[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43673-43677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-412-811]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain 
hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products (``lead bar'') from 
the United Kingdom for the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 
1997. The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 
For information on the net subsidy for each reviewed company, and for 
all non-reviewed companies, please see the Final Results of Review 
section of this notice. We will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
countervailing duties as detailed in the Final Results of Review 
section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Stephanie Moore, 
Group II, 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

    Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.213(b), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review 
was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers British 
Steel plc./British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (formerly United 
Engineering Steels Limited). This review also covers the period January 
1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 and nine programs.
    Since the publication of the preliminary results on April 7, 1999 
(64 FR 16920), the following events have occurred. We invited 
interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. On May 7, 
1999 case briefs were submitted by British Steel Engineering Steels 
Limited (``BSES''), which exported to the United States during the 
review period (``respondent''), and Inland Steel Bar Co. 
(``petitioner''). On May 12, 1999 rebuttal briefs were submitted by 
BSES and Inland Steel Bar Co.

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. All citations to the 
Department's regulations reference 19 C.F.R. Part 351, (1998) unless 
otherwise indicated.

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; 7213.91.30.00, 
45.00. 60.00; 7213.99.00; 7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 
00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.91.00; 7214.99.00 and 
7228.30.80.00, 80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for Customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Subsidies Value Information

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

[[Page 43674]]

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel 
Products From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6237, 6243 (January 27, 1993) 
(``Lead Bar''). 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, 58 FR 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'').
    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, Vol. 1, 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 50 percent ownership stake in 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 determined that BS plc's 
remaining subsidies are attributable to the subject merchandise, now 
produced by BS plc's wholly-owned subsidiary, BSES. 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''). 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.
(II) Calculation of Benefit
    To calculate the countervailing duty rate for the subject 
merchandise in 1997, we first determined BS plc's benefits in 1997, 
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 1997.

Allocation Methodology

    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 the allocation period methodology for non-
recurring subsidies that the Department has employed for the past 
decade, a

[[Page 43675]]

methodology that was articulated in the General Issues Appendix (58 FR 
at 37226). In accordance with the Court's decision on remand, the 
Department determined that the most reasonable method of deriving the 
allocation period for nonrecurring subsidies is a company-specific 
average useful life (``AUL'') of non-renewable physical assets. For 
British Steel, we determined this allocation period to be 18 years. 
This remand determination was affirmed by the Court on June 4, 1996. 
British Steel, 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). 
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 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

    Based upon the responses to our questionnaire and written comments 
from the interested parties we determine the following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to Confer Subsidies

1. Equity Infusions
    In the preliminary results we found that this program conferred 
countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the 
record shows that no new information has been placed on it which shows 
that this program does not continue to confer countervailable 
subsidies. This and our analysis of the comments submitted by the 
interested parties, summarized below, has not led us to change our 
findings from the preliminary results. Accordingly, the net subsidies 
for this program, which is 4.07 percent ad valorem, remains unchanged 
from the preliminary results.
2. Regional Development Grant Program
    In the preliminary results we found that this program conferred 
countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the 
record shows that no new information has been placed on it which shows 
that this program does not continue to confer countervailable 
subsidies. This and our analysis of the comments submitted by the 
interested parties, summarized below, has not led us to change our 
findings from the preliminary results. Accordingly, the net subsidies 
for this program, which is 0.14 percent ad valorem, remains unchanged 
from the preliminary results.
3. National Loan Funds Loan Cancellation
    In the preliminary results we found that this program conferred 
countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the 
record shows that no new information has been placed on it which shows 
that this program does not continue to confer countervailable 
subsidies. This and our analysis of the comments submitted by the 
interested parties, summarized below, has not led us to change our 
findings from the preliminary results. Accordingly, the net subsidies 
for this program, which is 0.43 percent ad valorem, remains unchanged 
from the preliminary results.

II. Programs Found To Be Not Used

    In the preliminary results we found that the producers and/or 
exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive 
benefits under the following programs:

A. New Community Instrument Loans
B. NLF Loans
C. Regional Selective Loans
D. ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment Aid
E. Inner Urban Areas Act of 1978
F. LINK Initiative

    We did not receive any comments on these programs from the 
interested parties, and our review of the record has not led us to 
change our findings from the preliminary results.

III. Other Programs Examined

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 determine that it is not necessary to address 
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 the 
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).

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Application of the Repayment Methodology

    According to the petitioner, the Department's subsidy repayment 
methodology is inconsistent with the countervailing duty statute, basic 
economic principles, and evidence produced in this proceeding. The 
petitioner contends that the Department's subsidy credit methodology is 
invalid, that there is no evidence of repayment, and that BS plc's 
acquisition of GKN's shares does not differ from sales of shares traded 
daily on the stock market. Because BSES is in the same position as 
BSC's special steels business in 1985, all of UES's subsidies should 
travel back to BS plc, subsequent to GKN's sale of UES shares to BS 
plc. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the GIA and Certain Pasta 
from Italy are distinguishable from the current case.
    In rebuttal, the respondent points out that the petitioner's 
arguments with respect to the attribution of a portion of UES's 
subsidies to GKN have been examined by the Department in the 1995 and 
1996 administrative reviews and rejected by the Department. The 
respondent argues that petitioner's contention that the Department's 
repayment methodology should not be applied to the1986 privatization of 
the assets of British Steel Corporation's Special Steel Division and BS 
plc's 1995 acquisition of GKN is not correct. The respondent asserts 
that these two transactions were authentic and substantive undertakings 
enacted for separate and important commercial reasons. The respondent 
further argues that these transactions were not carried

[[Page 43676]]

out for purposes of evading U.S. countervailing duties. Therefore, the 
respondent asserts that the Department has no basis to disregard the 
validity or substance of these transactions and there is no basis to 
not apply the repayment methodology.

Department's Position

    Our position with respect to the petitioner's comments was outlined 
in detail in the 1995 review of this case. See Lead Bar 95 Final 
Results, 62 FR at 53309-10. The petitioner has not presented any new 
arguments or facts that would lead the Department to depart from its 
original conclusion with respect to this issue. Further, the 
Department's position was strengthened with the CAFC's holding in 
British Steel, affirming the Department's discretion to apply the 
repayment methodology. For these reasons, we continue to apply the 
repayment methodology in these final results.

Comment 2: The ``Change in Ownership'' Issue

    BSES argues that the Department should revisit its determinations 
on the change-in-ownership issues in this case because the effect of 
the URAA amendments on change in ownership transactions is currently 
under consideration by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Delverde, SRL v. United States, 24 
F.Supp.2d 314 (CIT 1998), appeal docketed, No. 99-1186 (Federal Circuit 
Jan. 13, 1999). The respondent states that pursuant to consent motions, 
the CIT has stayed the appeals of the Department's final results in 
both the 1995 and 1996 administrative reviews of this case pending the 
CAFC's decision in Delverde. According to the respondent, by raising 
this issue again in this review, BSES preserves the possibility that 
the final decision in Delverde may be applied to entries covered by 
this administrative review.
    The respondent claims that the Department countervailed BS plc's 
1997 production without any analysis of its 1988 privatization. The 
respondent also contends that to comply with the Change in Ownership 
provision of the URAA, the Department is required to conduct an 
analysis of the privatization transaction in order to determine whether 
subsidies pass through. Moreover, the respondent argues that 19 U.S.C. 
section 1677(5)(B) requires the Department to conduct an analysis to 
determine whether the privatized company has received a financial 
benefit from the past subsidies received by BSC. The respondent argues 
that current production of BS plc subject to countervailing duties is 
no longer subsidized because, as of the 1988 privatization, the company 
bears its full cost of capital to its shareholders on all funds and 
assets in the company. Moreover, the respondent contends that BSES 
received no financial benefit from the past subsidies to BSC. 
Therefore, the respondent argues that BSES cannot be subjected to 
countervailing duties based on past subsidies.
    In rebuttal, petitioner points out that BSES raises no new 
arguments in its case brief and the Department has already addressed 
and ruled against these arguments in Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and 
Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom (``Lead Bar 1994 
Final Results''), 61 FR 58377 (November 14, 1996). According to 
petitioner, the Department decided that its subsidy allocation 
methodology was in agreement with the URAA and used its discretion in 
determining the impact the change in ownership had on the 
countervailability of BS plc's past subsidies. The petitioner asserts 
that the Department has rejected BSES's claim that countervailable 
subsidies must be current benefits and the CAFC has also rejected 
similar arguments made by British Steel in Inland Steel Bar Co. v. 
United States, 155 F.3d 1370 (Federal Circuit 1998).
    The petitioner further argues that BSES has mischaracterized the 
Department's analysis in the preliminary results of this review and in 
the investigation and previous administrative reviews of this case in 
claiming that the Department has refused ``to consider the effect of a 
privatization'' and has used an ``irrebuttable presumption.'' The 
petitioner contends that the Department has examined the specific facts 
of this case and considered arguments raised by the parties in its 
determination of the allocation of subsidies. The petitioner cites to 
Comment 5 of the Lead Bar 1994 Final Results and asserts that the 
Department considered interested parties arguments regarding the 
``subsequent events rule'' and explained that the Department did not 
rely on such a rule in its findings in that review. See 61 FR at 58381.

Department's Position

    Our position with respect to the respondent's comments on these 
``change in ownership'' issues was outlined in detail in the 1994 
review of this case. See Lead Bar 1994 Final Results, 61 FR at 58378-
58380. The respondent has not presented any new arguments or facts that 
would lead the Department to depart from its original conclusion with 
respect to this issue. For these reasons, our preliminary determination 
with respect to the changes in ownership remains unchanged in these 
final results.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.221(b)(4)(i), we 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, 1997 through December 31, 1997, 
we determine the net subsidy for British Steel plc/British Steel 
Engineering Steels (BS plc/BSES) to be 4.64 percent ad valorem.
    We will instruct the Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess 
countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise from BS plc/
BSES during the POR at 4.64 percent ad valorem. The Department will 
also instruct Customs to collect a cash deposit of estimated 
countervailing duties of 4.64 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on 
all shipments of the subject merchandise from BS plc/BSES 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 
C.F.R. 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.212(c), 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 cannot 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). 
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-

[[Page 43677]]

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 
will be the rate for that company established in the most recently 
completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a 
review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most 
recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory 
provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is 
applicable. 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, 1997 through December 31, 1997, 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.
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: August 5, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20736 Filed 8-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P