^* [Reproduced from “Report to the President: A Comprehensive Program for the Steel Industry”, prepared by the Interagency Task Force, chaired >y Treasury Under Secretary Anthony M. Solomon. The Report was released Jecember 6, 1977.]

^1/ The Council on Wage and Price Stability Indeed, some emission control techniques, such as dry quenching (and recycling) of steel gases are only feasible in a completely new or substantially modernized plant.

^1/ The Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Labor Department 976 regulations for steel mills are compatible. EPA willcontinue to consider the combined effects of the costs of EPA and OSHA requirements in assessing the appropriate levels of control in future EPA.regulations.

^* [Reproduced from the 1978), pp. 1464-69.] U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 5 (January

^* [Reproduced from the U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 30 (February 13, 1978), pp. 6065-70.]

^* [Reproduced from the U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 91 (May 10, 1978), pp. 20070-71.]

¹ With the exception of those specific oducts listed In Table 3.

² Only wide flange beams and bearing ling (Trigger Price Handbook: pp 3-1 to 3- . Other products In this category are coved in Table 3.

³ Only hot rolled carbon bars: sepcial quall (Trigger Price Handbook pp 10-1 and 10- . Other products in this category are coved in Table 3.

^* [Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. [The Order of the Court appears at I.L.M. page 1014.]

^1/ Although one of the largest domestic manufacturers of steel wire and wire products, Davis Walker is an independent wire producer which must purchase steel wire rod on the open market. It claims that because the domestic integrated steel mills do not have sufficient capacity to produce the amount of steel wire rod necessary to supply the domestic market for steel wire and wire products, it must purchase between 1 million and 1.5 million tons of wire rod per year from foreign suppliers.

^2/ The Secretary or the Commission, before making a determination pursuant to section 160(a), must conduct a hearing upon request of “any foreign manufacturer or exporter, or any domestic importer, of the foreign merchandise in question, or of any domestic manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler of merchandise of the same class or kind.” 19 U.S.C. § 160(d)(1).

^3/ The Report cites the following problems confronting the United States steel industry: its competitive position has eroded over time, and its traditional market is being encroached upon by substitute materials and by imports of steel; its competition from imports, often at dramatically reduced prices, has increased as the world steel industry has stagnated; its earnings have dropped sharply and are considerably below historic levels; it must invest heavily to modernize and increase efficiency in order to remain competitive; it must make substantial expenditures to meet environmental regulations; but it has had difficulty in raising the necessary capital for these expenditures under present market conditions. Solomon Report, at A-1. Moreover, the Treasury has represented to the Court that sixteen steel plants closed or suffered permanent cutbacks in 1977, and employment in the industry dropped from 472,000 to 437,000 within four months in 1977. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 8.

^4/ Defendant-intervener Korf also argues that plaintiff Davis Walker lacks standing, since it does not have a legally protected interest that is adversely affected by the TPM. Korf notes that plaintiff merely alleges that it is unable to obtain steel wire rod below the trigger price and does not allege that any foreign producer refuses to sell to plaintiffs at a price below the trigger price but above the price that such producer could charge without violating the Antidumping Act. Thus, Korf concludes that plaintiff is really seeking the right to obtain “dumped” goods and has no legal interest to challenge Treasury's actions on these grounds. Korf's claim clearly lacks merit. The “legal interest” test is not the appropriate standard for standing. In order to establish standing, plaintiff must show that (1) the challenged action caused him injury in fact; and (2) his interest is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected. See Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. ISO (19707T~Southorn .Mutual Help Ass'n, Inc. v. Califano, No. 76-17/(8 fD.C. cir. Dec. 23, 1977). FlaintiTi has cTearly satisfied this standard.

^5/ Several tests for distinguishing rules from policy statements have been suggested. According to one commentator, policy statements are rules addressed to the agency staff rather than to the public. Another argues that the label adopted by the agency is generally determinative. See Asimow, Public Participation in the Adoption of Interpretive Hules and Policy Statements, 75 Hich. L. Kev. 521, 533 (1977)

^6/ See United Slates v. Atlantic Richfield Co.. 297 F. Supp. 1061, l072-1073 (s.D.n.Y. 1969) aff'd 401 U.S. 896 (1971)

^7/ The Court finds the cases cited by plaintiffs in which the “substantial impact” standard is adopted inapposite, since the action therein is of a different nature from the agency action in the instant case.

^8/ The fact that the parties disagree over the percentage of wire and wire products covered by the TPM and other similar facts is therefore immaterial to the resolution of this issue.

^9/ A court need not tailor a program to fit the interests of each affected party. See American Nursing Home Ass'n v. Cost of Living CouncilT~~4~97 F.2d 909, 914-15 (Temp, timer. Ct. App. 1974).

^10/ Again, the Court notes that the fact that the TPM docs not extend to all wire products does not mean that plaintiffs have no remedy against the importation of wire and wire products at unfairly low prices. Plaintiffs may still file an antidumping complaint with the Treasury. The TPM does not deny any rights previously existing under the Antidumping Act.

^11/ See Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 800 (1968). It would thcrctore be insignificant if plaintiffs' proposed method and prices.were more finely tuned