[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20238-20242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11244]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[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 (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain hot 
rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom. 
We preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be 1.69 percent ad 
valorem for United Engineering Steels Limited. The net subsidies for 
non-reviewed companies are 20.33 percent ad valorem for Allied Steel 
and Wire Limited (ASW), and 9.76 percent ad valorem for all other non-
reviewed companies for the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 
1994. 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: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown or Christopher Cassel, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 22, 1993, 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, 
1995, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' (60 FR 12540) of this countervailing duty 
order. We received timely requests for review from United Engineering 
Steels Limited, Inland Steel Bar Co. and United States/Kobe Steel Co., 
interested parties to this administrative review. We initiated the 
review, covering the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, 
on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19018).
    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 United Engineering Steel Limited and British Steel plc. British 
Steel plc. stated that it did not produce or export the subject 
merchandise during the period of review (POR). Therefore,

[[Page 20239]]

British Steel plc. has not been assigned an individual company rate for 
this administrative review.
    On November 2, 1995, 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 Extension of the Time Limit for 
Certain Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 55699. As 
explained in the memoranda for the record from the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, dated November 22, 1995, and January 11, 
1996, all deadlines were further 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 
April 30, 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 
Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for 
Public Comments, 54 FR 23366 (May 31, 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 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 60 FR 80 (January 
3, 1995).

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.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES
    UES is a joint venture company formed in 1986 by British Steel 
Corporation (BSC) and Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds (GKN). In return for 
shares in UES, BSC contributed a major portion of its Special Steels 
Business and GKN contributed its Brymbo Steel Works and its forging 
business. BSC was wholly owned by the Government of the United Kingdom 
at the time the joint venture was formed; BSC was privatized in 1988 
and now bears the name British Steel plc (BS plc).
    In the investigation and first administrative review of this order, 
the Department found that BSC had received a number of subsidies prior 
to the 1986 sale of its Special Steels Business to UES (each of these 
subsidies to BSC is described in detail in Sections (1) through (4) 
below). 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) and 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of Administrative Review, 60 FR 54841, 
54842 (October 26, 1995) (Lead Bar II). The Department determined that 
the sale did not alter the benefit from these previously bestowed 
subsidies, and thus the portion of BSC's pre-1986 subsidies which was 
attributable to the Special Steels Business productive unit transferred 
to UES (see Lead Bar, 58 FR at 6240). The Department modified the Lead 
Bar allocation methodology in the subsequent Remand Determination for 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the 
United Kingdom which was based on the privatization methodology set out 
in the General Issues Appendix appended to the Final Countervailing 
Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 
37225 (July 9, 1993) (Certain Steel). In Certain Steel, the Department 
stated that it can no longer be assumed that the entire amount of 
subsidies allocated to a certain productive unit follows it when it is 
sold; rather, a portion of the sales price of the productive unit 
represents the repayment of prior subsidies.
    To calculate a rate for the subsidies that were allocated from BSC 
to UES, we first determined the subsidies attributable to BSC's Special 
Steels Business by dividing the asset value of BSC's Special Steels 
Business by the total asset value of BSC. We then applied this ratio to 
the net present value, in the year of the spin-off, of the future 
benefit streams from all of BSC's prior subsidies allocable to the POR. 
The future benefit streams at the time of UES' creation reflect the 
Department's allocation over time of prior subsidies to BSC in 
accordance with the declining balance methodology (see Proposed 
Regulations, Sec. 355.49), as well as the effect of prior spin-offs of 
BSC productive units.
    We next estimated the portion of the purchase price which 
represents repayment of prior subsidies by determining the portion of 
BSC's net worth that was accounted for by subsidies. To do that, we 
divided the face value of the allocable subsidies received by BSC in 
each year from fiscal year 1978/79 through fiscal year 1984/85 (the 
year prior to the creation of UES) by BSC'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 BSC's Special Steels Business at the time of sale to 
arrive at the amount of subsidies allocated to UES in 1986.
    Having determined the amount of BSC's previously bestowed subsidies 
allocable to UES with the Special Steels Business in 1986, we then 
determined the benefit provided to UES by these subsidies in 1994. To 
do this, we divided the subsidies allocated to UES by the net present 
value (in the year of the spin-off) of the future benefit

[[Page 20240]]

streams from subsidies received by BSC prior to the spin-off and 
allocable to the POR. The resulting percentage, which represents the 
portion of BSC's future benefit streams to be apportioned to UES, was 
then multiplied by the total benefit amount from BSC's previously 
bestowed subsidies that would have been allocated to BSC in 1994 absent 
any spin-offs or privatization. This provides the benefits to UES in 
1994. We divided these benefit amounts by the company's total sales in 
1994, and preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be 1.69 percent ad 
valorem for UES during 1994.
    In determining the subsidies previously bestowed to BSC that were 
allocated to UES, we examined the following programs: equity infusions, 
Regional Development Grants, a National Loan Fund loan cancellation, 
and loans and interest rebates under ECSC Article 54.
(1) Equity Infusions
    In every year from 1978/79 through 1985/86, BSC 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 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 under section 18(1) since it already owned 100 percent of the 
company.
    In Lead Bar (58 FR at 6241), the Department found BSC 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 
(<brit-pound>3,000 million in 1981 and <brit-pound>1,000 million in 
1982) as part of a capital reconstruction of BSC, the Department 
determined that BSC 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 benefits, we have allocated the benefits over the 
average useful life of renewable physical assets in the steel industry 
(15 years) in accordance with our non-recurring grant methodology. See 
Proposed Regulations, Sec. 355.49; see also Certain Steel, 58 FR at 
37230.
    To calculate the benefit from these grants, we have used a discount 
rate which includes a risk premium. See Proposed Regulations, 
Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(iv). While uncreditworthiness was not specifically 
alleged or investigated during the investigation on lead bar, in the 
Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from 
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37393 (July 9, 1993) (UK Certain Steel), the 
Department found that BSC was uncreditworthy from 1977/78 through 1985/
86. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances was 
presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
    After calculating the 1994 allocation of subsidies from BSC to UES, 
as described above (Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES), we 
divided the subsidies allocated to UES by the company's total sales of 
all products domestically produced during 1994. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 1.49 
percent ad valorem in 1994.
(2) Regional Development Grant Program
    Regional development grants were paid to BSC 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, disbursed sometimes over several years.
    BSC 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.
    The Government of the United Kingdom claimed that the Regional 
Development Grants provided to BSC should be treated as non-
countervailable green light subsidies, in accordance with section 
771(5)(B) of the Act and Article 8.2(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. To be considered a non-
countervailable green light subsidy, the Department must determine that 
the program under which the subsidies were bestowed satisfied all of 
the criteria set forth in the Act. Therefore, we requested that the UK 
Government submit information on the Regional Development Grant program 
in light of these criteria. We determined that the information 
submitted by the UK Government it its January 23, 1996 questionnaire 
response was insufficient to conduct a full analysis of the program in 
view of the green light criteria, and, therefore, sought additional and 
clarifying information in our February 6, 1996, supplemental 
questionnaire. However, on April 16, 1996, the UK Government submitted 
a letter indicating that the authorities responsible for collecting the 
information had concluded that the limited existing documentation was 
inadequate to meet the Department's requests for information, and no 
additional material was provided. Consequently, for the purpose of this 
administrative review, we continue to find the Regional Development 
Grant program countervailable and we will not make a determination as 
to whether the Regional Development Grant program meets the green light 
criteria set forth in section 771(5)(B) of the Act.
    In Lead Bar, we determined that, since 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 the average useful life of renewable physical assets in 
the steel industry (15 years) in accordance with our non-recurring 
grant methodology. See Certain Steel, 58 FR at 37227; see also Proposed 
Regulations, Sec. 355.49. Since BSC was uncreditworthy from 1978/79 
through 1985/86 (as discussed under Equity Infusions), we have used a 
discount rate which includes a risk premium (see Proposed Regulations, 
Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(iv)) to calculate the benefits from these grants. 
After calculating the 1994 allocation of

[[Page 20241]]

subsidies from BSC to UES, described above (Allocation of Subsidies 
From BSC to UES), we divided the subsidies allocated to UES by the 
company's total sales in 1994 and calculated the subsidy for that year. 
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this 
program to be 0.05 percent ad valorem for UES during 1994.
(3) 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 accrued interest 
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 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 the average useful life of renewable 
physical assets in the steel industry (15 years) (see Proposed 
Regulations, Sec. 355.49; see also Certain Steel, 58 FR at 37230); 
because BSC was found to be uncreditworthy in 1981/82 (as discussed 
under Equity Infusions), we have used a discount rate which includes a 
risk premium (see Proposed Regulations, Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(iv)). After 
calculating the 1994 allocation of subsidies from BSC to UES, described 
above (Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES), we divided the benefit 
allocated to UES by the company's total sales in 1994 and calculated 
the ad valorem subsidy for that year. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net subsidy for this program to be 0.16 percent ad 
valorem for UES during 1994.
(4) European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest 
Rebates
    The European Coal and Steel Community's (ECSC) Article 54 
Industrial Investment loans are direct, long-term loans from the 
Commission of the European Communities to be used by the iron and steel 
industry for purchasing new equipment or financing modernization. The 
purpose of the program is to facilitate the borrowing process for 
companies in the ECSC, some of which may not otherwise be able to 
obtain loans. In UK Certain Steel, the Department determined that this 
program is limited to the iron and steel industry, and thus is 
countervailable to the extent that it provides loans on terms 
inconsistent with commercial considerations. No new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to 
warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
    In addition, interest rebates on Article 54 loans were granted to 
steel companies during the restructuring and modernization of the 
industry in the early 1980s. To qualify for the rebates, companies had 
to meet certain criteria, such as being in the process of reducing 
their steel production capacity or of implementing improvements in 
processing that would yield energy savings and improved efficiency.
    The interest rebates, which were limited to a maximum of 3 percent 
of the total investment over a period of five years, were funded from 
the ECSC operational budget. While levies imposed on ECSC steel 
companies have provided the revenues for the operational budget since 
1985, contributions by Member States supplemented the budget before 
that time. For this reason, the Department determined in UK Certain 
Steel that a portion of those interest rebates was countervailable. 
Following the same methodology in this review to determine the 
countervailable portion, we calculated the ratio of the contributions 
by Member States to the ECSC's total available funds for each year in 
which the rebates were given, and then multiplied this ratio by the 
rebate amount.
    BSC received one Article 54 loan in fiscal year 76/77 and two 
Article 54 loans in fiscal year 77/78, all of which were provided in 
U.S. dollars and are still outstanding. BSC also received interest 
rebates during the first five years of the 76/77 loan. Because BSC 
qualified for the interest rebate at the time the loan was granted, we 
considered the rebate to constitute a reduction in the interest rate 
charged rather than a grant.
    We considered the loan made to BSC during its creditworthy period 
(i.e., in BSC's 76/77 fiscal year) separately from the two loans made 
during its uncreditworthy period (i.e., in BSC's 77/78 fiscal year). 
For the Article 54 loan provided when BSC was creditworthy, we used as 
our benchmark the average U.S. long-term commercial rate for 1977. We 
used this rate because we did not have information on U.S. dollar loans 
borrowed in the United Kingdom in 1977. To calculate the benefit from 
this loan we employed our long-term loan methodology. See Proposed 
Regulations, Sec. 355.49(c)(1). We then compared the amount of interest 
that would have been paid on the benchmark loan to the interest paid by 
BSC (factoring in the interest rebate as discussed above) and found 
that BSC's interest payments were higher than those it would have made 
on the benchmark loan. Therefore, we find that this particular loan was 
provided on terms consistent with commercial considerations.
    For the loans provided when BSC was uncreditworthy, we used as our 
benchmark the highest U.S. lending rate available for long-term fixed 
rate loans at the time the loan was granted, plus a risk premium equal 
to 12 percent of the U.S. prime rate for 1977. See, Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, 
from Canada, 54 FR 31991 (August 3, 1989); see also, Proposed 
Regulations, Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(iv). Again, we used a U.S. interest rate 
because we did not have information on U.S. dollar loans borrowed in 
the United Kingdom in 1977. We then compared the cost of the benchmark 
financing to the cost of the financing that BSC received under this 
program and found that the two Article 54 loans to BSC during its 
uncreditworthy period were provided on terms inconsistent with 
commercial considerations.
    To calculate the benefit from these loans we used our long-term 
loan methodology. See Proposed Regulations, Sec. 355.49(c)(1). Using 
this methodology and a benchmark discount rate which includes a risk 
premium (see Proposed Regulations, Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(iv)), we 
calculated the grant equivalent and allocated it over the life of the 
loans. Then we calculated the 1994 allocation of subsidies from BSC to 
UES, as described above (Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES). We 
then divided the subsidies allocated to UES by the company's total 
sales in that year to calculate the ad valorem subsidy. On this basis, 
we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 
0.0003 percent ad valorem for UES during 1994.

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

[[Page 20242]]

    (E) European Regional Development Fund Aid
    (F) Article 56 Rebates
    (G) Regional Selective Assistance
    (H) ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment Aid
    (I) BRITE/EuRAM II
    (J) Inner Urban Areas Act of 1978

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with section 355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department's 
Interim Regulations, we have calculated an individual subsidy rate for 
each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the 
period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, we preliminarily 
determine the net subsidy for United Engineering Steels Limited to be 
1.69 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 United 
Engineering Steels Limited at 1.69 percent ad valorem. The Department 
also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to collect a cash 
deposit of 1.69 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of 
the subject merchandise from United Engineering Steels Limited, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of the final results of this review.
    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 countervailing duty cases are 
now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Requests for 
administrative reviews must now specify the companies to be reviewed. 
See Sec. 355.22(a) of the Interim Regulations. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. Pursuant 
to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 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 C.F.R. 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on 
automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 C.F.R. 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 20.33 percent ad valorem 
for ASW and 9.76 percent ad valorem for all other non-reviewed 
companies, which are the rates calculated in the most recently 
completed administrative proceeding. See Lead Bar II, 60 FR at 54841. 
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, 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 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 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 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: April 29, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11244 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P