[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 193 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51683-51687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-401-804]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-
to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden. For information on the net 
subsidy for the reviewed company, as well as for any non-reviewed 
companies, please see the Preliminary Results of Review section of this 
notice. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary 
results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Preliminary 
Results of Review section of this notice. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: Gayle 
Longest (202) 482-3338 or (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 43758) the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Sweden. On August 1, 1995, the 
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' (60 FR 39150) of this countervailing duty 
order. We received timely requests for review, and we initiated the 
review, covering the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, 
on September 15, 1995 (60 FR 47930).
    In accordance with section 355.22(a) of the Department's Interim 
Regulations, this review covers only those producers or exporters for 
which a review was specifically requested (see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Interim Regulations; Request for Comments, (60 
FR 25130 ; May 11, 1995) (Interim Regulations)). Accordingly, this 
review covers SSAB, the sole known producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise during the period of review (POR). This review also covers 
10 programs.
    On May 29, 1996, we extended the period for completion of the 
preliminary and final results pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Sweden; Extension of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review (61 FR 26879). As explained in the memoranda from 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to the File dated 
November 22, 1995, and January 11, 1996 (both on file in the public 
file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
Commerce), all deadlines were extended to take into account the partial 
shutdowns of the Federal Government from November 15 through November 
21, 1995, and December 15, 1995, through January 6, 1996. Therefore, 
the deadline for these preliminary results is no later than September 
27, 1996, and the deadline for the final results of this review is no 
later than 180 days from the date on which these preliminary results 
are published in the Federal Register.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the 
Act). The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. References to the 
Department's Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Request for Public Comments (54 FR 23366; May 31, 1989) (1989 Proposed 
Regulations) are provided solely for further explanation of the 
Department's countervailing duty practice. Although the Department has 
withdrawn the particular rulemaking proceeding pursuant to which the 
1989 Proposed Regulations were issued, the subject matter of these 
regulations is being considered in connection with an ongoing 
rulemaking proceeding which, among other things, is intended to conform 
the Department's regulations to the URAA. See Advance Notice of

[[Page 51684]]

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, (60 FR 80; Jan. 3, 
1995); Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, (61 FR 7308; February 27, 
1996).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Sweden. These products include hot-
rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 
millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of 
not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without pattern in 
relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with 
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or 
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeter or more in thickness and 
of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice 
the thickness. During the review period, such merchandise was 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 
7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 
7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000 and 7212.50.5000. Included in this order are 
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products 
which have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which 
have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is 
grade X-70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Allocation Methodology

    In the past, the Department has relied upon information from the 
U.S. Internal Revenue Service on the industry-specific average useful 
life of assets in determining the allocation period for nonrecurring 
grant benefits. See General Issues Appendix appended to Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria 
(58 FR 37063, 37226; July 9, 1993). However, in British Steel plc. v. 
United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995) (British Steel), the U.S. 
Court of International Trade (the Court) ruled against this allocation 
methodology. In accordance with the Court's remand order, the 
Department calculated a company-specific allocation period for 
nonrecurring subsidies based on the average useful life (AUL) of non-
renewable physical assets. This remand determination was affirmed by 
the Court on June 4, 1996. British Steel, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 
1996).
    The Department has decided to acquiesce to the Court's decision 
and, as such, we intend to determine the allocation period for 
nonrecurring subsidies using company-specific AUL data where reasonable 
and practicable. Specifically, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that it is reasonable and practicable to allocate all new 
nonrecurring subsidies (i.e., subsidies that have not yet been assigned 
an allocation period) based on a company-specific AUL. However, if a 
subsidy has already been countervailed based on an allocation period 
established in an earlier segment of the proceeding, it does not appear 
reasonable or practicable to reallocate that subsidy over a different 
period of time. In other words, since the countervailing duty rate in 
earlier segments of the proceeding was calculated based on a certain 
allocation period and resulting benefit stream, redefining the 
allocation period in later segments of the proceeding would entail 
taking the original grant amount and creating an entirely new benefit 
stream for that grant. Such a practice may lead to an increase or 
decrease in the amount countervailed and, thus, would result in the 
possibility of over-countervailing or under-countervailing the actual 
benefit. The Department has preliminarily determined that a more 
reasonable and accurate approach is to continue using the allocation 
period first assigned to the subsidy. We invite the parties to comment 
on the selection of this methodology and provide any other reasonable 
and practicable approaches for complying with the Court's ruling.
    In the current review, there are no new subsidies. All of the 
nonrecurring grants under review were provided prior to the POR; 
allocation periods for these grants were established during prior 
segments of this proceeding. Therefore, for purposes of these 
preliminary results, the Department is using the original allocation 
period assigned to each grant.

Privatization and Sale of Assets to Other Companies

    Within the SSAB group only one subsidiary produces and exports the 
subject merchandise. SSAB has sold several productive units and the 
company was partially privatized twice, in 1987 and in 1989. During the 
review period, SSAB was completely privatized.
    In Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain 
Steel Products from Sweden (58 FR 37385; July 9, 1993) (Final 
Determination), the Department found that SSAB had received 
countervailable subsidies prior to the sale of the productive units and 
the two partial privatizations. Further, the Department found that a 
private party purchasing all or part of a government-owned company can 
repay prior subsidies on behalf of the company as part or all of the 
sales price (see General Issues Appendix (58 FR 37217, 37262; July 9, 
1993)). Therefore, to the extent that a portion of the sales price paid 
for a privatized company can be reasonably attributed to prior 
subsidies, that portion of those subsidies will be extinguished.
    To calculate a rate for the subsidies that were allocated to the 
spin-off, i.e., a productive unit that was sold, we first determined 
the amount of the subsidies attributable to each productive unit by 
dividing the asset value of that productive unit by the total asset 
value of SSAB in the year of the spin-off. We then applied this ratio 
to the net present value (NPV), in the year of the spin-off, of the 
future benefit streams from all of SSAB's prior subsidies allocable to 
the POR. The future benefit streams at the time of the sale of each 
productive unit reflect the Department's allocation over time of prior 
subsidies to SSAB in accordance with the declining balance methodology 
(see section 355.49 of the Department's Proposed Regulations), and 
reflect also the effect of prior spin-offs of SSAB productive units.
    We next estimated the portion of the purchase price which 
represents repayment of prior subsidies by determining the portion of 
SSAB's net worth that was accounted for by subsidies. To do that, we 
divided the face value of the allocable subsidies received by SSAB in 
each year from fiscal year 1979 through fiscal year 1993 by SSAB's net 
worth in the same year. We calculated a simple average of these ratios, 
which was then multiplied by the purchase price of the productive unit. 
Thus, we determined the amount of the purchase price which represents 
repayment of prior subsidies. This amount was subtracted from the 
subsidies attributed to the productive unit at the time of sale to 
arrive at the amount of subsidies allocated to the productive unit 
being spun-off.
    To calculate the subsidies remaining with SSAB after privatization, 
we performed the following calculations. We first calculated the NPV of 
the future benefit stream of the subsidies at the

[[Page 51685]]

time of the sale of the shares. Next, we estimated the portion of the 
purchase price which represents repayment of prior subsidies in 
accordance with the methodology described in the ``Privatization'' 
section of the General Issues Appendix (58 FR 37217, 37259). This 
amount was then subtracted from the amount of the NPV eligible for 
repayment, and the result was divided by the NPV to calculate the ratio 
representing the amount of subsidies remaining with SSAB.
    To calculate the benefit provided to SSAB in the POR, where 
appropriate, we multiplied the benefit calculated for 1994, adjusted 
for sales of productive units, by the ratio representing the amount of 
subsidies remaining with SSAB after privatization. We then divided the 
results by the company's total sales in 1994.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

Programs Previously Determined to Confer Subsidies

(1) Equity Infusions
    In 1981, the Government of Sweden (GOS) provided equity capital to 
SSAB totaling 1,125 million Swedish kronor (MSEK). Simultaneously, 
Granges, a private company and the only other shareholder at the time, 
contributed 375 MSEK. To persuade Granges to contribute this equity 
capital, the GOS guaranteed a specified sum to be paid to Granges in 
1991. Because of this arrangement, we determined that the 375 MSEK paid 
by Granges was an equity infusion provided indirectly by the GOS, 
through Granges, specifically to SSAB. See Final Determination (58 FR 
37385, 37387).
    In the Final Determination and in the final determination in a 
previous investigation of Swedish steel, Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determinations; Certain Carbon Steel Products from 
Sweden (50 FR 33377; August 19, 1985) (Final Certain Carbon Steel 
Products), we determined that SSAB was unequityworthy in 1981 when it 
received the equity infusions, and that the two equity infusions are 
therefore countervailable. There has been no new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances in this review to warrant 
reconsideration of this determination.
    In accordance with the ``Equity'' section of the General Issues 
Appendix, we treated the equity infusions as grants. To calculate the 
benefit from these equity infusions for the POR, we used the grant 
methodology as described in the ``Allocation Methodology'' section 
above. Because the Department determined in the Final Determination 
that the infusions are non-recurring subsidies, we have allocated the 
subsidies over 15 years, as discussed in the ``Allocation Methodology'' 
section above. As the discount rate, we have used SSAB's company-
specific interest rate on fixed-rate long-term loans (see 
Sec. 355.49(b)(2) of the Proposed Regulations).
    We reduced the benefit from these equity infusions attributable to 
the POR according to the methodology outlined in the ``Privatization'' 
section above. We then divided the result by SSAB's total sales for 
1994. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for 
equity infusions to be 0.53 percent ad valorem.
(2) Structural Loans
    Under three separate pieces of legislation, SSAB received 
structural loans for investment in plant and equipment. The loans were 
disbursed in installments between 1978 and 1983. All three loans were 
outstanding during the POR.
    According to the terms of the loans, all three structural loans 
were interest-free for three years from the date of disbursement. After 
that time, one loan incurred interest at a fixed rate of five percent 
per annum while the other two loans incurred interest at a variable 
rate subject to change every five years. The variable interest rate on 
these two loans is set at the rate of the long-term government bonds 
plus a 0.25 percent margin. After a five-year grace period, the 
principal is repaid in 20 equal installments at the end of each 
calendar year.
    In Final Determination and in Final Certain Carbon Steel Products, 
we determined that these loans are countervailable because they were 
provided specifically to SSAB on terms inconsistent with commercial 
considerations. There has been no new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances in this review to warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    To calculate the benefit from the fixed-rate structural loan, we 
employed the long-term loan methodology described in section 
355.49(c)(1) of the 1989 Proposed Regulations. To calculate the 
benefits from the two variable-rate loans, we used the variable-rate 
long-term loan methodology described in section 355.49(d)(1) of the 
1989 Proposed Regulations. As the discount rate, we used SSAB's 
company-specific long-term benchmark interest rates, previously 
established in the Final Determination.
    We reduced the benefit attributable to the POR from the fixed-rate 
structural loan according to the methodology outlined in the 
``Privatization'' section above. We then aggregated the benefits for 
the three loans (fixed interest rate and variable interest rate) and 
divided the results by SSAB's total sales for 1994. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the net subsidy from the three structural loans 
to be 0.27 percent ad valorem.
(3) Forgiven Reconstruction Loans
    The GOS provided reconstruction loans to SSAB between 1979 and 1985 
to cover operating losses, investment in certain plants and equipment, 
and for employment promotion purposes. The loans were interest free for 
three years, after which a fixed interest rate was charged. According 
to the terms of the loans, up to half of the outstanding amount of the 
loan can be written off after the second calendar year following the 
disbursement. The remainder of the loan can be written off entirely at 
the end of the ninth calendar year after disbursement. Pursuant to the 
terms of the reconstruction loans, the GOS wrote off large portions of 
principal and accrued interest on these loans between 1980 and 1990.
    In the Final Determination and in Final Certain Carbon Steel 
Products, we determined that forgiveness of these loans is 
countervailable. There has been no new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances in this review to warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated the written-off portions of 
the reconstruction loans as countervailable grants received in the 
years the loans were forgiven and calculated the benefit using the 
grant methodology as described in the ``Allocation Methodology'' 
section above. We reduced the benefits from these grants attributable 
to the POR according to the methodology outlined in the 
``Privatization'' section above. We then divided the results by SSAB's 
total sales for 1994. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
subsidy from the three forgiven reconstruction loans to be 1.18 percent 
ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer Subsidies

(1) Research & Development (R&D) Loans and Grants
    The Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development 
(NUTEK) provides research and development loans and grants to Swedish 
industries for R&D purposes.

[[Page 51686]]

One type of R&D loan (industrial development loans) is mostly aimed at 
``new'' industries such as the biotechnical, electronic, and medical 
industries. Another type of R&D loan (energy efficiency loans) is 
directed towards big energy consumers.
    The loans accrue interest equal to the official ``discount'' rate 
plus a premium of 3.75 percent. However, no interest or principal 
payments are due until the R&D project is completed. If, upon 
completion of a project, the company wishes to use the research results 
for commercial purposes, the loan must be repaid. On the other hand, if 
the company decides not to utilize the results and, therefore, does not 
claim proprietary treatment for the results, NUTEK will forgive the 
loan and the results of the research become publicly available.
    SSAB had several R&D loans outstanding during the POR on which it 
did not make either principal or interest payments. However, under our 
current pratice, we cannot determine whether SSAB has received a 
countervailable benefit until the research is completed, and they will 
be able to submit information demonstrating that the research results 
are publicly available. It is only upon completion that it will be 
known (1) whether the loans are forgiven and (2) if the loans are not 
forgiven, whether the accrued interest is less than what would accrue 
if the loans are provided at commercial rates. See Final Determination 
(58 FR 37385, 37390). Therefore, we will continue to examine these R&D 
loans in future administrative reviews.
    As explained above, NUTEK may forgive R&D loans if the companies 
receiving them disseminate publicly the results of the research 
financed by the loans. The Department's current practice is to treat 
forgiven R&D loans as non-countervailable if the research results are 
publicly available. See Final Determination (58 FR 37385, 37390). 
During the POR, three such loans to SSAB were forgiven. Official 
documentation from NUTEK, provided in the questionnaire response, 
indicates that the results of these research projects for which these 
three loans were made to SSAB were made publicly available. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine that these three forgiven R&D loans 
did not confer countervailable benefits on the subject merchandise 
during the POR.
(2) Fund for Industry and New Business R&D
    SSAB reported in its questionnaire response that SSAB Oxelosund, a 
subsidiary, received a conditional repayment R&D loan from the Fund for 
Industry and New Business (the Fund).
    The Fund provides project financing to firms with a budget of at 
least two million Swedish kroner (MSEK), and start-up loans to new 
``limited'' companies. Projects are financed through (1) conditional 
repayment loans, (2) capital in return for royalty, (3) project 
guarantees, and (4) credit guarantees for developing new products, 
processes and systems, and marketing. The terms and conditions of the 
financing depend on the type of financing provided.
    In October 1992, the Fund approved a 6-MSEK conditional repayment 
loan for SSAB Oxelosund. Only 3 MSEK of the loan amount were disbursed. 
Under the terms of the loan, 50 percent of the principal was to be paid 
at the end of 1994, with the remaining 50 percent to be paid at the end 
of 1995. The loan accrued interest from the date of disbursement at a 
rate equal to the Central Bank's ``discount'' rate, plus a 4 percent 
premium, paid quarterly, for the prior quarter. Because the base rate 
changes quarterly, we have analyzed this loan under our variable rate 
loan methodology. In Certain-Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Sweden; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review (60 FR 44017; August 24, 1995) (92/93 Preliminary Results) and 
Certain-Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 5381; February 12, 
1996) (92/93 Final Results), the previous administrative review of this 
order, we found that SSAB paid a higher interest rate for this loan 
than it would have paid at the commercial benchmark rates. Accordingly, 
we determined that the program did not confer a countervailable benefit 
on the subject merchandise during the POR. In this review period, the 
entire outstanding principal and the accrued interest was paid.
    During the POR, SSAB made two interest payments on the loan. The 
first payment was in arrears and covered the last quarter of 1993; the 
second payment was for interest accrued in 1994. Therefore, we selected 
benchmarks for both 1993 and 1994, using the same source for benchmarks 
established previously. See 92/93 Preliminary Results and 92/93 Final 
Results. We compared the interest paid by the company with the amount 
of interest that the company would have paid on a similar loan provided 
at the benchmark rates, and we factored into the calculation the period 
of time in which the interest payment was in arrears. We found that the 
amount paid by the company was slightly lower than the amount that 
would have been paid at the commercial benchmark rate. However, the 
subsidy rate that would be attributable to this loan is 0.00002 percent 
ad valorem. A rate this small would not change the overall subsidy rate 
for SSAB. Moreover, since the principal of the loan was entirely repaid 
during the POR, the issue of the countervailability of the loan will 
not arise in subsequent administrative reviews. Since any benefit we 
would calculate for the loan would not affect the overall subsidy rate 
during the POR, and, since there is no possibility of future benefits 
from this loan, we do not consider it necessary to make a determination 
on the specificity of this loan program and are not including it in the 
calculation of these preliminary results.

III. Programs Preliminarily Found To Be Not Used

    We also examined the following programs and preliminarily determine 
that SSAB did not apply for or receive benefits under them during the 
POR:

A. Regional Development Grants
B. Transportation Grants
C. Location-of-Industry Loans

IV. Programs Preliminarily Found To Be Terminated

Mining Exploration Grants
    Between 1983 and 1985, SSAB received grants for exploration of new 
mineral deposits in its Grangesberg mines. In Final Determination, the 
Department found that these grants were countervailable, because they 
were provided specifically to a group of enterprises or industries 
(mining companies). The amounts received under this program were less 
than 0.5 percent of the value of SSAB's total sales for that year and 
were expensed in the year of receipt in accordance with the Allocation 
section of the General Issues Appendix.
    In June 1993, the mining exploration grant program was terminated 
by the Government of Sweden under law SFS 1993:693 which eliminated 
Namnden for Statens Gruvegendom, the agency that administered the 
program. No grants were given to SSAB under this program after 1985 and 
there were no residual benefits during the POR from grants previously 
bestowed.
Preliminary Results of Review
    In accordance with section 355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department's 
Interim Regulations, we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each

[[Page 51687]]

producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period 
January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, we preliminarily determine 
the net subsidy for SSAB to be 1.98 percent ad valorem for SSAB. If the 
final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary 
results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess countervailing duties for SSAB at 1.98 percent ad valorem. The 
Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to collect 
a cash deposit of 1.98 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from SSAB, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 355.22(g), for all companies for which a review was not 
requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash 
deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. 
As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a 
company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review 
of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington 
Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade 
Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 
CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, 
which is the analogue to 19 CFR 355.22(g), the countervailing duty 
regulation on automatic assessment). Therefore, the cash deposit rates 
for all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged 
by the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate 
that will be applied to all non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order is that established in the most recently completed administrative 
proceeding. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR at 
5381. This rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a 
review of a company assigned this rate is requested. In addition, for 
the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, the assessment 
rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order 
are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

Public Comment

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who 
submit written arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days 
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 355.38.
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 355.38, are due. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 
or at a hearing.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 
355.22(c)(5)).

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25411 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P