[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16920-16924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8626]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (``the Department'') is conducting
an 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. For information on the net subsidy for each reviewed company, as
well as 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
detailed in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
(See Public Comment section of this notice.)
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Christopher Cassel,
Group II, Office 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 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 11,
1998, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' (63 FR 11868) of this countervailing duty
order. We received a timely request for review, and we initiated the
review, covering the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997,
on April 24, 1998, (63 FR 20378).
In accordance with 19 CFR 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 Ltd. (formerly United
Engineering Steels Limited). This review also covers nine programs.
On December 7, 1998, we extended the period for completion of the
preliminary results pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended. See Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel
Products From the United Kingdom: Postponement of Preliminary Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (63 FR 67459). The
deadline for the final results of this review is no later than 120 days
from the date on which these preliminary results are published in the
Federal Register.
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
[[Page 16921]]
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. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Duty Absorption
On April 8, 1998, the Department received a request from
petitioners to conduct a duty absorption review to determine whether
British Steel Engineering Steels Ltd. absorbed countervailing duties.
The Department considered petitioners request and determined that it is
not appropriate to conduct a duty absorption inquiry in this
countervailing duty review because the rationale for conducting duty
absorption inquiries in antidumping duty proceedings are not relevant
in countervailing duty cases. For further discussion, see Memorandum to
Robert S. LaRussa from Holly Kuga, dated March 18, 1999, a public
document on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main
Commerce Building.
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 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
[[Page 16922]]
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
methodology that was articulated in the General Issues Appendix (58 FR
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).
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 1997. 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
1997. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for
this
[[Page 16923]]
program to be 4.07 percent ad valorem in 1997.
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 0.14 percent ad valorem in 1997.
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 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 0.43 percent ad valorem in 1997.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply
for or receive benefits under these programs during the period of
review:
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
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 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, 16553 (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, 53352 (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 351.221(b)(4)(i), 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, 1997 through December 31, 1997,
we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for British Steel plc/
British Steel Engineering Steels (BS plc/BSES) to be 4.64 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 (``Customs'') to assess countervailing duties for BS
plc/BSES at 4.64 percent ad valorem. The Department also intends to
instruct the 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
[[Page 16924]]
normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 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 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 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.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments
raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after
the time limit for filing case briefs. 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. Case
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may
request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing,
if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. 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 is issued and published in accordance
with sections 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: March 31, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8626 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
