[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.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
