Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37539

Net Subsidies—Producer/ExporterNet subsidy

rate—percent

Carnation Industries Ltd ....... 3.32

Commex Corporation ............ 5.33

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt.

Ltd ..................................... 4.98

Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd ...... 9.42

Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd 1.69

Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works

Pvt. Ltd .............................. 12.76

Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry

Pvt. Ltd .............................. 4.33

Overseas Iron Foundry ......... 3.74

R.B. Agarwalla & Company

Pvt. Ltd .............................. 3.53

RSI Limited ........................... 3.55

Seramapore Industries Pvt.

Ltd ..................................... 5.54

Shree Rama Enterprise ........ 10.85

Super Iron Foundry ............... 3.32

Uma Iron & Steel .................. 1.38

Victory Castings Ltd .............. 3.05

Because the URAA replaced the

general rule in favor of a country-wide

rate with a general rule in favor of

individual rates for investigated and

reviewed companies, the procedures for

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. The requested review will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 C.F.R.

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.

351.212(c), for all companies for which

a review was not requested, duties must

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and

cash deposits must continue to be

collected, at the rate previously ordered.

As such, the countervailing duty cash

deposit rate applicable to a company

can no longer change, except pursuant

to a request for a review of that

company. See, Federal-Mogul

Corporation and the Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 C.F.R. 353.22(e)

(now 19 C.F.R. 351.212(c)), the

antidumping regulation on automatic

assessment, which is identical to 19

C.F.R. 355.22(g)). Therefore, the cash

deposit rates for all companies except

those covered by this review will be

unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order will be the rate for

that company established in the most

recently completed administrative

proceeding conducted under the URAA.

See, 1994 Indian Castings Final Results.

If such a review has not been

conducted, the rate established in the

most recently completed administrative

proceeding pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments is applicable.

See, 1993 Indian Castings Final Results.

These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a

company assigned these rates is

requested. In addition, for the period

January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996, the assessment rates applicable to

all non-reviewed companies covered by

this order are the cash deposit rates in

effect at the time of entry.

Public Comment

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to the parties

of this proceeding within five days after

the date of publication of this notice, the

calculations performed in this review.

Interested parties may request a hearing

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written arguments in

case briefs on these preliminary results

within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

arguments raised in case briefs, may be

submitted five days after the time limit

for filing the case brief. Parties who

submit argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held two

days after the scheduled date for

submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of

case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be

served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.303(f).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

C.F.R. 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

are issued and published in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 C.F.R. 351.213.

Dated: July 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18598 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–427–815, C–475–825, and C–580–835]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel

Sheet and Strip in Coils From France,

Italy, and the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marian Wells (France), at (202) 482–

6309; Vince Kane (Italy), at (202) 482–

2815; and Robert Copyak (Korea), at

(202) 482–2209, Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

1870, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., 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 references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351, 62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997.

The Petition

On June 10, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received

petitions filed in proper form by or on

behalf of Allegheny Ludlum

Corporation, Armco Inc., J&L Specialty

Steel, Inc., Washington Steel Division of

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, United

Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/

CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union,

and Zanesville Armco Independent

Organization, Inc. (the petitioners). J&L

Specialty Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner

for the countervailing duty investigation

involving France. Supplements to the

petitions were filed on June 19, 22, 24,

and 26, 1998.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1)

of the Act, petitioners allege that

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of the subject merchandise in France,

Italy, and Korea 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 products covered are certain
37540 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

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).

stainless steel sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip is

a flat-rolled product in coils that is

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is

annealed or otherwise heat treated and

pickled or otherwise descaled. The

subject sheet and strip may also be

further processed (e.g., cold-rolled,

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.)

provided that it maintains the specific

dimensions of sheet and strip following

such processing.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings: 7219.13.00.30,

7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70,

7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30,

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90,

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20,

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35,

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38,

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44,

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20,

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35,

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38,

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44,

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20,

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30,

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05,

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30,

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10,

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,

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, 7220.20.70.05,

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15,

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80,

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30,

7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10,

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this

petition are the following: (1) Sheet and

strip that is not annealed or otherwise

heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut

to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled

stainless steel products of a thickness of

4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire, and (5)

razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a

flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not

further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of 9.5 to

23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or

less, containing by weight 12.5 to 14.5

percent chromium, and certified at the

time of entry to be used in the

manufacture of razor blades. See

Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional

U.S. and Note’’ 1(d).

During our review of the petitions, we

discussed scope with the petitioners to

insure that the scope in the petitions

accurately reflect the product for which

they are seeking relief. Moreover, as

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 July 20, 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, N.W.,

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 our 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 petitions filed. On June

23, 1998, the Department held

consultations with representatives of the

Government of France (GOF). On June

26, 1998, consultations were held with

representatives of the Government of

Italy (GOI) and the European

Commission (EC). On June 25, 1998, the

GOF, and on June 29, 1998, the GOI and

the EC filed submissions regarding the

issues raised during the consultations.

See the June 23, 1998 and June 30, 1998,

memoranda to the file regarding the

consultations with the GOF and the

GOI, respectively (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

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 petitions is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section, above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find the petitions’ definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department therefore, has adopted

the domestic like product definition set

forth in the petitions. In this case the

Department has determined that the

petitions and supplemental information

contained adequate evidence of

sufficient industry support, and,

therefore, polling is unnecessary (see

Memorandum to the File, regarding

Industry Support, dated June 30, 1998).

For France, Italy, and Korea, petitioners

established industry support

representing over 50 percent of total

production of the domestic like product.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37541

Additionally, no person who would

qualify as an interested party pursuant

to section 771(A)(C)(D)(E) or (F) has

expressed opposition on the record to

the petition. Therefore, to the best of the

Department’s knowledge, the producers

who support this petition account for

100 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by the

portion of the industry expressing an

opinion regarding the petitions.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)

of the Act.

Injury Test

Because France, Italy, and Korea 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 petitions allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the subsidized individual and

cumulated imports of the subject

merchandise from France, Italy, and

Korea. Petitioners explained that the

industry’s injured condition is evident

in the declining trends in net operating

profits, net sales volumes, profit to sales

ratios, and capacity utilization. The

allegations of injury and causation are

supported by relevant evidence

including U.S. Customs import data,

lost sales, and pricing information. 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

Attachment 1 to Initiation Checklists

dated June 30, 1998, entitled Analysis of

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation).

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

petitions on stainless steel sheet and

strip in coils (sheet and strip) from

France, Italy, and Korea and found that

they comply 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 sheet and strip from these

countries receive subsidies. See the June

30, 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. France

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 France:

Government of France Programs

1. Purchase of Power Plant

2. Forgiveness of Shareholders’ Loans in

1994 and 1995

3. Provision of Export Financing Under

Natexis Banque Programs

4. Related Party Grants Received from

1992–95

5. Related Party Loans

6. DATAR Programs

a. Regional Development Grants

(PATs)

b. Work/Training Contracts and

Internships

c. DATAR 50 Percent Taxing Scheme

d. Tax Exemption for Industrial

Expansion

e. Tax Credit for Companies Located

in Special Investment Zone

f. Tax Credits for Research

7. GOF Guarantees

8. Long-Term Loans from CFDI

9. Steel Intervention Fund (FIS)

10. Loans with Special Characteristics

(PACS): Equity Infusion

11. Shareholders’ Advances

12. Investment/Operating Subsidies

13. Ugine 1991 Grant

European Commission Programs

1. Myosotis

2. Electric Arc Furnaces

3. Resider II Program

4. Youthstart

5. ECSC Article 54 Loans

6. ECSC Article 56(2)(b) Redeployment

Aid

7. European Social Fund Grants (ESF)

8. European Regional Development

Fund Grants (ERDF)

We are not including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged to be benefitting producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise in

France:

1. Upstream Subsidies From Sollac

Petitioners allege that the production

of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

received upstream subsidies within the

meaning of section 771A of the Act

through the provision of subsidies to a

related company, Sollac, which

supplied hot-rolling services for Ugine

during the period 1983–1997. Sollac is

95 percent owned by Usinor. Referring

to section 355.45 of the Countervailing

Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

54 FR 23368 (May 31, 1989) (‘‘1989

Proposed Regulations’’), petitioners

state that an investigation of an

upstream subsidy allegation is

warranted because there is a reasonable

basis to believe or suspect that: (1)

Domestic subsidies have been provided

with respect to the input product; (2) a

competitive benefit has been bestowed;

and (3) the subsidies have a significant

effect on the cost of producing the

subject merchandise. In particular, in

support of its allegation that domestic

subsidies have been provided with

respect to the input product, petitioners

assert that all untied, countervailable

subsidies bestowed on Usinor in 1983 or

later that were found countervailable in

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from France, 58 FR 37304 ((July 9,

1993)) (Certain Steel from France

(1993)), along with the additional untied

post-1991 subsidies alleged in this case,

continue to benefit Sollac during the

POI.

The Department’s methodology with

respect to calculating the subsidy rate

for untied, domestic subsidies is to

divide the total amount of the benefit by

the total sales of the recipient company

(i.e., Usinor). Therefore, the resulting

rate captures the full level of

subsidization on the subject

merchandise, including any

countervailable subsidies bestowed

upon any inputs or processes supplied

by Usinor companies to the production

of the subject merchandise. To consider

the same benefit as both an upstream

subsidy and as a subsidy to the

manufacturer of the finished product

would result in double-counting the

benefit. On this basis, we find that the

initiation of an upstream subsidy

investigation is not warranted in this

case.
37542 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

2. Long-Term Loans From FDES

The Law of July 13, 1978 created

participative loans that were issued by

Fonds de Developpement Economique

et Social (FDES). In 1990, FDES loans

obtained by Usinor and Sacilor were

consolidated into multiple long-term

loans which the Department treated as

new loans in Certain Steel from France

(1993) and Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products from France, 58

FR 6221 (January 27, 1993) ((Lead and

Bismuth)). Using the private bond

interest rate reported in the OECD

Financial Statistics as the benchmark in

Lead and Bismuth, the Department

found these loans to be countervailable

to the extent that the interest rates were

more favorable than the benchmark. In

Certain Steel from France (1993),

however, a different benchmark was

used, and the same loans were found

not countervailable because there was

no benefit. Despite the determination of

Certain Steel from France (1993),

petitioners allege that the contradictory

stance taken by the Department in Lead

and Bismuth gives reason to investigate

the loans to determine the extent to

which these loans continued to bestow

countervailable benefits on the

production of the subject merchandise

during the POI of this case.

Given that Certain Steel from France

(1993) is the Department’s most recent

determination with respect to the longterm loans provided by the FDES, we

find that there is no reason to revisit our

decision that the FDES loans are not

countervailable. Petitioners have

provided no new evidence to indicate

that Usinor has obtained any new loans

or to prompt a reexamination of the

loans and the benchmark used in our

previous investigation. Accordingly, we

are not including this program in our

investigation.

3. Placement of Usinor Shares With

‘‘Stable Shareholders’’

As part of its privatization plan in

1995, the GOF placed 14.79 percent of

Usinor’s capital with ‘‘Stable

Shareholders.’’ The ‘‘Stable

Shareholders,’’ who consisted of both

government-owned entities and private

companies, purchased their shares at a

premium and were required to adhere to

the Protocole. The Protocole imposed

restrictions on the resale of shares held

by the ‘‘Stable Shareholders’’ thereby

preventing a takeover of the privatized

company. Petitioners allege that by

placing these illiquid shares with the

‘‘Stable Shareholders’’ the GOF created

a built-in defense against takeovers and

other instability, thereby providing a

secure investment environment for

private investors purchasing the

remaining shares. Petitioners assert that

without the implicit guarantee

represented by these ‘‘Stable

Shareholders,’’ no private investment

would have taken place. Therefore,

petitioners allege that the GOF’s

placement of shares with ‘‘Stable

Shareholders’’ provided a benefit in the

form of a ‘‘potential direct transfer of

funds’’ to Usinor which should be

measured by the total amount of the

private investment.

We are not including this alleged

subsidy in our investigation because we

do not accept petitioners’ argument that

the placement of Usinor’s shares with

‘‘Stable Shareholders’’ amounts to an

implicit guarantee. Instead, the

placement of the shares was simply part

of the GOF’s privatization plan for

Usinor. As petitioners point out, the

placement of shares with ‘‘Stable

Shareholders’’ was designed to prevent

a takeover of the company. Thus, the

GOF was seeking to prevent certain

purchases of Usinor’s shares, not to

ensure the sale of those shares.

4. Credit Lyonnais 1991 Investment

In 1991, Credit Lyonnais purchased a

20 percent share of Usinor Sacilor. In

Certain Steel from France (1993) and

Lead and Bismuth from France, the

Department determined that Usinor

Sacilor was equityworthy in 1991 and

found the investment not

countervailable. Petitioners allege that

they have uncovered new evidence

which establishes that the GOF’s equity

investment bestowed a countervailable

benefit and constitutes additional

factual evidence sufficient to prompt a

reexamination of the investment.

Petitioners assert that the new

evidence, presented in the 1995 French

Audit Office Report (‘‘Audit Report’’),

indicates that the shares purchased by

the bank were immobile and nonremunerative. As such, petitioners

allege that the Credit Lyonnais

investment lacked the defining

characteristics of an equity investment

(i.e., a claim on the company’s earnings

and based on an expectation of a

reasonable return) and, thus, constituted

a grant rather than equity. See General

Issues Appendix, appended to Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37239 (July

9, 1993). Other evidence that petitioners

present include the 1994 French

Parliamentary investigation and report

(‘‘French Parliamentary Report’’) which

state that Credit Lyonnais ‘‘took the

place of the government’’ to recapitalize

and support Usinor. The Audit Report

also criticizes the investment as

inappropriate and ultimately very costly

to Credit Lyonnais.

A close examination of the Audit

Report reveals otherwise. First, we find

that the Audit Report’s conclusion that

the investment in companies such as

Usinor were not ‘‘mobilizable’’ was

drawn from the policy implications,

rather than actual restrictions on the

shares themselves. The Audit Report

states: ‘‘Securities of national

enterprises were involved. To sell them

* * * would have led to

denationalization.’’ In other words,

Credit Lyonnais could not sell the

shares without the GOF’s explicit policy

decision to privatize the company. The

mere existence of a government policy

to retain the control of a state-owned

company, however, does not transform

the investment into a grant.

With respect to the alleged

‘‘unremunerative’’ nature of the shares,

we note that the Audit Report merely

states that the stocks did not ‘‘quickly

produce any dividend.’’ (Emphasis

supplied). There is no indication that

there were actual restrictions on the

shares or that there were no returns on

the investment.

Finally, given that both the Audit

Report and the French Parliamentary

Report were issued ex post facto, we do

not consider the statements regarding

the ultimate cost of the investment to be

relevant. As we stated in the General

Issues Appendix, ‘‘neither the benefit

nor the equityworthiness determination

should be reexamined post hoc since

such information could not have been

known to the investor at the time of the

investment.’’ 58 FR at 37239.

Accordingly, we find that the

evidence presented by petitioners is not

sufficient for us to reinvestigate the

1991 investment by Credit Lyonnais. On

this basis, we are not including this

program in our investigation.

B. Italy

In the course of preparing its CVD

questionnaire response in the

concurrent investigation of Stainless

Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, the GOI

has ascertained that AST has not

applied for or received assistance under

the following programs: Law 706/85

Grants for Capacity Reduction, Law 46/

82 Assistance for Capacity Reduction,

Law 193/84 Early Retirement Assistance

and Interest Grants, Law 394/81 Export

Marketing Grants and Loans, Law 341/

95 and Circolare 50175/95, European

Regional Development Fund, Resider II

Program (and Successor Programs), and

Law 181 Worker Adjustment/

Redevelopment Assistance. We are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37543

including these programs in this

investigation pending verification of the

GOI’s claim of non-use.

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

1. Benefits Associated with the 1988–

1990 Restructuring

2. Pre-Privatization Employment

Benefits

3. Law 120/89 Recovery Plan for the

Steel Industry

4. Law 181/89 Worker Adjustment/

Redevelopment Assistance

5. Law 706/85 Grants for Capacity

Reduction

6. Law 488/92 Aid to Depressed Areas

7. Law 46/82 Assistance for Capacity

Reduction

8. Working Capital Grants to ILVA,

S.p.A. (ILVA)

9. ILVA Restructuring and Liquidation

Grant

10. 1994 Debt Payment Assistance by

the Instituto per la Riscostruzione

Industriale (IRI)

11. Loan to KAI for purchase of Acciai

Speciali Terni S.p.A. (AST)

12. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 Restructuring

Plan

13. Debt Forgiveness: Finsider-to-ILVA

Restructuring

14. Debt Forgiveness: ILVA-to-AST

Restructuring

15. Law 675/77

a. Mortgage Loans

b. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans

c. Personnel Retraining Aid

d. VAT Reductions

e. Grants to Pay Interest on Bank

Loans

17. Law 193/84

a. Interest Payments

b. Closure Assistance

c. Early Retirement Benefits

18. Law 394/81 Export Marketing Grants

and Loans

19. Equity Infusions from 1983 through

1992

20. Uncreditworthiness for 1983 through

1997

Petitioners have additionally alleged

that AST was uncreditworthy in the

years when it allegedly received nonrecurring subsidies. This allegation was

supported by financial ratios for AST

and its predecessor companies. Thus,

for those years we will investigate the

creditworthiness of AST and its

predecessor companies.

21. Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95

22. Export Financing Under Law 227/77

and Remission of Taxes

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)

7. 1993 EU Funds

C. 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:

Government of Korea Programs

1. Pre-1992 Government of Korea

Direction of Credit

2. Post-1991 Government of Korea

Direction of Credit

3. 1992 ‘‘Emergency Loans’’ to Sammi

Steel Company

4. Financial Assistance in Conjunction

with the 1997 Sammi Steel

Company Bankruptcy

5. Tax Incentives for Highly-Advanced

Technology Businesses

6. ‘‘National Subsidy’’ to Inchon

7. POSCO Purchase of Sammi Specialty

Steel Division for More Than

Adequate Remuneration

8. Provision of Electricity for Less Than

Adequate Remuneration

9. Reserve for Investment

10. Kwangyang Bay Project

11. Export Facility Loans

12. Reserve for Export Loss Under the

Tax Exemption and Reduction

Control Act (TERCL)

13. Reserve for Overseas Market

Development Under the Tax

Exemption and Reduction Control

Act (TERCL)

14. Unlimited Deduction of Overseas

Entertainment Expenses

15. Short-Term Export Financing

16. Korean Export-Import Bank

(EXIMBANK) Loans

17. Special Depreciation of Assets on

Foreign Exchange Earnings

18. Export Insurance Rates Provided by

the Korean Export Insurance

Corporation

19. Excessive Duty Drawback

20. Uncreditworthiness for 1990 through

1997

Petitioners have alleged that two

Korean producers of the subject

merchandise, Sammi Steel Company

(Sammi) and Inchon Iron & Steel

Company (Inchon), were

uncreditworthy during the period 1990

through 1997 and 1991 through 1997,

respectively. For those respective years,

petitioners have provided financial

ratios for the two companies which

indicate that the companies may be

uncreditworthy for those respective

periods. Thus, for those respective

years, we will investigate whether the

companies were uncreditworthy during

the years in which petitioners have

alleged non-recurring countervailable

subsidies.

Petitioners have also alleged that

Sammi and Inchon were uncreditworthy

from 1983 through 1997. We are not

investigating creditworthiness in the

years 1983 through 1989 for Sammi and

for the years 1983 through 1990 for

Inchon. Petitioners did not provide any

information to indicate that the

companies were uncreditworthy for

those respective years.

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

France, Italy, and Korea. 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 July 27,

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 sheet

and strip from France, Italy, and Korea.

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 June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18603 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P