[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23272-23276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-423-809, C-475-823, C-580-832, and C-791-806]


Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and the 
Republic of South Africa

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith (Belgium), at (202) 482-
1279; Cynthia Thirumalai (Italy), at (202) 482-4087; Christopher Cassel 
(the Republic of Korea), at (202) 482-4847; and Dana Mermelstein (the 
Republic of South Africa), at (202) 482-0984, Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 
(62 FR 27296).

The Petition

    On March 31, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a petition filed in proper form by or on behalf of Armco Inc., 
J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., Lukens Inc., United Steel Workers of 
America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union, and Zanesville 
Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (the petitioners). Armco Inc., J&L 
Specialty Steel, Inc., and Lukens Inc. are U.S. producers of stainless 
steel plate in coils (plate in coils). J&L Specialty Steel, Inc. is not 
a petitioner to the countervailing duty investigation involving 
Belgium. Supplements to the petition were filed on April 14, 15, 16, 
17, and 20, 1998.
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of the subject merchandise 
in Belgium, Italy, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and the Republic of 
South Africa (South Africa) receive countervailable subsidies within 
the meaning of section 701 of the Act.
    The petitioners state that they have standing to file the petition 
because they are interested parties, as defined under sections 
771(9)(c) and (d) of the Act.

Scope of the Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is 
certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 
width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or 
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject 
plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) 
provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following 
such processing. Excluded from the scope of this petition are the 
following: (1) plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or 
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and 
strip, and (4) flat bars.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 
7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 
7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to insure that the scope in the petition accurately 
reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 
Moreover, as we discussed in the preamble to the new regulations (62 FR 
27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to 
submit such comments by May 8, 1998. Comments should be addressed to 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended 
to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all 
comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of the relevant foreign governments for 
consultations with respect to the petition filed. On April 15, 1998, 
the Department held consultations with representatives of the 
governments of Italy and Belgium, and the European Commission (EC). On 
April 19, 1998, consultations were held with representatives of the 
government of South Africa. See the April 20, 1998, memoranda to the 
file regarding these consultations (public documents on file in the 
Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099).

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

[[Page 23273]]

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 definition of 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 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines domestic like product as ``a 
product that 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 domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single 
domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section, above. The Department has no basis to find the petition's 
definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The 
Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product definition 
set forth in the petition. For these investigations, petitioners have 
established a level of support for the petition commensurate with the 
statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See the April 20, 1998, 
memoranda to the file regarding industry support (public versions of 
the documents on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of 
Commerce, Room B-099).

Injury Test

    Because Belgium, Italy, Korea, and South Africa are ``Subsidies 
Agreement Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 
section 701(a)(2) applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the 
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) must determine whether 
imports of the subject merchandise from these countries materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated subsidized 
imports of the subject merchandise. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including business 
proprietary data from the petitioning firms and U.S. Customs import 
data. The Department assessed the allegations and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury and causation, and determined that these 
allegations are sufficiently supported by accurate and adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See the 
April 20, 1998, memoranda to the file regarding the initiation of these 
investigations (public documents on file in the Central Records Unit of 
the Department of Commerce, Room B-009).

Allegations 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 Investigations

    The Department has examined the petition on plate in coils from 
Belgium, Italy, Korea, and South Africa 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 countervailing duty 
investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of plate in coils from these countries receive subsidies. See 
the April 20, 1998, memoranda to the file regarding the initiation of 
these investigations (public documents on file in the Central Records 
Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099).

A. Belgium

    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 Belgium:

1. 1993 Expansion Grant
2. 1994 Environmental Grant
3. ``Investment and Interest'' Subsidies
4. Funding for Early Retirement
5. Societe Nationale de Credite a l'Industrie (SNCI) Loans
6. Belgian Industrial Finance Company (Belfin) Loans
7. Societe Nationale pour la Reconstruction des Secteurs Nationaux 
(SNSN) Advances
8. Benefits pursuant to the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (1970 Law)
    a. Grants and Interest Rebates
    b. Corporate Income Tax Exemption
    c. Accelerated Depreciation
    d. Real Estate Tax Exemption
    e. Capital Registration Tax Exemption
    f. Government Loan Guarantees
    g. Employment ``Premiums'
 9. Industrial Reconversion Zones (Inclusive of the ``Herstelwet'' Law)
10. Special Depreciation Allowance
11. Preferential Short-Term Export Credit
12. Interest Rate Rebates
13. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar that are Attributable to ALZ N.V. 
(ALZ)
    a. Assumption of Sidmar's Debt
    b. SidInvest
    c. Water Purification Grants
14. 1984 Debt to Equity Conversion and Purchase of ALZ Shares
European Commission Programs
1. ECSC Article 54 Loans & Interest Rebates
2. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates & Redeployment 
Aid
3. European Social Fund
4. European Regional Development Fund
5. Resider II Program

    We are not including in our investigation at this time the 
following programs alleged to be benefitting producers and exporters of 
the subject merchandise in Belgium:
    1. ``Employment Zone'' grants and tax exemptions. Petitioners 
allege that ALZ may have received non-recurring grants and tax 
exemptions under this program. Several Royal Decrees established 
``employment zones'' to provide benefits to industries located in 
certain

[[Page 23274]]

depressed regions. The evidence provided by petitioners does not 
indicate that ALZ is eligible to receive benefits from this program 
because it is not located in an employment zone. Therefore, we are not 
including this program in our investigation.
    2. Genk Plant capital investment by the Government of Belgium. 
Petitioners allege that ALZ received a countervailable benefit from a 
``capital injection'' made by state-owned investment companies and a 
partially state-owned steel firm. Petitioners allege that the benefit 
takes the form of either a grant, an equity infusion, or an interest-
free loan under the Industrial Reconversion Zones mentioned above. The 
evidence provided by petitioner does not support the allegation that 
this capital injection was a grant. Moreover, the petitioners have not 
provided sufficient information indicating that any ALZ stock purchased 
was done so inconsistent with the usual investment practice of a 
private investor. To the extent that any government assistance received 
may constitute an interest-free loan under the Industrial Reconversion 
program, we will examine such assistance in the context of 
investigating that program.

B. Italy

    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. Law 796/76: Exchange Rate Guarantee Program
 2. Benefits Associated with the 1988-1990 Restructuring
 3. Pre-Privatization Employment Benefits
 4. Law 120/89 Recovery Plan for the Steel Industry
 5. Law 181/89 Worker Adjustment/Redevelopment Assistance
 6. Law 345/92 Benefits for Early Retirement
 7. Law 706/85 Grants for Capacity Reduction
 8. Law 488/92 Aid to Depressed Areas
 9. Law 46/82 Assistance for Capacity Reduction
10. Working Capital Grants to ILVA, S.p.A. (ILVA)
11. ILVA Restructuring and Liquidation Grant
12. 1994 Debt Payment Assistance by the Instituto per la Riscostruzione 
Industriale (IRI)
13. Loan to KAI for purchase of Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (AST)
14. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 Restructuring Plan
15. Debt Forgiveness: Finsider-to-ILVA Restructuring
16. Debt Forgiveness: ILVA-to-AST Restructuring
17. Law 675/77
    a. Mortgage Loans
    b. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans
    c. Personnel Retraining Aid
    d. VAT Reductions
18. Law 193/84
    a. Interest Payments
    b. Closure Assistance
    c. Early Retirement Benefits
19. Law 394/81 Export Marketing Grants and Loans
20. Equity Infusions from 1978 through 1992
21. Uncreditworthiness for 1977 through 1997
22. 22. Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95
European Commission Programs
 1. EU Subsidy to AST to Construct a Mill
 2. ECSC Article 54 Loans & Interest Rebates
 3. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates & Redeployment 
Aid
 4. European Social Fund
 5. European Regional Development Fund
 6. Resider II Program (and successor programs)

    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to be benefitting producers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise in Italy:
    1. Decree Law 357/91. A translated portion of Law 357/91 provided 
by petitioners states that: [F]unds cannot be granted for investments 
concerning the following sections and production activities: (A) steel 
production as cited in Attachment 1 of the ECSC treaty.
    Petitioners have provided no information showing that stainless 
steel plate production, or any part of its production process, does not 
come under Attachment 1 of the ECSC treaty. Other sections of Law 357/
91 state that eligible firms must be small-or medium-sized with a 
maximum number of employees of 250--a number that is far less than the 
3,600 employees of the Italian producer (see p. 5, Exhibit D, April 15, 
1998, submission by petitioners). In addition, Article 1, par. 1 of Law 
357/91 states that eligible grants are to cover costs ``as long as 
these costs are not related to iron and steel industries.'' Contrary to 
petitioners' assertions that some benefits (e.g., interest subsidies 
under Article 6) may have different eligibility requirements, 
information on the record indicates that the requirements described 
above apply to all benefits. Based on the foregoing, we are not 
including Law 357/91 benefits in our investigation.
    2. Law 481/94 Funds for Capacity Reduction in the Metals Industry. 
In their submission of April 17, 1998, petitioners withdrew their 
allegation that AST may have benefitted from assistance under Law 481/
94 stating, ``it now appears that AST's production of subject 
merchandise did not benefit from this program.''
    3. Law 223/91 Benefits for Early Retirement. In the Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented 
Electrical Steel From Italy, 59 FR 18357 (April 18, 1994), the 
Department determined that benefits provided under Law 223/91, were not 
countervailable. Petitioners have not provided any new information 
which warrants a reexamination of that determination. Thus, we are not 
including this program in our investigation.

C. Republic of Korea

    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 Korea:

 1. Pre-1992 Government of Korea Direction of Credit
 2. Post-1992 Government of Korea Direction of Credit
 3. Tax Incentives for Highly-Advanced Technology Businesses
 4. Provision of Electricity at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
 5. Reserve for Investment
 6. Export Facility Loans
 7. Reserve for Export Loss Under the Tax Exemption and Reduction 
Control Act (TERCL)
 8. Reserve for Overseas Market Development Under the Tax Exemption and 
Reduction Control Act (TERCL)
 9. Unlimited Deduction of Overseas Entertainment Expenses
10. Short-Term Export Financing
11. Korean Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) Loans
12. Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance 
Corporation
13. Excessive Duty Drawback
14. Kwangyang Bay Project

    We are not including in our investigation the following program 
alleged to be benefitting producers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise in Korea:

Special Depreciation of Assets

    Petitioners allege that this program is contingent upon exports. In 
support of

[[Page 23275]]

their allegation, petitioners submitted a copy of Pohang Iron & Steel 
Company's (POSCO) (a named producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise) 1993 Annual Report. Because POSCO's 1993 Annual Report 
documents a line item for ``special depreciation of assets,'' 
petitioners assert that POSCO may have benefitted from this ``export-
oriented'' subsidy program. However, the relevant note in POSCO's 1993 
Annual Report states that the special depreciation is for ``facilities 
and equipment which operate longer than a standard eight-hour work 
day.'' The note further indicates that the ``special depreciation will 
no longer be allowed for financial reporting purposes, commencing in 
1994.'' Therefore, it does not appear that the special depreciation is 
contingent on exportation. Moreover, petitioners have not provided any 
evidence indicating POSCO received the special depreciation after 1993. 
Therefore, we are not including this program in our investigation.

D. Republic of South Africa

    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 South Africa:

1. IDC Capital Infusions in Columbus Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.
2. Tax Benefits Under Section 37E of the Income Tax Act
3. Export Assistance Under the Export Marketing Assistance and the 
Export Marketing and Investment Assistance Programs
4. Regional Industrial Development Program (RIDP)
5. Competitiveness Fund
6. Low Interest Rate Finance for the Promotion of Exports (LIFE) Scheme
7. Low Interest Rate Scheme for the Promotion of Exports
8. Import Financing through Impofin, Ltd.
    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to be benefitting producers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise in South Africa:
    1. Export finance guarantee program. According to a paper provided 
in the petition, published by the Industrial Development Corporation of 
South Africa Ltd. (IDC) and entitled Measures and Policies Impacting on 
South African Industry, this program is designed to help small- and 
medium-sized businesses which need financial assistance to execute 
export orders. In light of information in the petition indicating that 
stainless steel producers are large enterprises, petitioners have not 
provided any information to show that the producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise would be eligible for this program. On this basis, 
we are not including this program in our investigation.
    2. Export marketing allowance. The Department examined this program 
in the 1991 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
ferrochrome from South Africa (as Category D of the Export Incentive 
Program). See Ferrochrome from South Africa; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 7043 (February 6, 
1995); Ferrochrome from South Africa; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 59988 (November 12, 
1993). In that review, the Department found that companies could deduct 
from taxable income marketing expenses incurred until March 31, 1992, 
the date the program was terminated. The petition contains no evidence 
that the program has been reinstated and provides no reason to believe 
that any benefits obtained prior to March 31, 1992, could remain 
outstanding through 1997, the period of investigation. On this basis, 
we are not including this program in our investigation.
    3. Export credit insurance. Petitioners have provided information 
indicating the existence of an insurance program for the coverage of 
exporters' risk of losses resulting from failure to receive payments. 
The program is administered by the Credit Guarantee Insurance 
Corporation of South Africa Limited (CGIC) on behalf of the Department 
Trade and Industry (DTI). Petitioners have not provided any information 
indicating that the CGIC's premiums are inadequate to cover the long-
term operating costs of the program. Therefore, we are not including 
this program in our investigation.
    4. Multi-shift scheme. According to IDC and DTI publications 
provided in the petition, this scheme makes available low interest 
financing to fund the increase in working capital which becomes 
necessary as a result of adding a production shift. Petitioners allege 
that this program may be contingent upon exportation. However, the 
descriptions of the Multi-Shift Scheme itself do not indicate that the 
scheme is contingent in any way upon exportation. In addition, 
petitioners have not provided any information indicating that this 
scheme may be otherwise limited to a specific enterprise or industry, 
or group thereof. On this basis, we are not including this program in 
our investigation.
    5. Low interest rates for the promotion of employment scheme. 
According to an IDC publication provided in the petition, this scheme 
makes available low interest financing to help companies add production 
capacity that will increase employment opportunities. Petitioners 
allege that this program may be contingent upon exportation. The 
description of this scheme itself does not indicate that this scheme is 
contingent in any way upon exportation. In addition, petitioners have 
not provided any information indicating that this scheme may be 
otherwise limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group 
thereof. On this basis, we are not including this program in our 
investigation.
    6. Manufacturing development program (MDP). According to 
information provided in the petition (an IDC paper titled Measures and 
Policies Impacting on South African Industry), the MDP provides for 
``an accelerated depreciation allowance for the expansion or 
establishment of small, medium and large enterprises * * * on plant and 
equipment brought into use between July 1, 1996, and September 30, 
1999.'' The description of the program itself does not indicate that 
the MDP is contingent in any way upon exportation. In addition, 
petitioners have not provided any information indicating that this 
program may be otherwise limited to a specific enterprise or industry, 
or group thereof. Thus, we are not including this program in our 
investigation.
    7. Reduced rail rates. Petitioners provided a 1994 Price Waterhouse 
publication entitled Doing Business in South Africa which indicates 
that the Railway Administration may, under certain circumstances, 
provide reduced rail rates on commodities destined for overseas. In the 
1982 certain steel investigation from South Africa, the Department 
found that countervailable benefits due to reduced rail rates to 
exporters had ceased, effective April 1, 1982. See Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Orders; 
Certain Steel Products From South Africa, 47 FR 39379, 39380 (September 
7, 1982). In the 1993 certain steel investigation from South Africa, 
the Department did not initiate an investigation of the rail rates in 
South Africa. See Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: 
Certain Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa, 58 FR 32515 (June 
10, 1993) (1993 Initiation). The information examined in that 
investigation is the same type of information submitted in this 
petition, and petitioners have not provided any additional information 
that would warrant a reconsideration of the Department's previous 
decisions.

[[Page 23276]]

Thus, we are not including this program in our investigation.
    8. Reduced electricity rates. Petitioners provided a 1994 Price 
Waterhouse publication entitled Doing Business in South Africa which 
indicates that companies in energy-intensive industries may negotiate 
special tariffs with the relevant authority and/or the Electricity 
Supply Commission (ESKOM), a state enterprise. In the 1993 
investigation of certain steel products from South Africa, petitioners 
also alleged that steel producers in South Africa may benefit from 
special electricity rates that can be negotiated with ESKOM, but the 
Department did not initiate an investigation of electricity rates. See 
1993 Initiation, 58 FR 32515. The statement from in Price Waterhouse 
publication contains no new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances which would warrant a reexamination of electricity rates 
in South Africa. Thus, we are not including this program in our 
investigation.
    9. World-Player Scheme. According to IDC publications provided in 
the petition, this scheme makes low-interest financing available to 
manufacturers for the acquisition of fixed assets (machinery and 
equipment) in order to improve their competitiveness following changes 
in the tariff protection policy. The description of the World-Player 
Scheme itself does not indicate that the scheme is designed to promote 
exports; rather, it indicates that its focus is to assist companies 
competing with imports. In addition, although the IDC publications 
indicate that the scheme is available to manufactures whose total 
nominal import tariff rates have decreased by ten percentage points, 
petitioners have not provided information indicating that changes in 
tariffs rates are limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or 
group thereof.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of 
the public version of the petition have been provided to the 
representatives of Belgium, Italy, Korea, and South Africa. We will 
attempt to provide copies of the public version of the petition to all 
the exporters named in the petition, as provided for under section 
351.203(c)(2) of the Department's regulations.

ITC Notification

    Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of 
these initiations.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by May 15, 1998, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium, Italy, the 
Republic of Korea, and the Republic of South Africa. A negative ITC 
determination will, for any country, result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, the investigations 
will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-11275 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P