[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
