first impression, and the relevant statutory provisions are less than precise.
 The first issue concerns whether the ACTWU and the ILGWU are "interested parties."
 Section 771(9)(D) provides that an "interested party" may consist of
 a certified union or recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an
 industry engaged in the manufacture, production or wholesale in the United States of a
 like product.* * *
 Section 771(4)(A) of the Act, as amended by the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, defines
 "industry," in pertinent part, as
 [t]he domestic producers as a whole of a like product, or those producers whose
 collective output of the like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic
 production of that product.* * *
 Relying on a strict approach to statutory construction, one could conclude that in order
 to have standing, unions must represent companies. The logic would be that under
 section 881(9)(D), a union must represent an "industry," which the statute arguably
 defines as companies producing the like product in question. See 19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(D)
 and 1677(9)(C). However, this approach would conflict with the clear congressional
 intent to give unions standing if they "[r]epresent workers in the relevant U.S. industry." S.
 Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1979) (emphasis added). Because Congress
 intended only that unions be representative of workers, we conclude that the term
 "producers," as used in section 771(4)(A), refers to workers, as well as companies, for
 purposes of determining standing. [FN1] N

 FN1 In this regard, we note that certain of the statutory criteria for determining injury to
 a U.S. industry expressly concern the effects of imports on workers, as opposed to
 companies. 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(C)(iii)(III).
 We then must determine how "representative" of workers the union must be, and how this
 "representative" status can be established. Several respondents have argued that a
 majority of the workers in each of the apparel industries identified in these investigations
 must be members of the ACTWU and the ILGWU in order for these unions to be
 representative of each industry. Respondents derive this 50 percent requirement from
 the U.S. labor laws, which, according to respondents, provide that a union is not
 representative of a company unless it represents at least 50 percent of the workers in that
 company. Respondents argue that there is no reason why a similar 50 percent
 requirement should not apply for purposes of determining standing under the
 countervailing duty law.
 We disagree with respondents' conclusion. In section 771(9), Congress imposed a
 "majority" requirement three times. 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) (A), (E), and (F). Such a
 requirement is notably absent from section 771(9)(D). If Congress had intended a
 "majority representation" requirement for unions, it easily could have used language
 similar to that used in the other paragraphs of section 771(9). This suggests that Congress
 did not intend a "majority representation" requirement for purposes of determining a
 union's status as an "interested party." Moreover, there is no indication in the legislative
 history that Congress intended to engraft the standards of the labor laws onto section
 771(9)(D). Therefore, we conclude that because the ACTWU and the ILGWU have
 demonstrated that they represent workers producing each of the apparel like products,
 they have established their status as "interested parties."
 The remaining question is whether the ACTWU and the ILGWU have filed "on behalf of" the
 apparel industries. With respect to this question, our discussion of this issue concerning
 the eight companies, supra, is pertinent. As with the eight companies, we do not believe
 that the statute or the regulations require the unions to establish affirmatively that they
 have the majority support of a particular industry. Rather, the question is whether a
 majority of a particular industry opposes a petition.
 Here, too, the question of who are the "producers," and thus what constitutes the
 "industry," is relevant. In the case of apparel products, many leading companies have
 voiced opposition to the petitions. If these companies, as opposed to the unions, are
 regarded as the "industries," arguably the unions do not have standing due to the
 companies' opposition. As indicated supra, we are inclined towards the view that an
 "industry" can consist of either workers or companies producing a like product.
 However, we need not resolve this issue here. As discussed supra, the Department sent
 questionnaires to those companies expressing opposition to the petitions, and received
 inadequate responses. The Department was not able to determine for any particular
 apparel like product involved in these investigations that companies accounting for a
 majority of the domestic production of that product opposed the petitions. Therefore,
 while there may be opposition to the apparel petitions, there is insufficient evidence to
 warrant a conclusion that the ACTWU and the ILGWU have not filed "on behalf of" the
 relevant apparel industries.

 The Department's Selection of Companies to Receive Questionnaires

 When this and the other textile mill and apparel products investigations began, the
 Department immediately realized that, given the tremendous number of foreign
 companies producing or exporting the subject merchandise, it would be impossible to
 investigate each of these companies individually within the statutory deadlines.
 Therefore, the Department decided to use a two-stage questionnaire process. The
 Department sent an initial set of questionnaires to the concerned foreign governments in
 order to solicit preliminary information as to the companies and programs involved. The
 Department anticipated that the information provided in response to this first
 questionnaire would enable the Department to devise a sample of firms to whom the
 Department could issue detailed countervailing duty questionnaires.
 The responses to the first set of questionnaires confirmed the Department's prior
 conclusion that the number of companies exporting the subject merchandise was so large
 as to make it administratively impossible to issue detailed questionnaires to each
 company involved. However, the responses also revealed that the proper application of
 scientific sampling techniques was not feasible. The Department either would have had to
 sample a number of companies, once again too large to be administratively possible, or
 would have been faced with the unacceptably large degree of statistical uncertainty
 inherent in small sample results.
 Given this situation, the Department decided to follow its normal practice of obtaining at
 least 60 percent coverage of the merchandise in question. Thus, the Department issued
 detailed questionnaires to those companies which accounted for at least 60 percent of
 textile mill products exported to the United States and at least 60 percent of apparel
 products exported to the United States from each of the countries involved. This practice
 is codified in the antidumping regulations in 19 CFR 383.38(a). Although the
 countervailing duty regulations do not contain a comparable provision, the
 Department 

*9855

 has followed this 60 percent rule in countervailing duty
 investigations. See, e.g., Bars and Shapes from Mexico, 49 FR 32887 (1984); and Oil
 Country Tubular Goods from Mexico, 49 FR 47054 (1984).
 In their letter of October 23, 1984, petitioners objected to the Department's approach,
 claiming that the Department's so-called "sampling" was not permitted by law. Petitioners
 requested that the Department send detailed questionnaires to all firms identified as
 producers or exporters of the subject merchandise. Alternatively, petitioners requested
 that the Department use a sampling approach which, presumably in petitioners' view, was
 "scientific."
 We considered, but rejected, both of petitioners' requests. With respect to petitioners'
 suggestion that we examine all companies, as discussed supra, such an approach would
 have been administratively impossible in these cases. Moreover, the Department is not
 required to examine 100 percent of exports to the United States in a countervailing
 duty investigation. During the course of these investigations, Department officials asked,
 both formally and informally, that counsel for petitioners cite to any authority for their
 claim that the Department must examine 100 percent of exports. For example, at the
 hearing on the Peruvian investigations, a Department official asked counsel to "[a]ddress
 the specific portion of the statute that you feel requires us to look at 100 percent of the
 exports of the subject merchandise." Transcript, at 38. In response to this request, in
 their post-hearing briefs petitioners merely cited, without any explanation, section
 702(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1671a(b). We do not see anything in the cited provision which
 supports petitioners' theory.
 Petitioners have cited repeatedly section 777A of the Act, as amended by the Trade and
 Tariff Act of 1984. Section 777A provides that under certain circumstances, the
 Department may use "generally recognized sampling techniques" in antidumping
 proceedings and countervailing duty administrative reviews under section 751 of the
 Act, 19 U.S.C. 1675. According to petitioners, this express grant of authority to sample in
 countervailing duty administrative reviews implies a lack of authority to sample in a
 countervailing duty investigation.
 We are not sure exactly what point petitioners are trying to make with this argument. To
 the extent that petitioners argue that the Department may not use generally recognized
 sampling techniques in countervailing duty investigations, we disagree. However, this
 argument is irrevelant here, because the Department's 60 percent approach was not, and
 never purported to be, a scientific sample as envisaged by section 777A. Indeed, it was
 because the Department concluded that it could not devise a scientific sampling method
 that it chose to proceed with its standard 60 percent coverage approach.
 To the extent that petitioners argue that section 777A requires the Department to
 examine 100 percent of exports in countervailing duty investigations, we also
 disagree. We do not find in section 777A, its legislative history, or in administrative or
 judicial precedent support for the proposition that the Department must examine 100
 percent of exports.
 Moreover, nothing in the statute requires the Department to examine any particular
 percentage of exports or companies. Cf., American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States,
 590 F. Supp. 1273 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984), appeal filed, Sept. 10, 1984. The statute
 expressly provides that the Department may estimate the amount of the net subsidy. 19
 U.S.C. 1671e(a)(1). In addition, with respect to the suspension agreement provisions of
 section 704(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1671c(b), Congress provided that an agreement
 signed by exporters accounting for less than 100 percent of exports is sufficient to
 suspend an investigation.
 With respect to petitioners' alternative request that we devise a "scientific" sampling
 approach, we note again that the Department believes that in the instant investigations,
 application of such an approach would either have been administratively impossible, or
 have yielded unacceptably uncertain results. Petitioners' specific suggestions would not
 result in an unbiased, statistically valid sample, but merely would produce a sample
 biased in favor of petitioners and against respondents.
 Subsequent to their October 23 letter, petitioners raised additional objections to the
 Department's approach. In their pre-hearing briefs, petitioners argued that the
 Department's approach violates section 776(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a). Section
 776(a) requires the Department to verify information relied upon by it in its final
 determinations. According to petitioners, implicit in any sampling approach is the
 assumption that the distribution and level of benefits among companies not sampled
 would yield a rate the same as for the nonsampled companies. Because the Department
 has not verified this assumption, petitioners argue, the Department's methodology
 violates section 776(a)
 Again, petitioners have missed the point. As Department officials informed counsel on
 numerous occasions, the Department's methodology is not a scientific or statistical
 sampling approach, and therefore is not based on the assumption cited by petitioners.
 The Department has not "assumed" anything regarding the 40 percent of exports not
 covered by its questionnaires. All the Department sought to do was to ensure accurate
 subsidy rates for the covered exports. As stated supra, petitioners have not provided any
 authority for their theory that the Department must investigate 100 percent of exports
 and all alleged subsidy programs.
 In their pre-hearing briefs, petitioners also argued that the Department should have sent
 questionnaires to those companies accounting for 60 percent of each of the 152 like
 products preliminarily found by the Department to exist for purposes of determining
 petitioners' standing to file the subject petitions. Here, petitioners are confusing two basic
 statutory terms of art: "class or kind" and "like product." "Class or kind," which is not
 defined in the statute, governs the scope of the Department's investigations. 19 U.S.C.
 1671(a)(1), 1671a(c)(2). "Like product," which is defined in section 771(10) of the Act, 19
 U.S.C. 1677(10), governs the definition of "industry" for purposes of determining injury
 and the standing of petitioners. 19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(2), 1671a(b)(1), 1677(4). It is not
 unusual in a particular case that "like product" is defined differently than "class or kind," as
 is the case here. See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods from Brazil, Korea, and Spain, USITC
 Publication No. 1633 (Jan. 1985), in which the ITC divided the Department's single class
 or kind of merchandise, oil country tubular goods, into more than one like product. Given
 the different purpose of the term "like product," it would have been inappropriate for the
 Department to send questionnaires on the basis of its 152 "like product" categories.
 Instead, the Department acted correctly and in accordance with prior practice by basing
 its questionnaires upon the "class or kind" of merchandise in these investigations.
 Petitioners also argue that the Department should use the best information available with
 respect to those companies to which the Department did not send questionnaires. We also
 disagree with this argument. Section 776(b) of the Act provides, inter alia, for the use of
 the best information otherwise available in making a determination "whenever a party or
 any other person refuses or is unable to 

*9856

 produce information requested in a
 timely manner and in the form required. * * * " We do not believe that this provision
 mandates the use of the best information available where we have received the
 information we requested, we have been able to verify that information, and the
 information provides a sufficient basis for our final determinations.
 Finally, petitioners also alleged in their letter of October 23, 1984, that they were
 "[e]xcluded from meaningful participation in the development and formulation of the
 staff's 'sampling' plan." We object to this statement, and in order to clarify the record, we
 note that staff of Import Administration and the Office of the General Counsel met with
 counsel for petitioners prior to a decision as to the methodology to be used in these
 investigations. Counsel's views were considered fully, and, in fact, the Department did
 adopt petitioners' suggestion to send questionnaires to all foreign companies requesting
 exclusion. Petitioners also were able to review the detailed questionnaires and make
 numerous suggestions, many of which the Department adopted. The fact that the
 Department did not adopt petitioners' other suggestions does not mean that petitioners
 were "excluded from meaningful participation"; it simply means that the Department
 reached different conclusions.

 Scope of the Investigation

 The products covered by these investigations are certain textile mill products and
 apparel which are described in Appendix A attached to this notice.

 Analysis of Programs

 Throughout this notice, we refer to certain general principles applied to the facts of the
 instant investigations. These 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).
 For purposes of these determinations, the period for which we are measuring bounties or
 grants ("the review period") is calendar year 1983.
 Based upon our analysis of the petition, the responses to our questionnaires, our
 verification, and comments submitted by interested parties, we determine the following:

 I. Programs Determined To Confer Countervailable Benefits 

 We determine that countervailable benefits are being provided to manufacturers,
 producers, or exporters in Malaysia of certain textile mill products and apparel under the
 following programs.

 A. Tax Incentives for Exports

 The government of Malaysia uses several tax incentives to promote textile exports. First,
 a double tax deduction is granted for expenses related to export sales, including
 advertising costs outside Malaysia, export market research, participation in trade
 exhibitions and overseas sales offices. Secondly, Malaysian companies can deduct from
 net taxable income eight percent of the FOB value of export sales if Malaysian content of
 the product is more than 50 percent; they can deduct five percent if Malaysian content is
 less than 50 percent.
 We verified that section 27 of the Investment Incentives Act of 1968 allows exporters to
 obtain a double deduction of eligible export promotion expenses in determining taxable
 income. In addition, section 29 of the same act provided (for tax years prior to 1983) a
 deduction of two percent of the ex-factory value of exports from taxable income and a
 deduction of 10 percent of the increase in export value from the preceding year. In 1983,
 the government of Malaysia amended the "export allowance" provisions, i.e., section 29 of
 the law, by eliminating the two types of deductions provided under that section and by
 providing only a deduction of five percent of export revenues from taxable income.
 Because these special tax deductions are granted on the basis of exports, we determine
 that they confer a subsidy. To calculate the benefit from these deductions, we determine
 the tax savings directly attributable to their use and allocated that amount over the total
 value of export sales in 1983. We calculated a net benefit of 0.09 percent for apparel. We
 verified that none of the textile mill products companies under investigation claimed
 these special export tax deductions during the review period.

 B. Preferential Short-Term Financing

 Petitioners allege that the government of Malaysia provided preferential pre- and
 post-export short-term refinancing through the Malaysian banking system. The
 commercial banks allegedly provide loans to exporters at the preferential rate of 4.5
 percent, which the central bank then refinances.
 We verified that Bank Negara Malaysia, Malaysia's central bank, maintains an export
 credit refinancing facility for both pre- and post-shipment refinancing. This facility allows
 commercial banks to finance export transactions for a period of up to 92 days. Access to
 these funds is usually limited to 3 million Malaysian dollars for each exporter. The annual
 interest rates on these loans varied between 4.5 and 6 percent in 1983.
 Because these loans are granted to finance exports and because the interest rates on these
 loans are lower than those available from commercial sources, we determine that these
 loans confer a countervailable benefit upon certain textile mill products and apparel from
 Malaysia. To calculate the benefit, we used as our benchmark the average Banker's
 Acceptance rate for 1983 of 8.9 percent. The Banker's Acceptance is the most comparable
 and commonly used alternative source of short-term financing. We then calculated the
 amount of the benefit using our short-term loan methodology. We calculated a benefit of
 0.22 percent for textile mill products and 0.18 percent for apparel.

 II. Programs Determined Not To Confer Bounties or Grants 

 We determine that bounties or grants are not being provided to manufacturers,
 producers, or exporters in Malaysia of certain textile mill products and apparel under the
 following programs:

 A. Free Trade Zones

 Petitioners allege that textile and apparel exporters located in Free Trade Zones (FTZ's)
 receive countervailable benefits from tax and duty exemptions on imports of capital
 equipment and on other materials not physically incorporated into exported products.
 We verified that companies located in the FTZ's do not receive treatment that differs from
 the treatment received by similar entities located outside the FTZ's. Since 1960, the
 government of Malaysia has imposed no import duties on imports of machinery for new
 manufacturing enterprises or expansion of existing enterprises regardless of a company's
 location. Companies which have received such exemptions have included the producers
 of textiles, chemicals, electronics, food products, metal products, and wood-based
 products.
 As for import duties on "materials other than those physically incorporated into the
 exported products," we verified that companies located in the FTZ's like other companies,
 have to pay import duties on these materials.

 *9857

 Because companies located in the FTZ's do not receive preferential treatment
 vis-a-vis companies located outside the FTZ's, we determine that this program does not
 constitute a bounty or grant.

 B. Reinstatement Allowance

 Petitioners allege that textile and apparel manufacturers benefit from a Reinvestment
 Allowance which permits manufacturing companies to deduct 25 percent of their
 expansion costs in plant, equipment and machinery.
 Schedule 7A of the Income Tax Act of 1967 authorizes a reinvestment allowance of 25
 percent of the approval expenditure under the Industrial Coordination Act of 1975. In its
 response, the government of Malaysia stated that the program is not limited to any
 region, product or sector, and that according to section 4(3) of the Industrial
 Coordination Act, the approval of a license is based only on whether the project is
 "consistent with the rational economic and social objectives and would promote the
 orderly development of manufacturing activities in Malaysia."
 During verification, we found that all kinds of companies involved in every industrial
 sector are eligible for and have received benefits from a reinvestment allowance. We also
 found that the approval process regarding expansion projects is merely a monitoring
 devide for the government to keep abreast of the industrial capacity of the country.
 Because the program is not limited, either de jure or de facto, to a specific enterprise or
 industry, or groups of enterprises or industries, we determine that the program does not
 constitute a bounty or grant.

 Industrial Estates

 Petitioners allege that under this program the government of Malaysia sponsors and
 finances industrial estates which provide real estate and financing at preferential rates to
 export-oriented, resource-based, labor-intensive industries. Petitioners claim the
 purpose of this program is to induce companies to settle away from congested areas.
 We verified that the industrial estates in Malaysia are under the control of the state
 authorities. These industrial estates are a means of restricting commercial activities to
 certain areas, much the same as local U.S. zoning laws do. We also verified that there are
 industrial estates scattered throughout Malaysia and that a very wide and diversified
 range of industrial and commercial users are located in these estates. We found no
 evidence that there are restrictions in eligibility to become a tenant, nor did we find that
 the ability to locate in the industrial estates is in any way dependent upon export
 objectives or performance.
 Because the program is not designed to promote exports, is not limited to any specific
 regions of the states or the country, and is not limited, either de jure or de facto, to a
 specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, we determine that
 the program does not constitute a bounty or grant.

 III. Programs Determined Not To Be Used

 We determine that manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Malaysia of certain textile
 mill products and apparel did not use the following programs which were listed in our
 notice of initiation:

 A. Export Credit Insurance

 Petitioners allege that exporters benefit from the provision of export credit insurance at
 rates which are inconsistent with commercial considertions and which are inadequate to
 cover the long-term operating risks of the insurance program. We verified that none of
 these companies used export credit insurance during the review period.

 B. Preferential Financing for Bumiputras

 Petitioners allege that textile and apparel manufacturers benefit from preferential
 financing and other types of assistance that are especially available to Bumiputras, the
 indigenous people of Malaysia. We verified that none of these companies received such
 financing or assistance during the review period.

 C. Labor Utilization Relief Program

 Petitioners allege that companies in labor-intensive industries such as textiles and
 apparel receive tax relief under the Labor Utilization Relief Program. We verified that
 none of these companies applied for or received benefits under this program during the
 review period.

 D. Investment Tax Credits

 Petitioners allege that exporters benefit from investment tax credits of at least 25 percent
 of capital expenditures on factories, machinery and equipment for use on a
 government-approved project. We verified that none of these companies has been
 approved for receipt of the investment tax credit during the review period.

 E. Increased Capital Allowance

 Petitioners allege that textile and apparel exporters benefit from an increased capital
 allowance for deductions on new equipment and modernization costs. We verified that
 none of these companies received the increased capital allowance during the review
 period.

 F. Locational Incentives Program

 Petitioners allege that exporters may benefit from a Locational Incentives Program,
 which provides up to 10 years of tax relief to companies which are located away from
 congested areas, and which have been deemed by the government to be a priority
 industry or whose products contain a certain percentage of Malaysian content. We
 verified that none of these companies received locational incentives benefits during the
 review period.

 G. Industrial Building Allowance

 Petitioners allege that exporters benefit from an Industrial Building Allowance, instituted
 by the government, which provides exporters with deductions from the cost of
 acquisition of warehouses and facilities. We verified that none of these companies claimed
 a deduction for the special building allowance for export-related warehouse and storage
 facilities during the review period.

 H. Accelerated Depreciation for Exports

 Petitioners allege that the Malaysian manufacturers benefit from accelerated depreciation
 on equipment used to build, modernize or expand plant facilities when their exports total
 more then 20 percent, by value, of total production. We verified that none of these
 companies used the special accelerated depreciation available to exporters during the
 review period.

 Comments

 Comment 1: Petitioners argue that respondents failed to submit certain documents such
 as income tax returns, lists of short-term and long-term loans and annual reports and
 statistical publications of the Central Bank Malaysia. Therefore, the Department must
 reject respondents' questionnaire responses for purposes of its final determinations and
 must instead base its findings with respect to preferential financing and tax benefits on the
 best available information.
 DOC Position: During verification, we received and verified all information necessary to
 make the final determinations. In addition, the documents mentioned are ordinarily
 received during verification rather than included with questionnaire responses. They are
 in the nature of verification 

*9858

 exhibits, and do not themselves constitute a
 questionnaire response.
 Comment 2: Petitioners allege that Malaysian producers of textiles and apparel located in
 Free Trade Zones benefit from preferential exemption of customs duties and taxes on
 imported capital equipment and other goods not physically incorporated into exported
 textiles and apparel. They argue that it is not apparent whether all imports of machinery
 listed as "eligible for exemption" are automatically exempted from the payment of all
 customs duties and sales taxes. They also argue that, unless respondents can prove that
 goods, other than those physically incorported in exported products, imported by
 companies not located in FTZ's are actually exempted from duties and taxes to the same
 extent as goods imported by companies located in the FTZ's and, unless respondents can
 prove that the exemption of goods outside of the zones does not benefit specific
 industries, these programs must be considered as countervailable benefits.
 Respondents argue that location in an FTZ does not confer any countervailable benefit
 because there are no cash savings that result from being located in an FTZ.
 DOC Position: With regard to duties on imports of machinery and equipment, Malaysian
 law has exempted all machinery for new manufacturing enterprises or expansion of
 existing enterprises from import duties since 1980. We verified through checking the
 Trade Classification Customs Tariff, 1978, and Related Customs Regulations that
 non-payment of import duties on machinery and equipment is not limited to a specific
 enterprise or industry or a group of enterprises or industries.
 With regard to duties on goods other than those physically incorporated in exported
 products, we verified that all companies, whether located in an FTZ or not, have to pay
 import duties on these goods.
 Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the rates for land and services provided to companies
 in industrial estates are inadequate to cover the costs incurred by the administering
 entities in developing and administering the estates and are less than the rates charged for
 similar land and services outside of the industrial estates. Therefore, this program is a
 subsidy.
 Respondents argue that location in an industrial estate does not confer any
 countervailable benefits because "nothing in the laws indicate any preferential treatment
 of companies in an industrial estate." Moreover, even if there were some benefits derived
 from locating in an industrial estate, these benefits are generally available and, therefore,
 not countervailable.
 DOC Position: We verified that this program does not promote exports or regional
 development and that eligibility to become a tenant in the industrial estates is not limited
 to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. Therefore, we
 determine that this program does not confer countervailable benefits.
 In view of the finding of no limitation, the issue of whether the rates for the land and
 services provided to companies in industrial estates are inadequate to cover the costs
 incurred by the administering entities or whether they are less than the rates charged for
 similar land and services outside of the industrial estates is not relevant.
 Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the reinvestment allowance benefits a specific
 enterprise or group of enterprises as a result of administrative discretion, and, therefore,
 is a subsidy.
 Respondents argue that the reinvestment allowance is generally available, and, therefore,
 does not confer countervailable benefits.
 DOC Position: We verified that the reinvestment allowance is not discretionary and does
 not benefit a specific enterprise or industry or a group of enterprises or industries. For
 more detailed discussion of this program see Section II B.
 Comment 5: Petitioners argue that the accelerated depreciation deduction available
 under section 28 of the Investment Incentives Act which allows Malaysian enterprises to
 depreciate in one year the entire value of equipment purchased between January 1, 1981
 and January 1, 1986, is not available equally to all industries or for all types of
 equipment, and, therefore, must be considered a subsidy.
 DOC Position: We verified that the accelerated depreciation on factory machinery and
 equipment (ADA) is not limited to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises
 or industries. All businesses are eligible for accelerated depreciation unless they are
 exempt from taxation under such programs as pioneer status, labor utilization, etc. At the
 expiration of their domestic tax holidays, these companies, too, can claim the ADA.
 Comment 6: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust the short-term financing
 benchmark used in its preliminary determination (1) to factor out preferential financing,
 and (2) to include sources of commercial financing other than commercial banks.
 Respondents argue that the benchmark used in the preliminary determination does not
 accurately reflect the true cost of commercially available trade financing in Malaysia and
 that it vastly overstates the benefit received by exporters from Bank Negara Malaysia
 financing. They argue that the most comparable commercial financing is the Bankers
 Acceptance rate.
 DOC Position: According to the 1983 annual report of Bank Negara Malaysia, Bankers
 Acceptances account for nearly 60 percent of all trade bill financing in Malaysia. Thus, it
 is clearly the predominant form of commercially available financing comparable to the
 preferential pre- and post-shipment financing examined in these investigations. For this
 reason, we believe that the Bankers Acceptance rate is a much more accurate measure of
 comparable commercially available financing than the weighted-average benchmark used
 in the preliminary determination--however adjusted--which included all types of
 financing such as long-term loans and consumer loans.
 Comment 7: Petitioners argue that, in calculating the benefit conferred by the export
 allowance and the export deductions, the Department should not permit the deduction
 from taxable income of the reinvestment allowance or the reinvestment carried forward,
 prior to calculating the countervailable benefit from the export allowance and export
 deductions. It is petitioners' understanding that the export allowance must be used in the
 year it is incurred, while the reinvestment allowance may be carried forward to future
 years if the company has more reinvestment allowance than it has net taxable income.
 Therefore,
 the reinvestment allowance carried forward would not be available to offset taxable
 income of the responding companies, absent the export allowance and the export
 deductions claimed in 1982, and is therefore countervailable. The reinvestment
 allowance for 1983 will presumably not be used by the responding companies in 1983,
 and will be carried forward again because of the export allowance available in 1983. The
 reinvestment allowance should thus not be credited against taxable income in 1983, and
 the benefit from the export allowance and export deductions should be increased
 accordingly.
 DOC Position: We verified that both the reinvestment allowance and the export
 deductions, as well as all other deductions, can be carried forward from year to year.
 Therefore, the companies are free to use any deductions they are eligible for in the year of
 their choice.
 We have determined that the reinvestment allowance is not 

*9859

 countervailable (see
 section IIB). Therefore, we are treating it as we would treat any normal deduction and
 have allowed the total reinvestment allowance claimed as an offset against taxable
 income for 1983 and see no reason to increase the value of the export deduction as if the
 reinvestment allowance were not used.

 Verification

 In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we verified the data used in making our final
 determinations. During this verification, we followed normal procedures, including
 meetings with government officials and inspection of documents and on-site inspection of
 accounting records of certain companies exporting the merchandise under investigation
 to the United States.

 Administrative Procedures

 We afforded interested parties an opportunity to present information and written views in
 accordance with Commerce regulations (19 CFR 355.34). A hearing was held and written
 views have been received and considered in reaching these final determinations.

 Suspension of Liquidation

 Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation of all entries
 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption of certain apparel from Malaysia
 effective December 21, 1984, as directed in our notice of "Preliminary Affirmative
 Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Apparel from Malaysia", (49 FR 49651) is
 hereby terminated. Any cash deposits on entries of certain apparel from Malaysia
 pursuant to that suspension of liquidation shall be refunded and any bonds shall be
 released.
 This notice is published pursuant to sections 303 and 705 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1303,
 1671d).

 William T. Archey,

 Acting Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration.

 March 4, 1985.

   
    
 [Note:  The following TABLE/FORM is too wide to be displayed on one screen.  
 You must print it for a meaningful review of its contents.  The table has been 
 divided into multiple pieces with each piece containing information to help you 
 assemble a printout of the table.  The information for each piece includes: (1) 
 a three line message preceding the tabular data showing by line # and 
 character # the position of the upper left-hand corner of the piece and the 
 position of the piece within the entire table; and (2) a numeric scale 
 following the tabular data displaying the character positions.]  
   
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******** This is piece 1. -- It begins at character 1 of table line 1. ******** 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  Appendix A.--List 
                    
                    
                    
       -----------  
                    
          320.0012  
          320.0045  
          320.0077  
          320.1038  
          320.4028  
          323.1022  
          323.1057  
          325.1051  
          325.8024  
          325.8065  
          326.3071  
          326.4042  
          326.4080  
          327.1045  
          327.3085  
          327.4022  
          327.4057  
          328.0022  
          328.0057  
          328.1051  
          328.2021  
          328.2045  
          328.2065  
          328.2089  
          328.3023  
          328.3067  
          328.4021  
          328.4054  
          328.4094  
          328.9031  
          328.9066  
          330.2024  
          330.2065  
          331.1024  
          331.1065  
          331.2024  
          331.2065  
          331.4024  
          331.4065  
          331.7022  
          331.7065  
          338.5021  
          338.5041  
                    
       -----------  
                    
       -----------  
                    
          370.0800  
          376.5408  
          379.0642  
          379.3905  
          379.4070  
          379.5220  
          379.5550  
          379.6219  
          379.6450  
          379.8311  
          379.8930  
          379.9250  
          379.9550  
          383.0213  
          383.0335  
          383.0603  
          383.0657  
          383.1841  
          383.2040  
          383.2229  
          383.2230  
          383.2718  
          383.2732  
          383.2807  
          383.2842  
          383.3038  
          383.3445  
          383.4300  
          383.4720  
          383.4753  
          383.4765  
          383.5090  
          383.6372  
          383.7546  
          383.8007  
          383.8028  
          383.8110  
          383.8663  
          383.9029  
          383.9070  
                    
          702.1200  
          704.4010  
          704.8550  
 1...+...10....+...                                                              
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 2. -- It begins at character 19 of table line 1. ******** 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  of TSUSA Codes Which Covered Malaysia's Exports of Certain Textile 
             and Apparel to the United States in 1983                
                     A. Textile Mill Products                        
                         Yarns and Threads                           
  -----------     310.4047  -----------     310.5049                 
                           Woven Fabrics                             
     320.0013     320.0032     320.0033     320.0034     320.0043    
     320.0050     320.0051     320.0052     320.0062     320.0063    
     320.0085     320.0089     320.0091     320.0095     320.1019    
     320.1045     320.1054     320.1071     320.1077     320.1094    
     322.1050     322.1051     322.1052     322.1087     322.1093    
     323.1024     323.1031     323.1038     323.1042     323.1049    
     323.1065     323.1072     323.1074     323.1080     323.1098    
     325.1052     325.1087     325.1093     325.8003     325.8021    
     325.8031     325.8038     325.8042     325.8049     325.8054    
     325.8072     325.8074     325.8080     325.8098     326.3034    
     326.3077     326.4021     326.4022     326.4024     326.4031    
     326.4049     326.4054     326.4057     326.4065     326.4072    
     326.4098     326.6016     326.6023     326.6069     326.6073    
     327.1071     327.1077     327.2092     327.3050     327.3051    
     327.3087     327.3089     327.3091     327.3093     327.3095    
     327.4024     327.4031     327.4038     327.4042     327.4049    
     327.4065     327.4072     327.4074     327.4080     327.4098    
     328.0024     328.0031     328.0038     328.0042     328.0049    
     328.0065     328.0072     328.0074     328.0080     328.0098    
     328.1052     328.1089     328.1091     328.1095     328.1085    
     328.2022     328.2024     328.2031     328.2034     328.2038    
     328.2049     328.2050     328.2051     328.2052     328.2054    
     328.2071     328.2072     328.2074     328.2077     328.2080    
     328.2091     328.2094     328.2095     328.2098     328.3014    
     328.3038     328.3034     328.3035     328.3039     328.3046    
     328.3069     328.3071     328.3073     328.3077     328.3078    
     328.4022     328.4024     328.4031     328.4038     328.4042    
     328.4057     328.4058     328.4065     328.4072     328.4074    
     328.4098     328.5058     328.5068     328.9021     328.9022    
     328.9038     328.9042     328.9049     328.9054     328.9057    
     328.9072     328.9074     328.9080     328.9098     330.2021    
     330.2031     330.2038     330.2042     330.2049     330.2054    
     330.2072     330.2074     330.2080     330.2098     331.1021    
     331.1031     331.1038     331.1042     331.1049     331.1054    
     331.1072     331.1074     331.1080     331.1098     331.2021    
     331.2031     331.2038     331.2042     331.2049     331.2054    
     331.2072     331.2074     331.2080     331.2098     331.4021    
     331.4031     331.4038     331.4042     331.4049     331.4054    
     331.4072     331.4074     331.4080     331.4098     331.7003    
     331.7024     331.7038     331.7042     331.7049     331.7054    
     331.7072     331.7074     331.7080     331.7098     338.5009    
     338.5024     338.5030     338.5031     338.5035     338.5036    
     338.5043     338.5044     338.5045     338.5046     338.5054    
                        Textile Furnishings                          
  -----------     366.4700  -----------     366.6550                 
                           Miscellaneous                             
  -----------  -----------     389.6265                              
                            B. Apparel                               
     372.1540     372.1560     372.7520     374.4000     374.5020    
     376.5412     378.0550     378.1535     379.0240     379.0620    
     379.0646     379.2320     379.2360     379.2630     379.2650    
     379.3930     379.4020     379.4030     379.4040     379.4050    
     379.4330     379.4615     379.4620     379.4650     379.4660    
     379.5510     379.5520     379.5525     379.5530     379.5535    
     379.5555     379.5560     379.5565     379.5800     379.6210    
     379.6230     379.6240     379.6250     379.6260     379.6270    
     379.6470     379.7400     379.7610     379.7620     379.7630    
     379.8356     379.8357     379.8358     379.8359     379.8635    
     379.8940     379.9010     379.9020     379.9030     379.9035    
     379.9505     379.9525     379.9530     379.9535     379.9540    
     379.9555     379.9560     379.9562     379.9564     379.9566    
     383.0219     383.0222     383.0226     383.0228     383.0232    
     383.0350     383.0505     383.0506     383.0507     383.0509    
     383.0604     383.0606     383.0622     383.0631     383.0608    
     383.0805     383.0841     383.0856     383.1807     383.1822    
     383.1843     383.1846     383.1848     383.1910     383.1935    
     383.2052     383.2056     383.2205     383.2210     383.2227    
     383.2231     383.2232     383.2233     383.2234     383.2236    
     383.2352     383.2356     383.2365     383.2706     383.2715    
     383.2721     383.2722     383.2724     383.2726     383.2728    
     383.2736     383.2738     383.2750     383.2752     383.2754    
     383.2809     383.2820     383.2826     383.2828     383.2835    
     383.2844     383.2910     383.2920     383.3030     383.3040    
     383.3060     383.3069     383.3070     383.3200     383.3415    
     383.3448     383.3450     383.3452     383.3465     383.3466    
     383.4702     383.4704     383.4705     383.4707     383.4709    
     383.4721     383.4724     383.4726     383.4747     383.4748    
     383.4654     383.4756     383.4757     383.4761     383.4762    
     383.4821     383.4825     383.5027     383.5041     383.5051    
     383.5830     383.6200     383.6310     383.6340     383.6360    
     383.7532     383.7534     383.7536     383.7538     383.7542    
     383.7548     383.7552     383.7887     383.7888     383.7892    
     383.8009     383.8011     383.8012     383.8005     383.8024    
     383.8030     383.8045     383.8048     383.8050     383.8052    
     383.8117     383.8141     383.8143     383.8162     383.8164    
     383.8669     383.8670     383.9010     383.9015     383.9025    
     383.9035     383.9040     383.9050     383.9051     383.9068    
     383.9210     383.9215     383.9225     383.9270     383.9290    
                           Miscellaneous                             
     703.1610     703.1620     703.1630     703.1640     703.1650    
     704.4025     704.4502     704.4504     704.4506     704.4508    
     704.8520     704.3640     704.3680     704.3900     704.4106    
 19....+...30....+...40....+...50....+...60....+...70....+...80....+             
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 3. -- It begins at character 86 of table line 1. ******** 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  Mill products   
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
   320.0044       
   320.0071       
   320.1034       
   320.2038       
   323.1021       
   323.1054       
   325.1050       
   325.8022       
   325.8057       
   326.3042       
   326.4038       
   326.4074       
   327.1034       
   327.3052       
   327.4021       
   327.4054       
   328.0021       
   328.0054       
   328.1050       
   328.1092       
   328.2042       
   328.2057       
   328.2085       
   328.3016       
   328.3064       
   328.3092       
   328.4049       
   328.4080       
   328.9024       
   328.9065       
   330.2022       
   330.2057       
   331.1022       
   331.1057       
   331.2022       
   331.2057       
   331.4022       
   331.4057       
   331.7021       
   331.7057       
   338.5010       
   338.5039       
   338.5069       
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
   376.2425       
   379.0640       
   379.3120       
   379.4060       
   379.4670       
   379.5545       
   379.6217       
   379.6280       
   379.7640       
   379.8915       
   379.9040       
   379.9545       
   379.9568       
   383.0234       
   383.0601       
   383.0616       
   383.1824       
   383.1940       
   383.2228       
   383.2237       
   383.2716       
   383.2730       
   383.2758       
   383.2838       
   383.3037       
   383.3435       
   383.4200       
   383.4711       
   383.4750       
   383.4764       
   383.5086       
   383.6371       
   383.7544       
   383.8002       
   383.8026       
   383.8073       
   383.8660       
   383.9027       
   383.9069       
   383.9291       
                  
   704.3220       
   704.8520       
                  
 86.......+....0.                                                                
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 4. -- It begins at character 1 of table line 99. ******** 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
 Note.--For the woven cotton fabric under investigation the U.S. Department of 
 1...+...10....+...20....+...30....+...40....+...50....+...60....+...70....+..   
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 5. -- It begins at character 78 of table line 99. ******* 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  Commerce, in preparing  
 78.....+...90....+....0.                                                        
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 6. -- It begins at character 1 of table line 100. ******* 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
   the Appendices for these investigations, has 
   parallel the TSUSA numbers. For example U.S. 
 1...+...10....+...20....+...30....+...40....+.                                  
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ****** This is piece 7. -- It begins at character 47 of table line 100. ******* 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  used the U.S. Import Statistical Numbers which closely 
  Import Statistical Number 320.0012 represents TSUSA    
 47......+...60....+...70....+...80....+...90....+....0.                         
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ******* This is piece 8. -- It begins at character 1 of table line 102. ******* 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
   numbers 320.0112 through 320.0912 and 331.7098 represents TSUSA 
   The fourth and fifth digits of these TSUSA numbers are the yarn 
 1...+...10....+...20....+...30....+...40....+...50....+...60....+               
    
 ******************************************************************************* 
 ****** This is piece 9. -- It begins at character 66 of table line 102. ******* 
 ******************************************************************************* 
    
  numbers 331.7098 through 331.7998.  
  count numbers.                      
 66.......+...80....+...90....+....0.                                            
   

 [FR Doc. 85-5830 Filed 3-11-85; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M