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

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