92-c07

57 FR 57772

NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(C-428-817)

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Alignment of
Final Countervailing Duty Determinations With Final Antidumping Duty
Determinations: Certain Steel Products From Germany

Monday, December 7, 1992

*57772

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1992.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Rick Herring or Paulo Mendes, Office of
Countervailing Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3099, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482- 3530 or 482-5050,
respectively.

Preliminary Determinations and Alignments

The Department preliminarily determines that benefits which constitute subsidies within the
meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Germany of certain steel products.
For information on the estimated net subsidies, please see the Suspension of Liquidation section of
this notice.

On November 24, 1992, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(a)(1)),
petitioners in the above-referenced investigations requested that we align the due date for the final
countervailing duty determinations with that of the final antidumping duty determinations
for certain steel products. Accordingly, we are aligning these final determinations. Therefore, the
final countervailing duty determinations are now due not later than April 12, 1993.

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of initiation and postponement of preliminary determinations in
the Federal Register (57 FR 32970, July 24, 1992), the following events have occurred.
On August 10, 1992, we issued a questionnaire to the Government of Germany (GOG). On
August 20, 1992, we received a partial response from the GOG indicating the proper responding
companies in these investigations.

On October 5, 1992, we received responses from the GOG, the Governments for the States of
Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, and Saarland, and from six steel producers. These producers
are: AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger), Hoesch Stahl AG (Hoesch), Klockner Stahl GmbH
(Klockner) Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH (Ilsenburg), Preussag Stahl AG (Preussag), and Thyssen Sthal
AG (Thyssen). See the Respondents section, below, for a list of respondent companies for each class
or kind of merchandise subject to these investigations. On October 22, 1992, we issued a
supplemental/deficiency questionnaire to respondents. We received responses to this
questionnaire on November 5 and November 17, 1992.

Scope of Investigations

The products covered by these investigations, certain steel products,
constitute four separate "classes or kinds" of merchandise, as found in Appendix 1 to this notice: (1)
Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, (2) certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products, (3)
certain corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat products, (4) certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.

Injury Test

Because Germany is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports
of the certain steel products from Germany materially injure, or threaten material injury to,
U.S. industries. On August 21, 1992, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable
indication that industries in the United States are being materially injured or threatened with
material injury by reason of imports from Germany of the subject merchandise (57 FR 38064,
August 21, 1992).

Respondents

The GOG and the Governments of Niedersachsen and Nordrhein-Westfalen are respondents for
each class or kind of merchandise subject to these
investigations. The Government of Saarland is a respondent only with respect to certain
cut-to-length carbon steel plate. The following is a list of selected respondent companies for each
class or kind of merchandise subject to these investigations:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products:
Hoesch
Klo>=4ckner
Preussag
Thyssen
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Products:
Hoesch
Klo>=4ckner
Preussag
Thyssen
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products:
Hoesch
Preussag
Thyssen
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate:
Dillinger
Ilsenburg
Preussag
Thyssen

Analysis of Programs

For purposes of these preliminary determinations, the period for which we are measuring subsidies
(the period of investigation (POI)) is 1991.

In determining the benefits received under the various programs described

*57773

below, we used the following calculation methodology. We first calculated a country-wide rate for
each program. This rate comprised and ad valorem benefit received by each firm weighted by each
firm's share of exports, separately for each class or kind of merchandise, to the United States. The
rates for all programs were than summed to arrive at a country-wide rate for each class or kind of
merchandise.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.20(d), for each class or kind of merchandise, we compared the total ad
valorem subsidy received by each firm to the country-wide rate for all programs. On the basis of
this comparison, the rate for Dillinger was significantly different from the country-wide rate.
Therefore, this firm received an individual company rate. For the remaining firms, we recalculated
the country-wide rate, based solely on the benefits received by these firms. We then assigned the
recalculated overall country-wide rate to these firms, and
all other manufacturers, producers, and exporters, with the exception of Dillinger.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we preliminarily
determine the following:

Privatization

The Department preliminarily determines that subsidies to government-owned companies are not
extinguished by the subsequent privatization of those companies. The amount we countervail is
the value of the benefit received by the company allocated over time under the Department's
standard methodology. The only event that the Department would recognize as extinguishing a
countervailable subsidy would be the repayment to the government by a recipient company of the
remaining value of that subsidy in accordance with the Department's methodology. (See, the
Department's privatization memorandum found in the general issue file C-100-004 for the certain
steel products investigations).

Specificity

When receipt of benefits under a program is not contingent upon exportation,
the Department must determine whether the program is specific to an enterprise or industry, or
group of enterprises or industries. Under the specificity analysis, the Department examines both
whether a government program is limited by law to a specific enterprise or industry, or group
thereof (i.e., de jure specificity) and whether the government program is
in fact limited to a specific
enterprise or industry, or group thereof (i.e., de facto specificity). See 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(B). In
section 355.43(b)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations (Countervailing Duties;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments 54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989)
(Proposed Rules)), the Department has set forth the factors that may be considered in determining
whether there is specificity:
(i) The extent to which a government acts to limit the availability of a program;
(ii) the number of enterprises, industries, or groups thereof that actually use a program;
(iii) Whether there are dominant users of a program, or whether certain enterprises, industries, or
groups thereof receive disproportionately large benefits under a program; and
(iv) The extent to which a government exercises discretion in conferring benefits under a program.
See also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 57 FR 22570 (May 28, 1992).

Grant Methodology

Our practice with respect to grants is (1) to expense recurring grants in the year of receipt, and (2)
to allocate nonrecurring grants over the average useful life of assets in the industry,
unless the sum
of grants provided under a particular program is less than 0.5 percent of a firm's total or export
sales (depending on whether the program is a domestic or export subsidy) in the year in which the
grant was received. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Fresh
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, (Salmon from Norway), 56 FR 7678 (February 25,
1991). We have considered the grants provided under the programs described below to be
nonrecurring, unless otherwise noted, because the recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on
an ongoing basis from review period to review period. See, Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination; Certain Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from Canada, 51 FR 10041 (March 24,
1986). (In this regard, we are reexamining the approach to distinguishing recurring from
nonrecurring benefits set forth in the three-part test found in the preamble of the Proposed Rules,
54 FR 23366, 23376 (May 31, 1989)). Therefore, we have allocated the benefits over 15 years,
which the Department considers to be reflective of the average
useful life of assets in the steel industry (see, section 355.49(b)(3) of the Proposed Rules).

A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or
exporters in Germany of certain steel products under the following programs:

1. Capital Investment Grants

The Steel Investment Allowance Act provided for the promotion of investment for the
modernization of the iron and steel industry. As per the December 22, 1983 amendment, this
program provided grants amounting to 20 percent of the acquisition cost of assets purchased or
produced prior to January 1, 1986, and ordered or produced after July 30, 1981. Generally,
applications for assistance under this program had to have been filed by June 30, 1982, with the
Federal Minister of Economics. If the Minister of Finance approved the application, a certificate of
approval would be forwarded to the German tax authorities. The tax authorities would then decide
whether to offset the funds from the taxes due, or whether to provide the funds directly to the
company.

Because this program is limited to the iron and steel industry, we preliminarily determine the
program to be countervailable. Grants were provided to Dillinger, Hoesch, Klo>=4ckner, Preussag,
and Thyssen under this program.

We have preliminarily determined that grants received under this program are nonrecurring.
Therefore, the benefit for the period of investigation was calculated using the declining balance
methodology described in section 355.49(b)(1) of the Department's Proposed Rules and used in
prior investigations (see, e.g., Salmon from Norway). For the discount rates used in these
calculations, we used, whenever possible, each company's actual cost for long-term, fixed-rate
debt. If a company did not report this cost, or when a company had no long-term borrowing in the
year in which a grant was approved, we used the average annual long-term interest rate for
Germany as reported in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
Three of the companies had to return small portions of their grants after audits from the German
tax office. These amounts were returned before the period of investigation. Interest was charged on
the disallowed portion of the grant from the date of the original disbursement to the date of
repayment. We deducted the returned portions of the grant from the amount of funds initially
received by the companies

*57774

before calculating the benefit under the program.
Using the above-described methodology, we calculated the portion of the
benefit attributable to the period of investigation and divided that benefit by the
total steel sales of
all companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.49 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon
steel products; 0.43 percent ad valorem for cold-rolled carbon steel products; 0.42 percent ad
valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.22 percent ad valorem for
cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have
significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.00, 0.50, and 0.39 percent ad
valorem, respectively.

2. Structural Improvement Aids

On December 28, 1983, the Federal Minister of Economics enacted the "Directive for the Provision
of Structural Improvement Assistance to Companies in the Iron and Steel Industry." This program
provided funds for companies in the iron and steel industry to (1) cover severance pay and
transitional assistance for steel workers affected by the restructuring plan within the industry, and
(2) assist steel companies with the costs associated with plant closures. Funds were provided to
cover expenses incurred in laying off employees from the period January 1, 1980, through
December 31, 1986. Plant closures had to occur by
December 31, 1985, or in exceptional cases by December 31, 1989, in order for steel companies to
receive funds under this program. To qualify for assistance under this program, a company had to
file an application with the Federal Minister of Economics. This program was funded by the federal
and state governments.
Structural improvement assistance was provided on a conditionally repayable, interest-free basis.
Repayment of this assistance was scheduled to begin in 1986 and was tied to the company's yearly
profits. During the period of investigation, three companies, Hoesch, Klo>=4ckner, and Preussag,
had outstanding balances under this program. Thyssen also used this program, but repaid all the
funds it received before the period of investigation.
Because this program is limited to the iron and steel industry, we preliminarily determine the
program to be limited to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.
Because of the possibility of repayment, we have treated the funds as short-term zero interest rate
loans, rolled-over each year until repayment. Zero-rate loans are inconsistent with commercial
considerations. Therefore, we preliminarily determine this program to countervailable.
To calculate the benefit, we considered the amount outstanding during the POI to be a short-term
interest-free loan. We took the outstanding amounts of the grants during the POI and calculated the
interest that would have been paid on
those amounts at a commercial interest rate, which we preliminarily determined to be 9.25
percent. (The source for our national average short-term interest rate for 1991 was the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Financial Statistics Monthly.) We then
divided these results by the total steel sales of all companies within each respective class or kind of
merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be
0.20 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.24 percent ad valorem for
cold-rolled carbon steel products; 0.01 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products; and 0.00 percent ad valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate for all companies.

3. Investment Premium Act

Under the Investment Allowance Act, in effect from 1969 through 1989, grants were provided to
companies investing in three regions of German: the zonal border area ( a zone bordering
Czechoslovakia and the former GDR), the hard- coal mining region in Saarland and the areas laid
out in the Federal/State Joint Scheme for the Improvement of Regional Economic Structures (Joint
Scheme). Under the Joint Scheme, federal and state officials provided guidelines for designating
certain regions as depressed areas (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe or GA Areas). The investment allowance
is ten percent of
eligible expenditures in the zonal border area and 8.75 percent of eligible expenditure in the GA
Areas (including the coal mining area in Saarland).
A condition for approval of the investment allowance is that the investment project be particularly
worthy of promotion from the perspective of the economy as a whole. A certification for the
investment allowance is issued only for a specific investment project. Generally, the project must
be implemented by the company within three years of the certification. The investment allowance
is paid by the local tax office, although the program is funded by both federal and state tax
revenues. Dillinger and Preussag were the only companies to use this program.
Becaue this program is limited to specific geographical areas within German, we preliminarily
determine the program to be countervailable. We further preliminarily determine the grants under
this program to be nonrecurring. Therefore, we calculated the benefit under this program using the
methodology for nonrecurring grants as described in the "Capital Investment Grant" program (See
A.1., above). We then divided these results by the total steel sales of all the companies within each
respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies
for this program to be 0.06 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.02 percent
ad valorem for cold-rolled carbon steel products; 0.00 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat products; and 0.14 percent ad valorem for
cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have
significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.00, 0.32, and 0.00 percent ad
valorem, respectively.
The calculated rate for Dillinger under this program is based upon the best information available as
provided for under section 355.37 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 355.37). In its response
to our questionnaire, Dillinger stated that it did not receive any funds under this program.
However, according to the Official Journal of the European Communities, which was provided in
the petition, and the Department's Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations:
Certain Steel Products from the Federal Republic of Germany (47 FR 39345, September 7,
1982), Dillinger did receive funds under this program. Therefore, we calculated the benefit for
Dillinger using the information provided in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

4. Joint Scheme: Improvement of Regional Economic Structure--GA Investment Grants and Other
GA Subsidies

The primary goal of this program is to assist companies in depressed areas. Pursuant to the
Grundgesetz (the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany), regional policy basically
lies within the competency of the individual states. However, pursuant to Article 91 of the
Grundgesetz, the federal government participates in regional

*57775

economic assistance measures through the Federal/State Joint Scheme for the Improvement of
Regional Economic Structures. The law governing the Joint Scheme was signed October 6, 1969,
and came into force on January 1, 1970. The European Communities' (EC) Commission Decision
322/89/ECSC of February 1, 1989, prohibited regional aid to the iron and steel industry after
January 1, 1989 (exceptions were made for the new states of the former German Democratic
Republic (GDR)). Therefore, iron and steel companies, except those in eastern Germany, are
no longer eligible to receive assistance under this program.
The federal government and the states participate in the planning and the financing of the Joint
Scheme. Although financing of the Joint Scheme is shared equally by the federal government and
the states, the implementation of the Joint Scheme is the task of the states alone. The body
responsible for the Joint Scheme decisions is the Planning Committee for Regional Economic
Structures. It is under this Planning Committee that the GA Areas are designated. The Planning
Committee annually adopts the Joint Scheme framework plan for a five-year period. This sets the
framework within which the regional economic assistance can be carried out.
Under this program, companies located in GA Areas are eligible for grants equal to 10 to 23
percent of fixed investments, depending on the location and type of investment. They are
approved only once and are paid out based on the
progress of the investment project. The investment project must be completed within three years
of approval. If a company makes several investments in various years and wishes to receive
assistance under this program, then applications must be made for each investment. Applications
must be submitted to the economic ministry of the state prior to the start of the investment.
Because this program is limited to certain geographical areas, and because the GA Areas are not
co-extensive with state boundaries, we preliminarily determine that both federal and state
assistance provided under this program are countervailable. Thyssen, Ilsenburg, and Hoesch
received grants under this program. However, Hoesch only received assistance under this program
for investment projects involving pipes, tinplates, and technical gases, which are not subject to
these investigations. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Hoesch did not use this program
with respect to the production of the subject merchandise.
We also preliminarily determine that these grants are nonrecurring. Therefore, we calculated the
benefit under this program using the methodology for nonrecurring grants as described in the
section on the "Capital Investment Grant" program (see A.1., above). We then divided these results
by the total steel sales of the companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise.
In addition, Ilsenburg, a company located in the former GDR, stated that a
portion of the investment covered by the grant it received was made prior to the currency
unification, and that the investment subsequently was revalued and written down by company
auditors to reflect the effects of the currency unification. In the audit of the grant, the internal
revenue auditors made a new calculation of the investment grant entitlement based on the lower
amount. The internal revenue auditors have advised the company that it will be required to repay a
part of the grant. Ilsenburg also will be liable for interest on the amount to be repaid. This amount
was deducted from the amount of Ilsenburg's grant before the calculation of the grant benefit.
To calculate a benefit conferred by the repayable amount of the grant, we treated the amount
outstanding during the period of investigation as a short-term loan with an interest rate of six
percent. According to Financial Statistics Monthly, the average short-term lending rate in
Germany during our period of investigation was 9.25 percent. We calculated the difference in
the amount of interest that would have been paid on the repayable amount based on the six
percent interest rate charged to the company and the national average short-term lending rate of
9.25 percent. We then divided that differential by the total steel product sales of the companies
within the respective class or kind of merchandise. We added this benefit to the benefit calculated
from the grants received under this program. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net
subsidies for this program to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for hot-
rolled, cold-rolled, and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.00 percent ad
valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which
have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.27, 0.00, and 0.00
percent ad valorem, respectively.

5. Special Subsidies for Companies in the Zonal Border Area

This program was established in 1971 by the Act to Promote the Zonal Border Area. The aim of the
program was to mitigate the competitive disadvantages for the companies in the zonal border area
and to maintain attractive jobs in order to prevent the population from moving out of the region.
Assistance under this program was open to all companies headquartered in the zonal border area.
According to the GOG response, the need for this assistance disappeared upon the unification of the
country. Therefore, all of the assistance measures offered under this program will expire by 1996.
German steel companies received two types of benefits under this program: Special depreciation
for investments in the zonal border area amounting to up to 50 percent as well as freight
assistance. Because this program is limited to companies located in specific geographical regions of
Germany, we preliminarily determine the program to be countervailable.

Both Preussag and Hoesch were eligible to use the special depreciation allowance on the tax
returns filed during the period of investigation. Even though Hoesch claimed this special
depreciation, it did not use the allowance to offset taxes paid during the period of investigation.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that only Preussag received a benefit under this program
during the POI.
To calculate a benefit, we divided the tax savings under the program by the total steel sales of all
companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.18 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon
steel products; 0.07 percent ad valorem for cold-rolled carbon steel products; 0.01 percent ad
valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.00 percent ad valorem for
cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have
significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.00, 1.00, and 0.00 percent ad
valorem, respectively.

6. Ruhr District Action Program

From 1980 through 1984, the Ruhr District Action Program provided grants for investments in the
Ruhr region. Funds for this program were provided by both
the federal government and the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen. Under this program, grants
relating to environmental protection were available exclusively to the steel industry. The portion
of the funds provided to the steel industry under the framework of the Ruhr District Action plan by
the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen were provided in conjunction with the

*57776

state's Air Pollution Control Program. (For more information on this program, see A.11., below.)
Because the portion of the program that involves environmental clean-up grants is limited to the
steel industry, we preliminarily determine the program to be countervailable. Hoesch and Thyssen
received grants under this program.
We further preliminarily determine that the grants received under this program are nonrecurring.
Therefore, we calculated the benefit under this program using the methodology for nonrecurring
grants as described in the "Capital Investment Grant" program (see A.1., above). We then divided
these results by the total steel sales of all the companies within each respective class or kind of
merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for the program to be
0.01 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.01 percent ad valorem for
cold-rolled carbon steel products; 0.00 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistent carbon steel
flat products; and 0.00 percent ad valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate for all companies.

7. Aid for Closure of Steel Operations

The GOG adopted two measures to reduce the economic and social costs of plant closings in the
steel industry between 1987 and 1990. First, pursuant to the Rules on Providing Funds to Iron and
Steel Companies to Give Social Assistance to Structural Adjustment, adopted on May 3, 1988, the
federal and state governments provided grants to the iron and steel industry for expenses incurred
with respect to displaced employees. This program was administered by the Federal Ministry of
Economics and the equivalent state ministry. The total amount of federal and state aid provided to
steel companies was not permitted to exceed 50 percent of a company's net expenditures incurred
as the result of these plant closings.
Second, on June 27, 1988, the federal government adopted the Guideline for Granting Aid to the
Iron and Steel Industry. This measure increased the amount of aid provided to employees under
Article 56(2)(b) of the ECSC Treaty. The lumps sum settlement for employees retiring during the
period January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1990 was increased from Deutsche Mark (DM) 6,000 to
DM 9,000. For more details regarding this program, please see A.12., below, "Redeployment Aid
Under Article 56(2)(b)".
Because assistance under the Rules on Providing Funds to Iron and Steel Companies to Give Social
Assistance to Structural Adjustment is limited to the
iron and steel industry, we preliminarily determine this program to be countervailable. This
program was used by Hoesch, Preussag, and Thyssen.
We further preliminarily determine the grants provided under the program to be nonrecurring.
Therefore, we calculated the benefit under this program using the methodology for nonrecurring
grants as described in the "Capital Investment Grant" program (see A.1., above).
In addition, two of the companies had to repay portions of their grants after audits from the
German tax authorities. To calculate a benefit conferred by the repayable amount of the grants, we
treated the amount outstanding during the period of investigation as a short-term interest-free
loan. According to Financial Statistics Monthly, the average short-term lending rate in
Germany during our period of investigation was 9.25 percent. We then calculated the interest
that should have been paid on the outstanding repayable portion of the grant.
We added the benefits calculated from the grants and the interest savings and divided that sum by
the total steal sales of all companies within each respective class or kind. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.04 percent ad valorem for
hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.06 percent ad volorem for cold-rolled carbon steel products;
0.09 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.00 percent ad
valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for
Ilesnburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net
subsidy rates are 0.00, 0.00, 0.10 percent ad valorem, respectively.

8. Joint Program: Upswing East

For the region encompassing Germany's new states of the former GDR, a special Federal/State
Joint Scheme Program was enacted. (For additional information on the Joint Scheme Program, see
A.3., above.) This new program is called Joint Program: Upswing East. According to the GOG, this
special program was designed only for 1991 and 1992, and will not be extended. This new program
was created by the Investment Act of 1991, which provided for a special investment allowance in
the five new states and in Berlin. Applicatons for this investment grant are submitted to the local
tax office.
Only one company under investigation, Ilsenburg, received a grant under this program which was
used to finance the purchase of a new furnace. Because grants under this program are limited to
companies located in specified regions of Germany, we preliminarily determine the program
to be countervailable.
We further preliminarily determine that grants provided under this program are nonrecurring.
Therefore, we calculated the benefit under this program using the methodology for nonrecurring
grants as described in the "Capital Investment
Grant" program (see A.1., above). We then divided these results by the total steel sales of all the
companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon
steel products, for cold-rolled carbon steel products, and for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products; and 0.00 percent ad valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg,
Preussag, and Thyssen, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates
are 1.66, 0.00, and 0.00 percent Ad valorem, respectively.

9. Treuhandanstalt Subsidies

The Treuhandanstalt (TRA) is an institution under public law, directly subordinated to the federal
government, with the authority to conduct legal transactions in its own name. The task of the TRA
is to take over the "people's-owned" assets in the former GDR and place them within the
competition-directed market-economy of the Federal Republic. The TRA is privatizing as many
companies as possible. Where rapid privatization is not possible, viable companies are being
prepared for later privatization, and non- viable companies are being closed down. The TRA aims
to reach its goal of comprehensive privatization by 1995. Within the framework of the
privatization, the TRA provides financial assistance to companies on a case-by- case basis. This
assistance is intended to help companies adjust to the normal competitive situation in a market
economy.
We preliminarily determine this program to be countervailable to the extent that the assistance is
provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations because benefits are limited to
companies in specific areas of Germany. Ilsenburg received loan guarantees from the TRA
during the period of investigation. The loan guarantees were for short-term loans provided by
commercial banks. The interest rates on these short-term loans

*57777

ranged from 9.5 percent to 10.875 percent. The TRA guarantee terminated when the short-term
loans were replaced by a long-term loan in 1992. The new loan was guaranteed by Preussag, which
is in the process of purchasing Ilsenburg. The interest rate on the new loan was 8.5 percent.
Ilsenburg was charged a fee of 0.8 percent for the guarantee. According to evidence submitted in
the company response, Ilsenburg could have received a loan guarantee from a commercial bank at
the same rate as that charged by the TRA. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the
guarantee fee charged by the TRA was consistent with commercial considerations, and, therefore,
is not countervailable. However, Ilsenburg has not yet paid the guarantee fee to the TRA even
though the guarantee was cancelled. We preliminarily determine that the deferred payment of the
fee constitutes a benefit specific to one company.

To calculate the benefit, we treated the outstanding amount of the fee as a short-term interest-free
loan. We calculated the interest that would have been paid on that outstanding fee based on the
national average short-term interest rate in Germany during the period of investigation. (We
used an interest rate of 9.25 percent calculated from the Financial Statistics Monthly.) We divided
the interest savings by the total steel sales of all the companies within each respective class or kind
of merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be
0.00 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products, for cold-rolled carbon steel
products, and for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.00 percent ad valorem for
cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have
significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates at 0.02, 0.00, and 0.00 percent ad
valorem, respectively.

10. Loan Guarantees from Nordrhein-Westfalen

Various statutes of the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen authorize the Finance Minister to issue
loan guarantees to companies. In order to receive a loan guarantee, the applicant must be of good
standing, the projects for which the applicant is seeking financing must provide a benefit to the
economy, and
the borrower must demonstrate its ability to repay the guaranteed loan according to schedule. One
company under investigation, Hoesch, received a loan guarantee under this program.
According to the response, these loan guarantees are available to all industries and professionals in
Nordrhein-Westfalen. However, no evidence was provided on actual program usage to permit the
Department to analyze whether the loan guarantees are de facto limited to specific enterprises or
industries. Therefore, as best information available, we preliminarily determine this program to be
countervailable to the extent that loan guarantees were provided on terms inconsistent with
commercial considerations.
To derive the benefit, we calculated the difference between the guarantee fee paid under this
program and the guarantee fee that would have been charged by a commercial bank. We divided
the difference by the total steel sales of all the companies within each respective class or kind of
merchandise. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be
0.00 percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products, for cold-rolled carbon steel
products, for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products, and for cut-to-length carbon steel
plate.

11. Nordrhein-Westfalen's Air Pollution Control Program

In an effort to promote projects that will reduce air pollution, noise, and related environmental
conditions, the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen established a program that provides financial
assistance to business enterprises in the form of grants and reduced-interest loans. Grants or loans
are provided based upon a determination by the Government of Nordrhein- Westfalen that the
proposed project will alleviate undesired environmental conditions. Both Thyssen and Hoesch
received grants under this program.

According to the response, assistance under this program is available to all business enterprises
throughout the state. However, no evidence was provided on actual program usage to permit the
Department to analyze whether the assistance is de facto limited to specific enterprises or
industries. Therefore, as best information available, we preliminarily determine this program to be
countervailable.

We preliminarily determine that grants provided under this program are nonrecurring. Therefore,
we calculated the benefit under this program using the methodology for nonrecurring grants as
described in the "Capital Investment Grant" program (see A.1., above). Using this methodology, all
grants were expensed in the year of receipt because the sum of the grants received in each year was
less than 0.5 percent of total sales.

12. Subsidies Related to the Saarstahl/Dillinger Merger

In April 1989, an agreement was reached between the Government of Saarland and Dillinger's
parent company, Usinor Sacilor, regarding the purchase of Saarstahl Volklingen GmbH (Saarstahl).
Saarstahl, a producer of hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products, is not a respondent in
this investigation. Under the terms of this purchase agreement, Saarstahl and Dillinger became
wholly-owned subsidiaries of a newly created holding company, DHS-Dillinger Hutte Saarstahl AG
(DHS).

The Government of Saarland contributed the assets of Saarstahl and DM 145.1 million in cash in
return for 27.5 percent ownership of the holding company, DHS. Usinor Sacilor contributed its
shares of Dillinger to DHS in return for 70 percent ownership of the holding company. A third party
bought 2.5 percent of DHS. Pursuant to the purchase agreement, the Governments of Germany
and Saarland forgave all of the outstanding debts owed to them by Saarland. The amount of
forgiven debt was DM 3.936 billion. In addition, private creditors forgave debt amounting to DM
217.1 million as part of the restructuring of the two companies.

We preliminarily determine that the debt forgiveness by the Governments of Germany and
Saarland is a countervailable benefit because the forgiveness was limited to a specific enterprise or
industry, or group of enterprises or industries. In addition, we preliminarily determine that the
private debt
forgiveness is countervailable because it was required by the governments as part of a
government-led debt reduction package leading to the creation of DHS. These determinations are
consistent with our determination in Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from Germany, 57
FR 42971 (September 17, 1992).

We also preliminarily determine that the debt forgiveness provided by the Governments of
Germany and Saarland, and the private creditors, although provided for debt incurred
originally by Saarstahl, benefitted both Saarstahl and Dillinger because the forgiveness was made
pursuant to the creation of DHS.

*57778

Without this forgiveness, DHS would have been liable for this debt. Therefore, we allocated the
benefit over DHS's total sales, which includes the total sales of both Saarstahl and Dillinger.
To calculate the benefit arising from the debt forgiveness, we treated the amount of the forgiveness
as a nonrecurring grant. Therefore, we calculated the benefit under this program using the
methodology for nonrecurring grants as described in the "Capital Investment Grant" program (see
A.1., above). For each specific class or kind of merchandise, we divided these results by the total
steel sales of all the companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis,
we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for
hot-rolled carbon steel products, for cold-rolled carbon steel products, and for corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat products; and 16.90 percent ad valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate
except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which have significantly different aggregate benefits.
The net subsidy rates are 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00 percent ad valorem, respectively.

However, we see certain similarities between the creation of DHS and the formation of the joint
venture discussed in the preliminary determination of Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon
Steel Products from the United Kingdom (Bar) (57 FR 42974, September 17, 1992). In the
preliminary determination of Bar, we used the outside investor's contribution to the joint venture
as a benchmark against which we measured the government's action in order to preliminarily
determine if the government's investment was consistent with commercial considerations. We
intend to seek more information along these lines for the final determination of the present
investigation.

Petitioners also alleged that Dillinger received subsidies indirectly from the federal government
and the Saarland government in connection with the construction of the ROGESA iron production
facility and the Zentralkokerei Saar Company coking plant.

ROGESA was a joint venture between Dillinger and ARBED Saarstahl (a predecessor company of
Saarstahl) which was formed in 1981. This company was created to produce pig iron for both
companies. Saarstahl made a capital contribution to ROGESA in the amount of DM 200 million.
This amount was
financed by a repayable contribution from the Governments of Germany and the Saarland,
which was part of the DM 3.936 billion forgiven by the Governments of Germany and
Saarland. Dillinger made a contribution in kind by transferring its blast furnace to the
newly-created company. According to the response, an independent accounting firm determined
that the market value of the blast furnace was between DM 218 and 234 million.
Zentralkokerei was founded in 1982 by Dillinger, Stahlwerke Rochling-Burbach GmbH (another
predecessor company of Saarstahl) and Saarbergwerke AG. According to its response, Dillinger
made a capital contribution in the amount of DM 255,000 to Zentralkokerei. The stated capital of
the company is DM one million; therefore, Dillinger acquired ownership of 25.5 percent of
Zentralkokerei's stock.
Since Dillinger received shares in ROGESA and Zentralkokerei equal to the contribution made into
both companies, we preliminarily determine that these transactions are not countervailable. To
the extent that Dillinger did receive a subsidy, based on the assistance provided to Saarstahl by the
Governments of Germany and Saarland which was used to finance a portion of the ROGESA
and Zentralkokerei transactions, it is in our calculation arising from the forgiveness of debt.

13. ECSC Redeployment Aid Under Article 56(2)(b)

Under Article 56(2)(b) of the European Coal Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty, persons employed in
the coal and steel industry who lose their jobs may receive assistance for social adjustment. This
assistance is provided to workers affected by restructuring measures, particularly as workers
withdraw from the labor market into early retirement or are forced into unemployment. The ECSC
disburses assistance under this program on the condition that the affected country makes an
equivalent contribution. Payments were made to German steel workers under Article 56(2)(b).
The portion of the payments made by the ECSC is provided from its budget, which is financed by
contributions from the coal and steel industry. We preliminarily determine that because this
portion was financed solely from producer contributions, it is not countervailable. However, we
preliminarily determine that the GOG's share of funds under this program is countervailable
because the provision of its funds is limited to a specific industry, and because the funds relieved
the companies of obligations they normally would have incurred. This program was used by all six
companies.
We consider this program to provide recurring benefits and we expensed the payments provided
under this program by the GOG to the year of receipt. Therefore, we took 50 percent of the funds
provided in 1991 under this program, the amount attributable to the GOG, and divided that amount
by the total steel
sales of all the companies within each respective class or kind of merchandise. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.12 percent ad valorem for
hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.12 percent ad valorem for cold-rolled carbon steel products;
0.44 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products; and 0.00 percent ad
valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag, and Thyssen, which
have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.16, 0.07, and 0.14
percent ad valorem, respectively.

14. ECSC Article 54 Loans

Article 54 loans are provided for the purpose of purchasing new equipment or financing
modernization. The EC stated that Article 54 loans are direct loans from the Commission and that
the funds are loaned at a slightly higher rate than that at which the Commission obtained them in
order to cover its costs. According to the EC response, the Commission has this program to
facilitate the lending process for companies in the ECSC, some of which may not otherwise be able
to acquire such lending. Hoesch, Klockner, Preussag, and Thyssen received loans under this
program.

Because this program is limited to the iron and steel industry, we
preliminarily determine these loans to be countervailable to the extent that they were extended to
recipient companies on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
The benefit for the period of investigation was calculated using our long-term loan methodology
described in � 355.49(c)(1) of the Department's Proposed Rules, and used in prior investigations
(see, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Granite Products
from Spain, 53 FR 24340 (June 28, 1988)). To preliminarily determine if a loan to a particular
recipient was provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations, we used, whenever
possible, each company's actual cost for long-term, fixed-rate debt. If a company did not report
this cost, or when a company had no long- term

*57779

borrowing in the year in which a loan was approved, we used the average annual interest rate for
Germany as reported in International Financial Statistics.

Using this methodology, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.06
percent ad valorem for hot-rolled carbon steel products; 0.08 percent ad valorem for cold-rolled
carbon steel products; 0.01 percent ad valorem for corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products;
and 0.00 percent ad valorem for cut-to-length carbon steel plate except for Ilsenburg, Preussag,
and Thyssen, which have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidy rates are 0.00,
0.02, and 0.01 percent ad valorem, respectively.

15. Interest Rebates on ECSC Article 54 loans

Article 54 loan interest rebates were granted to steel companies during the restructuring and
modernization of the industry beginning in the 1980's. Companies applying for these rebates had to
meet certain criteria such as a reduction in steel production and improvements in processing that
would yield energy savings and improve efficiency. Interest rebates to steel companies were
limited to a maximum of three percent of the eligible investment and were provided over a period
of three years. Funds were provided by the ECSC operational budget which is made up of levies
charged to all ECSC companies. Deficits in the operational budget are made up by Member State
contributions. While no Member State contributions have been made to the operational budget
since 1984, it was supplemented by member States from 1978 through 1984. Preussag and Thyssen
received interested rebates on Article 54 loans.

Because the interest rebates provided came from the ECSC Operational Budget, which was financed
exclusively by producer levies since 1985, interest rebates provided from 1985 to the present are
not countervailable. However, because the interest rebates given prior to 1985 were financed
through Member State contributions, interest rebates provided before 1985 are countervailable.

Moreover, because companies are aware that interest rebates will be available when the loans are
taken out, we treated these interest rate subsidies as reduced interest loans. Therefore, in
calculating the benefits from the ECSC Article 54 loans (see, A.14., above), we reduced the interest
paid on those loans by the amount of interest rebates received before 1985. The estimated subsidy
calculated for that program includes all benefits conferred by these interest rebates.

B. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable

We preliminarily determine that the following programs do not provide subsidies to
manufacturers, producers, or exporter in Germany of certain steel products:

1. Wage Subsidies (Kurzarbeitergeld)

Kurzarbeitergeld is a benefit within the framework of unemployment insurance. Benefits under this
program consist of payments of unemployment insurance to individual employees to compensate
them for reductions in their hours worked. This program is funded by the Federal Labor Office
whose budget consists solely of premiums paid by German employers and employees. The period
for receiving
Kurzarbeitergeld may be extended or shortened depending on the situation in the labor market.
Assistance provided under this program is paid only to employees. On occasion, an employer will
pay employees the benefits they are due under this program and subsequently receive
reimbursement from the Federal Labor Office. For those employees who work part time in a
company, the employer continues to pay the full health insurance and half of the contributions to
social security.
We preliminarily determine that benefits under this program are not countervailable because the
program is funded by employees and employers, rather than by the government.

2. Nordrhein-Westfalen's Technology Program Materials and Substances Development

This program provides grants for projects in the field of material development. The program is
administered by Nordrhein-Westfalen's Ministry of Economics and Technology. Grants can be
provided to companies, universities, polytechnics, and research institutes. Both Thyssen and
Hoesch have received grants under this program.
Grants under this program are provided for the development of both ferrous and non-ferrous
metallic materials, non-metallic materials, ceramics, composite
materials, and fibers. Grants received under this program are conditionally repayable. According
to the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen, the results of individual projects were made public
through articles in technical journals and through papers given at national and international
symposia.
The Department's practice regarding the countervailability of research and development assistance
is that when the results of the research are made available to the public, the assistance does not
confer a countervailable benefit. (See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, 56 FR 7678 (February 25, 1991)).
Applying this standard, we preliminarily determine that this program is not countervailable.

C. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

We preliminarily determine that the following programs were not used by manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Germany of certain steel products:
1. Loans with Reduced Interest Rates under the Steel Restructuring Plan
2. Federal and State Government Loan Guarantees under the Steel Restructuring Plan
3. Special Ruhr Plan
4. Zukunftsinitiative Montanregionen (ZIM) Initiative
5. Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (KfW) Investment Loans for Eastern Germany
6. Deutsche Ausgleichsbank Investment Loans for Eastern Germany
7. European Recovery Program Loans for Eastern Germany
8. Loan Guarantee Program for Eastern Germany
9. Peine-Salzgitter Profit Transfer Agreement and Other Operating Loss Subsidies
10. Elimination of Duisburg Harbor Tolls
11. Export Credits at Preferential Rates
12. Miscellaneous Tax Subsidies
13. Loans from the Government of Nordrhein-Westfalen
14. Tax Subsidies for Eastern Germany
15. ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees
16. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans
17. Interest Rebates on ECSC Conversion Loans under Article 56
18. European Investment Bank Loans and Guarantees
19. New Community Instrument Loans
20. European Regional Development Fund Aid

D. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Exist

We preliminarily determine that the following programs do not exist:

1. Early Retirement Subsidy
2. Nordrhein-Westfalen and Niedersachsen Grants

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information used in making our
final determinations.

*57780

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend
liquidation of all entries of certain steel products from Germany, which are entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of the notice in
the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in
the amounts indicated below. This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Flat Products

Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate .....1.15 percent

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

Country-Wide Ad Volorem Rate .....1.03 percent

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

Country-Wide Ad Volorem Rate .....0.68 percent

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate

Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate .....17.26 percent
Ilsenburg .....2.11 percent
Preussag.....1.91 percent
Thyssen.....0.64 percent

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations and
alignments. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary
information relating to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in
our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Investigations, Import Administration.
If our final determinations are affirmative, the ITC will make its final determinations within 45 days
after the Department makes its final determinations.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request or participate in a hearing must submit a written request
within ten days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary
for Import ministration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the
issues to be discussed. Since investigations involving the same classes or kinds of merchandise
subject to these investigations from various other countries are currently being conducted, we will
publish a briefing and hearing schedule in the Federal Register after
receipt of all requests for hearings in these investigations.
These determinations and alignments are published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671b(f)).
Dated: November 27, 1992.

Alan M. Dunn,

Assitant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Scope of the Investigations

The products covered by these investigations, certain steel products, constitute the following four
separate "classes or kinds" of merchandise, as outlined below.
Although the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings are
dispositive.
We have received comments from petitioners regarding the types of coil included in the scope of
the certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
investigation, the certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products investigation, and the certain
corrosion resistant carbon steel flat products investigation. We are considering these comments
and will address this issue at the final determination.

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

These products include hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, of solid rectangular (other than
square) cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or
not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in coils, or in
straight lengths which are less than 4.75 millimeters in thickness and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.11.0000,
7208.12.0000, 7208.13.1000, 7208.13.5000, 7208.14.1000, 7208.14.5000, 7208.21.1000,
7208.21.5000, 7208.22.1000, 7208.22.5000, 7208.23.1000, 7208.23.5030, 7208.23.5090,
7208.24.1000, 7208.24.5030, 7208.24.5090, 7208.34.1000, 7208.34.5000, 7208.35.1000,
7208.35.5000, 7208.44.0000, 7208.45.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,
7211.12.0000, 7211.19.1000, 7211.19.5000, 7211.22.0090, 7211.29.1000, 7211.29.3000,
7211.29.5000, 7211.29.7030, 7211.29.7060, 7211.29.7090, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,
7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

These products include cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat products, of solid rectangular
(other than square) cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal,
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in coils,
or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width measuring at
least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which
exceeds 150 millimeters and measure at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the
HTS under item numbers 7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0030, 7209.12.0090, 7209.13.0030,
7209.13.0090, 7209.14.0030, 7209.14.0090, 7209.21.0000, 7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000,
7209.24.1000, 7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000, 7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000, 7209.34.0000,
7209.41.0000, 7209.42.0000, 7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.30.1030, 7211.30.1090, 7211.30.3000, 7211.30.5000, 7211.41.1000,
7211.41.3030, 7211.41.3090, 7211.41.5000, 7211.41.7030, 7211.41.7060, 7211.41.7090,
7211.49.1030, 7211.49.1090, 7211.49.3000, 7211.49.5030, 7211.49.5060, 7211.49.5090,
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of solid rectangular (other than square)
cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated or coated with corrosion-resistant metals
such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not
corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating, in coils, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness of 4.75
millimeters are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75
millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000,
7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000. Excluded from these investigations are flat-rolled steel
products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead
("terne plate"), or both chromium and chromium oxides ("tin-free steel").

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate

These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled
on four faces or in a close box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in
relief) of solid rectangular (other than square) cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad,
plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products in straight lengths, of
solid rectangular (other

*57781

than square) cross section, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances,
4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures
at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000,
7208.32.0000, 7208.33. 1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000,
7211.22. 0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.000.

(FR Doc. 92-29502 Filed 12-4-92; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M