[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64568-64572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32062]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-412-811]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom; 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 is conducting an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and 
bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom. The period 
covered by this administrative review is January 1, 1996 through 
December 31, 1996. For information on the net subsidy for each reviewed 
company, as well for all 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 indicated in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cassel, Suzanne King, or 
Dana Mermelstein, Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 22, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 15327) the countervailing duty 
order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from 
the United Kingdom. On March 7, 1997, the Department published a notice 
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (62 FR 10521) of 
this countervailing duty order. We received a timely request for review 
from Inland Steel Bar Co., an interested party to this proceeding. We 
initiated the review, covering the period January 1, 1996, through 
December 31, 1996, on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. 
Accordingly, this review covers British Steel Engineering Steels 
Holdings, British Steel Engineering Steels Limited, and British Steel 
plc.

Applicable Statute

    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.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of non-
alloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by 
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 
in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded 
from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, 
note 1(f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason of 
containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead or 0.1 percent or more 
of bismuth, tellarium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-finished 
steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered in this 
review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00.00 and 
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also 
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings: 
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 
and 7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for Customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Change in Ownership

(I) Background

    On March 21, 1995, British Steel plc (BS plc) acquired all of 
Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds' (GKN) shares in United Engineering Steels 
(UES), the company which produced and exported the subject merchandise 
to the United States during the original investigation. Thus, UES 
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of BS plc and was renamed British 
Steel Engineering Steels (BSES).
    Prior to this change in ownership, UES was a joint venture company 
formed in 1986 by British Steel Corporation (BSC), a government-owned 
company, and GKN. In return for shares in UES, BSC contributed a major 
portion of its Special Steels Business, the productive unit which 
produced the subject merchandise. GKN contributed its Brymbo Steel 
Works and its forging business to the joint venture. BSC was privatized 
in 1988 and now bears the name BS plc.
    In the investigation of this case, the Department found that BSC 
had received a number of nonrecurring subsidies prior to the 1986 
transfer of its Special Steels Business to UES. See Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 
Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6237, 6243 
(January 27, 1993) (Lead Bar).

[[Page 64569]]

Further, the Department determined that the sale to UES did not alter 
these previously bestowed subsidies, and thus the portion of BSC's pre-
1986 subsidies attributable to its Special Steels Business transferred 
to UES. Lead Bar at 6240.
    In the 1993 certain steel products investigations, the Department 
modified the allocation methodology developed for Lead Bar. 
Specifically, the Department stated that it would no longer assume that 
all subsidies allocated to a productive unit follow it when it is sold. 
Rather, when a productive unit is spun-off or acquired, a portion of 
the sales price of the productive unit represents the reallocation of 
prior subsidies. See the General Issues Appendix (GIA), appended to the 
Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products From 
Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37269 (July 9, 1993) (Certain Steel). In a 
subsequent Remand Determination, the Department aligned Lead Bar with 
the methodology set forth in the ``Privatization'' and 
``Restructuring'' sections of the GIA. Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and 
Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the United Kingdom: Remand 
Determination (October 12, 1993) (Remand).

(II) Analysis of BS plc's Acquisition of UES

    On March 21, 1995, BS plc acquired 100 percent of UES. In 
determining how this change in ownership affects our attribution of 
subsidies to the subject merchandise, we relied on Section 771(5)(F) of 
the Act, which states that a change in ownership does not require a 
determination that past subsidies received by an enterprise are no 
longer countervailable, even if the transaction is accomplished at 
arm's length. The Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994) (SAA), explains that the aim of this 
provision is to prevent the extreme interpretation that the arm's 
length sale of a firm automatically, and in all cases, extinguishes any 
prior subsidies conferred. While the SAA indicates that the Department 
retains the discretion to determine whether and to what extent a change 
in ownership eliminates past subsidies, it also indicates that this 
discretion must be exercised carefully by considering the facts of each 
case. SAA at 928.
    In accordance with the Act and the SAA, we examined the facts of BS 
plc's acquisition of GKN's shares of UES, and we determined that the 
change in ownership does not render previously bestowed subsidies 
attributable to UES no longer countervailable. However, we also 
determined that a portion of the purchase price paid for UES is 
attributable to its prior subsidies. Therefore, we reduced the amount 
of the subsidies that ``traveled'' with UES to BS plc, taking into 
account the allocation of subsidies to GKN, the former joint-owner of 
UES. See Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53306 (October 14, 1997) (Lead Bar 95 Final Results) and 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the 
United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 16555 (April 7, 1997) (Lead Bar 95 
Preliminary Results). To calculate the amount of UES's subsidies that 
passed through to BS plc as a result of the acquisition, we applied the 
methodology described in the ``Restructuring'' section of the GIA. See 
GIA, 58 FR at 37268-37269. This determination is in accordance with our 
changes in ownership finding in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination; Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 30288, 30289-30290 (June 14, 
1996), and our finding in the 1994 administrative review of this case, 
in which we determined that ``[t]he URAA is not inconsistent with and 
does not overturn the Department's General Issues Appendix methodology 
or its findings in the Lead Bar Remand Determination.'' Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
58377, 58379 (November 14, 1996).
    With the acquisition of UES, we also had to determine whether BS 
plc's remaining subsidies are attributable to the subject merchandise. 
Where the Department finds that a company has received untied 
countervailable subsidies, to determine the countervailing duty rate, 
the Department attributes those subsidies to that company's total sales 
of domestically produced merchandise, including the sales of 100-
percent-owned domestic subsidiaries. If the subject merchandise is 
produced by a subsidiary company, and the only subsidies in question 
are the untied subsidies received by the parent company, the 
countervailing duty rate calculation for the subject merchandise is the 
same as described above. Similarly, if such a company purchases another 
company, as was the case with BS plc's purchase of UES, then the 
current benefit from the parent company's allocable untied subsidies is 
attributed to total sales, including the sales of the newly acquired 
company. See, e.g., GIA, 58 FR at 3762 (``the Department often treats 
the parent entity and its subsidiaries as one when determining who 
ultimately benefits from a subsidy''); Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Germany, 58 FR 37315 
(July 9, 1993). Accordingly, in the Lead Bar 95 Final Results, we 
determined that it is appropriate to collapse BSES with BS plc for 
purposes of calculating the countervailing duty for the subject 
merchandise. BSES, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BS plc, continues to 
benefit from the remaining benefit stream of BS plc's untied subsidies.
    In collapsing UES with BS plc, we also determined that UES's untied 
subsidies ``rejoined'' BS plc's pool of subsidies with the company's 
1995 acquisition. All of these subsidies were untied subsidies 
originally bestowed upon BSC (BS plc). After the formation of UES in 
1986, the subsidies that ``traveled'' with the Special Steels Business 
were also untied, and were found to benefit UES as a whole. See Lead 
Bar 95 Final Results; Lead Bar 95 Preliminary Results.

(III) Calculation of Benefit

    To calculate the countervailing duty rate for the subject 
merchandise in 1996, we first determined BS plc's benefits in 1996, 
taking into account all spin-offs of productive units (including the 
Special Steel Business) and BSC's full privatization in 1988. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products 
from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37393 (July 9, 1993) (UK Certain Steel). 
We then calculated the amount of UES's subsidies that ``rejoined'' BS 
plc after the 1995 acquisition, taking into account the reallocation of 
subsidies to GKN. See Lead Bar 95 Final Results; Lead Bar 95 
Preliminary Results. As indicated above, in determining both these 
amounts, we followed the methodology outlined in the GIA. After adding 
BS plc's and UES's benefits for each program, we then divided that 
amount by BS plc's total sales of merchandise produced in the United 
Kingdom in 1996.

Allocation Methodology

    In British Steel plc v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 
1995), the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the 
Department's allocation methodology, which relied on U.S. Internal 
Revenue Service information on the industry specific average useful 
life

[[Page 64570]]

of assets for determining the allocation period for non-recurring 
subsidies. In accordance with the Court's remand order, the Department 
calculated a company-specific allocation period based on the AUL of 
non-renewable physical assets for BS plc. This allocation period was 18 
years. This remand determination was affirmed by the Court on June 4, 
1996. British Steel plc v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 
1996).
    The Department's acquiescence to the CIT's decision in the Certain 
Steel cases resulted in different allocation periods between the UK 
Certain Steel and Lead Bar proceedings (18 years vs. 15 years). 
Different allocation periods for the same subsidies in two proceedings 
involving the same company generate significant inconsistencies. 
Moreover, UES became a wholly-owned subsidiary of BS plc in 1995. In 
the 1995 review of Lead Bar, in order to maintain a consistent 
allocation period across the UK Certain Steel and Lead Bar proceedings, 
as well as in the different segments of Lead Bar, we altered the 
allocation methodology previously used to determine the allocation 
period for non-recurring subsidies previously bestowed on BSC and 
attributed to UES. In the 1995 review, we applied the company-specific 
18-year allocation period to all non-recurring subsidies. See Lead Bar 
95 Final Results. Based on our decision in the 1995 administrative 
review of this order, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate 
in this review to continue to allocate all of BSC's non-recurring 
subsidies over BS plc's company-specific average useful life of 
renewable physical assets (i.e., 18 years).

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

(A) Equity Infusions
    In each year from 1978/79 through 1985/86, BSC/BS plc received 
equity capital from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
pursuant to section 18(1) of the Iron and Steel Acts 1975, 1981, and 
1982. According to section 18(1), the Secretary of State for the 
Department of Trade and Industry may ``pay to the Corporation (BSC) 
such funds as he sees fit.'' The Government of the United Kingdom's 
equity investments in BSC/BS plc were made pursuant to an agreed 
external financing limit which was based upon medium-term financial 
projections. BSC's performance was monitored by the Government of the 
United Kingdom on an ongoing basis and requests for capital were 
examined on a case-by-case basis. The UK government did not receive any 
additional ownership, such as stock or additional rights, in return for 
the capital provided to BSC/BS plc under section 18(1) since it already 
owned 100 percent of the company.
    In Lead Bar (58 FR at 6241), the Department found BSC/BS plc to be 
unequityworthy from 78/79 through 1985/86, and thus determined that the 
Government of the United Kingdom's equity infusions were inconsistent 
with commercial considerations. Although, prior to the formation of 
UES, BSC's section 18(1) equity capital was written off in two stages 
(3,000 million in 1981 and 1,000 million in 
1982) as part of a capital reconstruction of BSC, the Department 
determined that BSC/BS plc benefitted from these equity infusions, 
notwithstanding the subsequent write-off of equity capital. Therefore, 
the Department countervailed the equity investments as grants given in 
the years the equity capital was received. No new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to 
warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
    Because the Department determined in Lead Bar that the infusions 
are non-recurring, we have allocated the benefits over BS plc's 
company-specific average useful life of renewable physical assets (18 
years).
    Although uncreditworthiness was not specifically alleged or 
investigated during the investigation on lead bar, in UK Certain Steel 
the Department found that BSC/BS plc was uncreditworthy from 1977/78 
through 1985/86. 58 FR at 37395. No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances was presented in this review to warrant a 
reconsideration of that finding. Therefore, we have used a discount 
rate which includes a risk premium to calculate the benefit from the 
grants. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Certain Steel Products From Mexico, 58 FR 37352, 37354 
(July 9, 1993) (Mexican Steel).
    To calculate the benefit to the subject merchandise from this 
program, we first summed the benefit to BS plc from all infusions 
allocated to 1996. Then, we determined the portion of that benefit 
still remaining with BS plc after accounting for privatization and 
spin-offs. To that we added the portion of UES's subsidies under this 
program that ``rejoined'' BS plc with the acquisition. See the ``Change 
in Ownership'' section of the notice. We then divided the result by BS 
plc's total sales of merchandise produced in the United Kingdom in 
1996. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for 
this program to be 4.69 percent ad valorem in 1996.
(B) Regional Development Grant Program
    Regional development grants were paid to BSC/BS plc under the 
Industry Act of 1972 and the Industrial Development Act of 1982. In 
order to qualify for assistance under these two Acts, an applicant had 
to be engaged in manufacturing and located in an assisted area. 
Assisted areas are older, industrial regions identified as having deep-
seated, long-term problems such as high levels of unemployment, 
migration, slow economic growth, derelict land, and obsolete factory 
buildings. Regional development grants were given for the purchase of 
specific assets. According to the Government of the United Kingdom, the 
program involved one-time grants, sometimes disbursed over several 
years.
    BSC/BS plc received regional development grants during the period 
between fiscal years 1978/79 and 1985/86. The Department found this 
program countervailable in Lead Bar (58 FR at 6242), because it is 
limited to specific regions. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances was presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration 
of that finding.
    In Lead Bar, we determined that, because each grant required a 
separate application, these grants are non-recurring. Accordingly, we 
have calculated the benefits from this program by allocating the 
benefits over BS plc's company-specific average useful life of 
renewable physical assets (18 years). Since BSC/BS plc was 
uncreditworthy from 1978/79 through 1985/86 (as discussed under the 
``Equity Infusions'' section, above), we have used a discount rate 
which includes a risk premium (see Mexican Steel, 58 FR at 37354) to 
calculate the benefits from these grants.
    To calculate the benefit from this program, we followed the 
methodology described above in the section on ``Equity Infusions''. On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program 
to be 0.15 percent ad valorem in 1996.
(C) National Loan Funds Loan Cancellation
    In conjunction with the 1981/1982 capital reconstruction of BSC, 
section 3(1) of the Iron and Steel Act of 1981 extinguished certain 
National Loans Fund (NLF) loans, as well as the interest accrued 
thereon, at the end of BSC's 1980/81 fiscal year. Because this loan 
cancellation was provided specifically to BSC, the Department 
determined in Lead Bar (58 FR at 6242) that it provided a 
countervailable benefit. No

[[Page 64571]]

new information or evidence of changed circumstances was presented in 
this review to warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
    We calculated the benefit for this review using our standard 
methodology for non-recurring grants. We allocated the benefits from 
this loan cancellation over BS plc's company-specific average useful 
life of renewable physical assets (18 years). Because BSC/BS plc was 
found to be uncreditworthy in 1981/82 (as discussed under ``Equity 
Infusions'' section, above), we have used a discount rate which 
includes a risk premium. See Mexican Steel, 58 FR at 37354.
    To calculate the benefit from this program, we followed the 
methodology described above in the section on ``Equity Infusions''. On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program 
to be 0.44 percent ad valorem in 1996.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily find that the 
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise subject to this 
review did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs 
during the POR:

(A) New Community Instrument Loans
(B) ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees
(C) NLF Loans
(D) ECSC Conversion Loans
(E) European Regional Development Fund Aid
(F) Article 56 Rebates
(G) Regional Selective Assistance
(H) ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment Aid
(I) Inner Urban Areas Act of 1978
(J) LINK Initiative
(K) European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest 
Rebates

III. Program Previously Determined To Be Terminated

Transportation Assistance
    The Department found this program to be terminated in the 1995 
administrative review of this countervailing duty order. See Lead Bar 
1995 Final Results.

IV. Other Programs Examined

    We also examined the following programs:

BRITE/EuRAM and Standards Measurement and Testing Program

    BS plc received assistance under these two European Union programs 
to fund research and development. The European Union claimed that 
assistance provided under both of these programs is non-countervailable 
in accordance with Article 8.2(a) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and section 771(5B)(B) of the Act (which 
provide that certain research and development subsidies are not 
countervailable). We preliminarily determine that it is not necessary 
to determine whether BRITE/EuRAM and the Standards Measurement and 
Testing Program qualify for non-countervailable treatment because 
combined, the assistance provided under both of these programs would 
result in a rate of less than 0.005 percent ad valorem, and thus would 
have no impact on the overall countervailing duty rate calculated for 
this POR. For this same reason we have not conducted a specificity 
analysis of these programs. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination: Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 62 FR 54990, 54995-
54996 (October 22, 1997); Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16549 
(April 7, 1997) and Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
64062, 64065 (December 3, 1996); Final Negative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Laminated Hardwood Trailer Flooring (``LHF'') 
From Canada, 62 FR 5201 (February 4, 1997); Industrial Phosphoric Acid 
From Israel; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 53351 (October 11, 1996) and Industrial Phosphoric Acid 
From Israel; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 28845 (June 6, 1996).

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(c)(4)(ii), we have calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this 
administrative review. As discussed in the ``Change in Ownership'' 
section of the notice, above, we are treating British Steel plc and 
British Steel Engineering Steels as one company for purposes of this 
proceeding. For the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, 
we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for British Steel plc/
British Steel Engineering Steels (BS plc/BSES) to be 5.28 percent ad 
valorem. 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 BS plc/BSES at 5.28 
percent ad valorem. The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to collect a cash deposit of 5.28 percent of the f.o.b. 
invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from BS plc/
BSES/UES, 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. See 19 CFR 
355.22(a). 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 identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)). 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 
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order are those established in the most recently completed 
administrative proceeding, conducted pursuant to the statutory 
provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments. See 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 54841 (October 26, 1995). These rates shall apply to all 
non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates 
is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1996 through 
December 31, 1996, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed 
companies covered by

[[Page 64572]]

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; 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 
argument 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)).

    Dated: December 1, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-32062 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P