Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45229

1See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

values result in dumping margins that

range from 9.61 percent to 10.05

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSWR from Germany,

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

We have examined the petition on

SSWR and have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act,

including the requirements concerning

allegations of the material injury or

threat of material injury to the domestic

producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the subject imports, allegedly

sold at less than fair value. Therefore,

we are initiating antidumping duty

investigations to determine whether

imports of SSWR from Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless extended, we will make

our preliminary determinations for the

antidumping duty investigations by

January 6, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Germany, Italy, Japan,

Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. We

will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition (as

appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by September

15, 1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSWR from

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause

material injury, to a U.S. industry. Any

negative ITC determination will result

in the particular investigation being

terminated; otherwise, the

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–22690 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–475–821]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Lockard or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

3099, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2786.

Initiation of Investigation

The 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’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations as amended by

the regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27295).

The Petition

On July 30, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by AL Tech

Speciality Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Republic Engineered

Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc.,

and United Steelworkers of America,

AFL–CIO/CLC (the petitioners).

Supplements to the petition were filed

on August 6, 13, 14, and 15, 1997.

In accordance with section 701(a) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

producers and/or exporters of SSWR in

Italy receive countervailable subsidies.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory provision regarding the

domestic like product (section 771(10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the domestic like product,

such differences do not render the

decision of either agency contrary to the

law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The petition refers to the single

domestic like product defined in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, below.

The Department has no basis on the

record to find the petition’s definition of

the domestic like product to be

inaccurate. In this regard, we have

found no basis on which to reject

petitioners’ representations that there

are clear dividing lines, in terms of
45230 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

characteristics and uses, between the

product under investigation and other

coiled steel products. The Department

has, therefore, adopted the domestic like

product definition set forth in the

petition. In this case, petitioners

established industry support

substantially above the statutory

requirement. Accordingly, the

Department determines that the petition

is filed on behalf of the domestic

industry within the meaning of section

702(b)(1) of the Act.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation,

certain SSWR comprises products that

are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed

and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds,

squares, octagons, hexagons or other

shapes, in coils, that may also be coated

with a lubricant containing copper, lime

or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more

of chromium, with or without other

elements. These products are

manufactured only by hot-rolling or hotrolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/

or descaling, and are normally sold in

coiled form, and are of solid crosssection. The majority of SSWR sold in

the United States is round in crosssectional shape, annealed and pickled,

and later cold-finished into stainless

steel wire or small-diameter bar.

The most common size for such

products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217

inches in diameter, which represents

the smallest size that normally is

produced on a rolling mill and is the

size that most wire drawing machines

are set up to draw. The range of SSWR

sizes normally sold in the United States

is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches

in diameter. Two stainless steel grades

SF20T and K–M35FL are excluded from

the scope of the investigation. The

chemical makeup for the excluded

grades are as follows:

SF20T

Carbon .......................................... 0.05 max ....................................... Chromium ..................................... 19.00/21.00

Manganese ................................... 2.00 max ....................................... Molybdenum .................................. 1.50/2.50

Phosphorous ................................. 0.05 max ....................................... Lead .............................................. Added (0.10/0.30)

Sulfur ............................................. 0.15 max ....................................... Tellurium ....................................... Added (0.03 min)

Silicon ............................................ 1.00 max.

K–M35FL

Carbon .......................................... 0.015 max ..................................... Nickel ............................................ 0.30 max

Silicon ............................................ 0.70/1.00 ....................................... Chromium ...................................... 12.50/14.00

Manganese ................................... 0.40 max ....................................... Lead .............................................. 0.10/0.30

Phosphorous ................................. 0.04 max ....................................... Aluminum ...................................... 0.20/0.35

Sulfur ............................................. 0.03 max.

The products under investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and

7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of this investigation is dispositive.

As we discussed in the preamble to

the new regulations (62 FR at 27323),

we are setting aside a period for

interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all interested

parties to submit such comments by

September 15, 1997. Comments should

be addressed to Import Administration’s

Central Records Unit at Room 1874, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania

Avenue and 14th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. This period of

scope consultation is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Consultations

On August 13, 1997, pursuant to

Section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the

Department held consultations with

representatives of the European

Commission (‘‘EC’’) and the

Government of Italy (‘‘GOI’’) with

respect to the petition.

Injury Test

Because Italy is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the

U.S. International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) must determine whether

imports of the subject merchandise from

Italy materially injure, or threaten

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegation of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition, on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation

The Department has examined the

petition on SSWR from Italy and found

that it complies with the requirements

of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore,

in accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, we are initiating a countervailing

duty investigation to determine whether

producers and/or exporters of SSWR

from Italy receive subsidies.

Company Histories

Petitioners have made specific

subsidy allegations with respect to three

Italian SSWR producers: Cogne Acciai

Speciali CAS S.r.l. (‘‘Cogne’’), Acciaierie

di Bolzano S.p.A. (‘‘Bolzano’’) and

Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (‘‘Valbruna’’).

Cogne was a subsidiary of the ILVA

Group (or its precursors) until 1993, at

which time it was privatized and sold

to the Marzorati Group. ILVA and its

precursors were subsidiaries of the

Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale

(‘‘IRI’’), which, in turn, was owned by

the GOI. In a stock swap approved in

1991, 22.4 percent of Cogne was

transferred to Falck, the privatelyowned parent company of Bolzano, in

return for shares accounting for 44.8

percent of Bolzano. In 1993, ILVA

reacquired Falck’s shares of Cogne and

returned the Bolzano shares to Falck.

Bolzano was 100 percent owned and

controlled by Falck between 1982–1991

and 1993–1995. In a stock swap

approved in 1991, 44.8 percent of

Bolzano was acquired by ILVA, and

Falck’s share of the company dropped to

55.2 percent. As discussed above, Falck
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45231

2We note that the EC has ordered repayment of

the Provincial Grants/Loans provided to Bolzano.

During consultations, the EC stated that the

assistance will be repaid even though the EC

decision is under appeal. In the investigation, we

intend to look into the possibility that the

assistance has been repaid.

reacquired these shares in 1993 when it

returned the shares of Cogne to ILVA. In

1995, Bolzano was sold to Valbruna.

Valbruna is owned and controlled by

the Gruppo Amenduni. Valbruna now

owns and controls 100 percent of

Bolzano.

Equityworthiness

In the July 30, 1997 petition,

petitioners alleged that ILVA was

unequityworthy from 1982 through

1994; Cogne was unequityworthy from

1982 through 1996; Bolzano was

unequityworthy from 1990 through

1996; and Falck was unequityworthy

from 1992 through 1994. However, on

August 13, 1997, petitioners clarified

that they are not alleging any previously

uninvestigated equity infusions other

than the equity infusion provided to

ILVA in 1992 and approved by the EC

in 1993. As petitioners only allege

corresponding equity infusions for ILVA

in 1982, 1984 through 1988, and 1991

through 1993, we will not examine

ILVA’s equityworthiness in 1983 and

1989 through 1990.

Creditworthiness

Petitioners allege ILVA was

uncreditworthy from 1982 through

1994; Cogne was uncreditworthy from

1982 through 1996; Bolzano was

uncreditworthy from 1990 through

1996; and Falck was uncreditworthy

from 1992 through 1994. We will

investigate ILVA’s creditworthiness

from 1982 through 1994, Cogne’s

creditworthiness from 1994 through

1996, Bolzano’s creditworthiness from

1995 through 1996 and Falck’s

creditworthiness from 1992 through

1994 to the extent government equity

infusions, loans or loan guarantees were

provided in those years.

Programs

We are including in our investigation

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided subsidies to

producers and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Italy:

Government of Italy Programs

1. Debt Forgiveness: Finsider-to-ILVA

Restructuring (predecessor

companies)

2. Equity Infusions to ILVA and

Precursor Companies

3. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 Restructuring

Plan

4. 1992 Equity Infusions to ILVA

(Approved by the EC in 1993)

5. ILVA Pre-Privatization Assistance

and Debt Forgiveness

6. R&D Grants

7. Law 481/94 and Precursors

8. Decree Law 120/89

9. Deliberazione: Law 46 Grants for

Technological Innovation

10. Law 675

a. Interest Grants on Bank Loans

b. Mortgage Loans

c. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans

d. Personnel Retraining Aid

11. Law 193/84 Programs

12. Grants and Loans for Reduction of

Production Capacity: Laws 46 and

706

13. Law 796/76 Exchange Rate

Guarantees

14. Law 227/77 Export Loans and

Remission of Taxes

15. Law 394/81 Export Marketing Grants

and Loans

16. Law 451/94 Early Retirement

Assistance

17. Subsidies for Operating Expenses

and ‘‘Easy Term’’ Funds

Regional Programs of the Government of

Italy

1. Law 488/92 and Legislative Decree

96/93

2. Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95

Programs of Regional Governments

1. Valle d’Aosta Regional Assistance

Associated With the Sale of Cogne

Including Laws 1/96 and 28/96

2. Valle d’Aosta Regional Law 16/88

Modifying Law 33/73

3. Valle d’Aosta Regional Law 64/92

4. Valle d’Aosta Regional Law 12/87

5. Valle d’Aosta Regional Law 3/92

6. Bolzano/Trentino Alto-Adige

Regional Assistance Associated

with the Sale of Bolzano

7. Provincial Grants/Loans Provided to

Bolzano 2

8. Bolzano Law 44/92

European Commission Programs

1. European Coal and Steel Community

(ECSC) Article 54 Loans

2. Interest Rebates on ECSC Article 54

Loans

3. ECSC Article 56 Loans

4. European Social Fund

5. European Regional Development

Fund

6. Resider Program

7. 1993 European Commission Steel

Funds

We are not including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged to be benefitting producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise in

Italy:

1. Grants to ILVA: The petitioners

allege that, in a previous investigation of

steel products, the Department

countervailed various programs that

provided grants to ILVA; however, the

amounts of the grants exceeded those

authorized by the GOI and the EC. (See

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from Italy, 58 FR 37327 (July 9, 1993)

(‘‘Certain Steel’’). Because there was no

verification of ILVA’s response in that

investigation, we countervailed the

excess as miscellaneous grants based on

best information available (BIA).

However, in a subsequent

investigation, it was verified that these

miscellaneous grants were included in

Law 675/77 programs. See Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Grain-Oriented

Electrical Steel from Italy, 59 FR 18357

(April 18, 1994) (‘‘Electrical Steel’’).

Since the Department is initiating an

investigation on these Law 675/77

programs, this alleged subsidy is already

captured. As such, we are not initiating

separately on ‘‘grants to ILVA.’’

2. Interest Subsidies under Law 617/

81: The petitioners allege that, in 1982,

IRI issued two trillion lire worth of

bonds. It then re-lent these funds to its

subsidiaries. Of that amount, over 900

billion lire was provided to ILVA’s

predecessor company, Nuovo Italsider.

Under Law 617/81, the GOI promised to

pay 11 percent of the total interest costs

of the loans. In Certain Steel, this

program was countervailed as a nonrecurring grant based on BIA. In

Electrical Steel, this program was

determined not to be used because none

of the loans were outstanding during the

POI in that investigation. Because, as

determined in Electrical Steel, the loans

on which these interest payments had

been made were no longer outstanding

in 1992, we are not initiating on this

program.

3. Law 675: Value Added Tax (VAT)

Reductions: The petitioners allege that

VAT Reductions under law 675 were

countervailed in Certain Steel; however,

in Electrical Steel, this program was

found to be targeted to southern Italy.

Since none of the producers of subject

merchandise are located in southern

Italy, and petitioners have not provided

any information that demonstrates that

firms outside of southern Italy are

eligible for benefits under this program,

we are not initiating on this program.

4. Other Government Loans:

Petitioners request that the Department

investigate financing provided by the

GOI to producers of subject

merchandise. Several of the producers

of subject merchandise have received

loans from the GOI or GOI-owned

banks. However, petitioners have not

presented sufficient information to
45232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

indicate that these loans are at

noncommercial rates, or otherwise

provide a benefit to producers of subject

merchandise. Of the loans identified by

petitioners, one loan appears to have

been on preferential terms to a producer

of subject merchandise. However, that

loan was provided under law 46, which

we have included in this investigation.

Therefore, we are not initiating on this

allegation regarding ‘‘other government

loans.’’

5. Government Loan Guarantees:

Petitioners allege that several third party

loan guarantees listed in the producers’

annual reports are likely to have been

provided by the government at

preferential rates. Petitioners claim that

these guarantees may be the same, or

similar to, loan guarantees

countervailed by the Department in

Certain Steel.

The Department countervailed

government loan guarantees provided

by IRI and Finsider in Certain Steel

based on BIA. However, in Electrical

Steel, these loan guarantees were found

to have been provided only by Finsider,

not IRI. Since Finsider was in

liquidation, and therefore could not

have paid the loan even if required to,

the Department found that these loan

guarantees provided no benefit.

Petitioners have not provided any

information that indicates that the

guarantees listed in the company’s

annual reports are provided by the

government at preferential rates, nor

have they provided any information

demonstrating that these guarantees, if

provided by the government, were done

so on a specific basis. Therefore, we are

not initiating on these loan guarantees.

6. Bolzano/Trentino-Alto Adige Law

9/91: Petitioners allege that Law 9/91,

which provides easy term loans to

stimulate local economic activity,

provides countervailable benefits to

producers of subject merchandise.

Loans under this law are available to

companies in tourism, agriculture, crafts

and services. Petitioners have not

shown that producers of subject

merchandise would be eligible for

benefits under this provision. Moreover,

they have not provided sufficient

information to indicate that Law 9/91

would be specific. Therefore, we are not

initiating on this program.

7. Trentino-Alto Adige Law 8/95:

Petitioners allege that the region of

Trentino-Alto Adige provides various

incentives under Law 8/95 to promote

local industry, commerce, services,

crafts and tourism. However, they have

not provided sufficient information to

indicate that the incentives provided

under this law are specific. Therefore,

we are not initiating on Law 8/95 of the

region of Trentino-Alto Adige.

8. Veneto Law 39/87: Petitioners

allege that Law 39/87 of the Veneto

region provides countervailable benefits

to producers of subject merchandise.

This law establishes a registry for

financial assistance in the province.

Based on the information contained in

the petition, this law seems to be simply

an administrative measure that requires

companies to register with the province

before applying for assistance.

Petitioners have provided no basis to

believe that Law 39/87 provide any

benefits; therefore, we are not initiating

on this program.

9. Veneto Law 16/93: Petitioners

allege that Law 16/93 of the Veneto

region provides countervailable benefits

to producers of subject merchandise.

This law established various initiatives

designed to promote the economic and

social development of Veneto’s eastern

region. However, based on evidence in

the petition, Valbruna, the only

producer of subject merchandise located

in the Veneto Region, is not located in

the eastern portion of the region and

there is no indication that other parts of

the region are eligible for benefits. As no

producers of subject merchandise

appear eligible for benefits under this

law, we are not initiating on this

program.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and section

351.203(c)(2) of the Department’s

regulations, copies of the public version

of the petition have been provided to

the representatives of the GOI and the

EC. We will attempt to provide copies

of the public version of the petition to

all the exporters named in the petition.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act

and section 351.203(c)(1) of the

Department’s regulations, we have

notified the ITC of this initiation.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by September

15, 1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is being materially

injured, or is threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from Italy

of SSWR. Any ITC determination which

is negative will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 702(c)(2) of the Act and section

351.203(c)(1) of the Department’s

Regulations.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–22687 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of New Mexico Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–043. Applicant:

University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, NM 87131–6041.

Instrument: X-Ray Photoelectron

Spectrometer, Model AXIS HSi.

Manufacturer: Kratos Analytical, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 32766, June 17, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of purchase (December 19, 1996).

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides magnetic charge equalization

for uniform charge compensation across

the sample surface. The U.S.

Department of Energy advises that (1)

this capability is pertinent to the

applicant’s intended purpose and (2) it

knows of no domestic instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument for the

applicant’s intended use at the time of

purchase.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–22691 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P