23272 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

statutory time limit of 365 days. Because

of the complexity and novelty of certain

issues in this case, it is not practicable

to complete this review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. The

Department, therefore, is extending the

time limit for the preliminary results of

the aforementioned review to August

31, 1998. See memorandum from Joseph

A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa, which

is on file in Room B–099 at the

Department’s headquarters. The

deadline for the final results of this

review will continue to be 90 days after

publication of the preliminary results.

This extension of time limit is in

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–11273 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices 23273

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).

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.1

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
23274 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

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 mediumsized 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices 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 mediumsized 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.
23276 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

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 energyintensive 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 042098B]

Marine Mammals; Scientific Research

Permit (PHF# 898–1451)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

Attractions Hawaii, P.O. Box 1060,

Pacific Davies Center, Honolulu, Hawaii

96808, has applied in due form for a

permit to take Hawaiian monk seals

(Monachus schauinslandi) for purposes

of scientific research and enhancement.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before May 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The application and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following office(s):

Permits Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring,

MD 20910 (301) 713–2289;

Regional Administrator, Southwest

Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

(562) 980-4001; and

Protected Species Program Manager,

Pacific Islands Area Office, 2570 Dole

Street, Room 106, Honolulu, HI 9682–

2396 (808) 973–2987.

Written data or views, or requests for

a public hearing on this request, should

be submitted to the Director, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13705, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals

requesting a hearing should set forth the

specific reasons why a hearing on this

application would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by

facsimile at (301) 713–0376, provided

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy

submitted by mail and postmarked no

later than the closing date of the

comment period. Please note that

comments will not be accepted by email or by other electronic media.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeannie Drevenak, (301) 713–2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject permit is requested under the

authority of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations

Governing the Taking and Importing of

Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and

the regulations governing the taking,

importing, and exporting of endangered

fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222.23).

The application is for the permanent

transfer of five (5) currently captive,

unreleasable adult Hawaiian monk seals

to Sea Life Park Hawaii for research and

enhancement purposes. The primary

objective of the proposed activity is to

make the seals available for scientific

research on an opportunistic basis in

order to benefit the wild population of

Hawaiian monk seals. A secondary

objective is to increase public awareness

of the status of the Hawaiian monk seal

through education efforts and by

providing an opportunity to observe the

species in captivity.

In compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),an initial

determination has been made that the

activity proposed is categorically

excluded from the requirement to

prepare an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

NMFS is forwarding copies of this

application to the Marine Mammal

Commission and its Committee of

Scientific Advisors.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–11243 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F