Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Italy, and the Republic of Korea

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

[[Page 37540]]

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 (cold-reduced), 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

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

\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 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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 37542]]

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 long-term 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 non-remunerative. 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

[[Page 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 non-recurring 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