94-201

59 FR 4682

NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(C-475-812)

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel From Italy

Tuesday, February 1, 1994

*4682

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annika L. O'Hara or David R. Boyland,
Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-4198 and (202) 482-0588, respectively.

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: 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 Italy of grain-oriented electrical steel. For
information on the estimated net subsidies, please see the Suspension of Liquidation
section of this notice.

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register (58 FR 49018,
September 21, 1993), the following events have occurred.
On September 20, 1993, we issued a questionnaire to the European Community
("EC") in Washington, DC, concerning petitioners' allegations. On October 21, 1993,
we received a response from the EC. We issued deficiency questionnaires to the EC
on November 1, 1993, and January 10, 1994, and we received responses on
November 19, 1993, and January 18, 1994.
On September 23, 1993, we issued a questionnaire to the Government of Italy
("GOI") in Washington, DC, concerning petitioners' allegations. The GOI
indicated on September 30, 1993 that ILVA S.p.A. ("ILVA") was the only company
in Italy producing and exporting grain-oriented electrical steel to the United
States. On October 7, 1993, petitioners requested that the Department reconsider its
decision not to include in its investigation six subsidy programs alleged in the
petition. On October 29, 1993, the Department decided to include two of these
alleged programs. We issued a questionnaire to the GOI regarding these two
programs on October 29, 1993.
On November 3, 1993, we postponed the preliminary determination to January 24,
1994 (58 FR 59990, November 12, 1993). On November 4, 1993, we published in
the Federal Register a notice revising the scope of this investigation (58 FR 58838).
On November 8 and 12, 1993, we received questionnaire responses from the GOI
and ILVA. We issued deficiency questionnaires to these parties on November 24
and December 2, 1993, and on January 10, 1994. We received responses on
December 15, 20, and 23, 1993, and on January 18 and 21, 1994. We also received
certain factual information requested by the Department from ILVA on January 12,
1994.

Scope of Investigation

This investigation concerns the following class or kind of merchandise: Grain-
oriented electrical steel ("electrical steel") from Italy.
The product covered by this investigation is grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of
silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of
aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the
characteristics of

*4683

another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.560 millimeters, in coils of any
width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least 10 times the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") under
item numbers 7225.10.0030, 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.8000,
7225.90.0000, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, 7226.10.5065, 7226.91.7000,
7226.91. 8000, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0000,
7228.30.8050, 7228.60.6000, and 7229.90.1000.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Injury Test

Because Italy 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 electrical steel from Italy materially injure, or
threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On October 12, 1993, the ITC
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in
the United States is being materially injured or threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from Italy of the subject merchandise (58 FR 54168, October
20, 1993).

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation was filed by Allegheny Ludlum Corp.; Armco, Inc.;
United Steelworkers of America; Butler Armco Independent Union; and Zanesville
Armco Independent Union.

Corporate History of Respondent ILVA

Prior to 1987, electrical steel in Italy was produced by Terni S.p.A., a main
operating company of Finsider. Finsider was a government-owned holding company
which controlled all state-owned steel companies in Italy. In a restructuring of
the Italian steel industry in 1982, Terni S.p.A. took over two companies, Lovere
Sidermeccanica S.p.A. ("Lovere") and Attivita Industriali Triestine S.p.A. ("Trieste"),
from Italsider, another Finsider-owned steel producer.

Italsider has previously been found to be the recipient of countervailable subsidies
(see Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel
Products from Italy ("Certain Steel") (58 FR 37327, July 9, 1993).
As part of a subsequent restructuring in 1987, Terni S.p.A. transferred its assets to a
new company, Terni Acciai Speciali ("TAS") which thereafter held all the assets for
electrical steel production in Italy. Lovere and Trieste ended up being
wholly-owned subsidiaries of TAS. In 1988, another restructuring took place in
which Finsider and its main operating companies (TAS, Italsider, and Nuova
Deltasider) entered into liquidation and a new company, ILVA S.p.A. ("ILVA"), was
formed. ILVA took over some of the assets and liabilities of the liquidating
companies. With respect to TAS, part of its liabilities and all of its viable assets,
including all the assets associated with the production of electrical steel, were
transferred to ILVA on December 31, 1988. ILVA itself became operational on
January 1, 1989. Part of TAS' remaining assets and liabilities were transferred to
ILVA on April 1, 1990. After that date, TAS no longer had any manufacturing
activities.
ILVA currently consists of several operating divisions, one of which is a Terni
division which manufactures the subject merchandise. In addition, ILVA is the
majority owner of a large number of separately incorporated subsidiaries. The
subsidiaries produce various types of steel products and also include service
centers, trading companies, an electric power company, etc.

ILVA and its subsidiaries together constitute the ILVA Group. The ILVA Group is
owned by the Instituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale ("IRI"), a holding company
wholly-owned by the GOI.
For purposes of this investigation, we have calculated the amount of subsidies
bestowed on the subject merchandise by cumulating benefits provided to Terni, TAS
and ILVA from 1978 through 1992.

Spin-offs

ILVA's responses show that between 1990 and 1992, the company sold "productive
units," as defined in the General Issues Appendix, to private buyers. (See General
Issues Appendix to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Steel Products from Austria ("General Issues Appendix") (58 FR 37217,
37265-8, July 9, 1993)). Using the pass-through methodology described in the
General Issues Appendix, we have calculated the proportion of subsidies received
by ILVA that "left" the company as a result of the sales of these productive units.
ILVA has also stated that TAS sold Lovere and Trieste to private buyers before the
1988 restructuring of Finsider into ILVA. However, we have not done pass- through
calculations for these two spun-off units. With respect to Trieste, TAS's 1989 Annual
Report indicates that the entire capital stock of Trieste was
transferred to ILVA in 1989. Therefore, the alleged sale to a private buyer does not
seem to have taken place. Regarding Lovere, TAS sold this company to Fin.Lo S.p.A.
in 1990, according to TAS's 1990 Annual Report. However, ILVA has failed to
provide the information requested by the Department in order to conduct its
pass-through analysis.

Equityworthiness and Creditworthiness

Petitioners have alleged that Terni, TAS and ILVA were unequityworthy in each
year they received equity infusions from the GOI and that the equity infusions were,
therefore, inconsistent with commercial considerations. Petitioners have also
alleged that Terni and ILVA were uncreditworthy in every year between 1978 and
1992.
With respect to our analysis of the companies' equityworthiness, we noted that the
companies have sustained losses from 1976 onward. ILVA had a brief period of
operating profits for 1989 through 1991, but its return on equity during this period
declined until there was a negative return. No evidence of equity investment by
private investors during the period in question was provided in the responses. Terni
and ILVA's debt to equity ratios were relatively high; read in conjunction with other
financial indicators, such as negative rates of return on equity and sales plus net
losses for numerous years, the companies'
financial performance appears to be weak. Based on our analysis of the responses,
the Department preliminarily finds that Terni, TAS and ILVA were unequityworthy
from 1978 through 1992, except in 1979, 1983, 1988, and 1989 when no equity
infusions were received. See also January 13, 1994 Memorandum to Director of
Accounting.
After examining Terni and ILVA's current, quick, times interest earned and debt to
equity, the Department also preliminarily determines that Terni, TAS and ILVA
were uncreditworthy from 1978 through 1992. For example, the companies' times
interest earned ratios were anemic for approximately 16 years, indicating a weak
long-term solvency. Furthermore, the debt to equity ratio for both Terni and ILVA
were relatively high. See also January 13, 1994 Memorandum to Director of
Accounting.
For uncreditworthy companies, §355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Department's Proposed
Regulations (Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 23366, May 31, 1989) directs us to use, as the
benchmark interest rate, the

*4684

highest long-term interest rate plus an amount equal to 12 percent of the prime rate.
However, because the highest long-term interest rate is not available, we have used
the reference rate provided by the Bank of Italy. We then added to this rate an
amount equal to 12 percent of the Italian prime rate. We have used the resulting
interest rate for each appropriate year as the benchmark for our long-term loan
calculations, and as the discount rate for allocating over time the benefit from equity infusions
and non-recurring grants.

Analysis of Programs

For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are
measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1992.
In determining the benefits received under the various programs described below,
we used the following calculation methodology. We first calculated the benefit
attributable to the POI for each countervailable program, using the methodologies
described in each program section below. For those subsidies received by ILVA that
were allocated over time, we then performed the pass- through analysis discussed in
the General Issues Appendix at 37269. For each program, we then divided the
benefit attributable to ILVA by a denominator which represented the sales of ILVA
S.p.A. or the sales of the Terni division of ILVA, depending on which company
received the benefit. (The program sections below indicate which denominator has
been used for each program.) Next, we added the benefits for all programs,
including the benefits for programs which were not allocated over time, to arrive at
ILVA's total subsidy rate. Because ILVA is the only respondent company in this
investigation, this rate equals the country-wide rate.

Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a response to an
allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of benefits under a program, or
eligibility of a company or industry under a program, and the Department has no
persuasive evidence showing that the response is incorrect, we accept the response
for purposes of the preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are
subject to verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and the
program is otherwise countervailable, the program will be considered a subsidy in
the final determination.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we
preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

1. Equity Infusions

a. New Equity Capital. The GOI, through the IRI, provided new equity capital to
Terni, TAS, or ILVA in every year from 1978 through 1991, except in 1979, 1983,
1988, and 1989. Because the GOI provided no information with respect to
specificity, we are assuming as the best information available ("BIA"), that these
equity investments were provided specifically to the steel industry. (See also
Certain Steel.)

As discussed above, we have preliminarily determined that Terni, TAS, and ILVA
were unequityworthy in each year they received new equity capital. Therefore,
these provisions of equity were inconsistent with commercial considerations and
countervailable.
To calculate the benefit for the POI, we treated each of the equity amounts as a grant
and allocated the benefits over a 15-year period. (Our treatment of equity as grants
and our choice of allocation period is discussed in the General Issues Appendix, at
37239 and 37225, respectively.)
For equity infusions provided to Terni or TAS, we have divided the benefit allocated
to the POI by the sales of the Terni division of ILVA. We chose this sales
denominator because this division of ILVA most closely resembles the former
companies, Terni and TAS. For equity infusions into ILVA, we used ILVA S.p.A.'s
sales as our denominator, as benefits from these investments are not tied to any
division of ILVA. On this basis, we find the estimated net subsidy from equity
infusions into Terni, TAS, and ILVA, to be 9.66 percent ad valorem for all
manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.
b. Restructuring of Finsider into ILVA. As discussed above under the "Corporate
History" section of this notice, the GOI liquidated Finsider and its main operating
companies in 1988 and assembled the group's most productive assets into a new
operating company, ILVA S.p.A. At the same time, the Finsider
Group had total liabilities of 10.6 trillion lire. ILVA assumed 4.3 trillion lire of this
debt and the remaining 6.3 billion was assumed by IRI. In 1990, additional assets
and liabilities of TAS went to ILVA.
In Certain Steel, we determined that the Finsider assets transferred to ILVA were an
equity infusion into ILVA and that the portion of the debt assumed by IRI
represented a debt forgiveness to ILVA. Based on those findings in Certain Steel,
petitioners in this proceeding have alleged that the 1988 equity infusion that
created ILVA and the 1988 debt forgiveness constitute subsidies to electrical steel.
Additionally, petitioners have alleged that: (1) A 1988 forgiveness of TAS's debt by
Finsider and (2) various other forms of assistance provided after 1988 to TAS,
confer subsidies on the subject merchandise.
We have reconsidered the Department's analysis in Certain Steel. We note that the
Department applied BIA in the final determination in that case because we did not
verify ILVA's data. Much of the BIA was taken from the petition.
Based on our review of the information presented in this investigation, we have
preliminarily concluded that the analysis used in Certain Steel was inconsistent with
the restructuring methodology described in Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria ("Certain Steel from
Austria") (58 FR 37217, July 9, 1993), Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Spain ("Certain Steel from Spain") (58
FR 37374, July 9, 1993) and the General Issues
Appendix. In the Austrian case, the Department examined a government-owned
operating company ("VAAG") which was split up into numerous operating
companies. In order to effect this split-up, the assets and liabilities of the original
company were divided among the new operating companies.
The Department ruled in Certain Steel from Austria, that this "equity infusion"
creating the new operating companies "was merely a redistribution of existing
assets" which, in and of itself, did not give rise to any benefits (at 37222). Instead,
the benefit that arose through the restructuring of VAAG was the fact that losses
that had been incurred by the original company were not distributed to the new
operating companies. Because it did not receive a portion of those losses, the
Department determined that the operating company under investigation effectively
received a grant in the amount of the losses that should have been distributed to it.
Similarly, in Certain Steel from Spain, a cold rolling mill was transferred from one
government-owned company to another (at 37379). We did not treat the
redistributed capital as an equity infusion into the recipient company. Instead,
prior subsidies allocable to the cold rolling mill were allocated to its new owner.
We believe that the restructuring of Finsider into ILVA is analogous to the situations
in Austrian and Spanish steel

*4685

cases. The assets and a portion of the liabilities that resided in the
government-owned Terni/TAS were
merely redistributed to ILVA. These assets brought subsidies with them, i.e., the
subsidies previously received by Terni/TAS and described elsewhere in this notice,
but the movement of assets from Terni and the other former Finsider companies
such as Italsider into ILVA does not constitute a countervailable equity infusion.
This does not mean, however, that no new benefits were received by ILVA through
the 1988 restructuring and the subsequent transfer of assets and liabilities in 1990.
In Certain Steel from Austria, a benefit arose because accumulated losses were not
distributed along with assets and liabilities. In the case of the Finsider restructuring,
and more specifically the transfer of assets from Terni/TAS to ILVA, ILVA received
its Terni division with assets in excess of liabilities. This was despite the fact that
prior to the transfer Terni/TAS's liabilities exceeded its assets. Thus, as part of the
transfer process, Terni/TAS's balance sheet was effectively rewritten so as to change
its equity from negative 99,885,535,826 lire to positive 317,836,000,000.
It is not clear from the information provided in the petition or the responses exactly
how this change was effected. As noted above, there was forgiveness of Terni/TAS
and Finsider debt in 1988. Also, petitioners have alleged various forms of assistance
to Terni/TAS since 1988. We believe that the debt forgiveness and, perhaps, some of
the further assistance alleged by petitioners may have been the tools used by the
GOI to rewrite Terni's balance
sheet. However, rather than focus on these individual pieces of assistance, we have
relied on a comparison of what Terni looked like before the restructuring and what it
looked like after the restructuring. We believe this is the most reasonable approach
given the complicated nature and extensive number of transactions surrounding the
transfer. At verification, we will seek to clarify the events that made up the
restructuring. We will continue to examine our approach to this issue throughout
the remainder of the investigation and will take into consideration comments
submitted by interested parties for purposes of our final determination. Given the
complexity of this situation, we invite particular comment focused on this issue.
Based on the analysis described above, we are treating as a grant the difference
between Terni/TAS's equity position before and after the restructuring. Because the
transfer of assets and liabilities from Terni/TAS to ILVA took place in two parts, first
in 1988 and then in 1990, we have divided the total amount of the grant between
these two years. In 1988, 60 percent of TAS's assets were transferred. Therefore, we
have treated 60 percent of the grant amount as having been received in that year.
The remainder was treated as a grant received in 1990. The benefit allocated to the
POI was divided by the Terni division's sales in the POI.
It may be argued that the amount we have countervailed overstates the benefit to
production of electrical steel because a portion of the assets that existed
in Terni/TAS prior to the restructuring continues to reside in Terni/TAS in
liquidation. Despite this, the Department treated the entire benefit arising from the
rewriting of Terni/TAS's balance sheet as a subsidy to the Terni division of ILVA. On
the other hand, it may be argued that the production of electrical steel benefits from
alleged subsidies received by Terni/TAS after the final transfer of assets in 1990.
We preliminarily disagree with both of these arguments. The effect of the 1988 and
1990 transfers was to move the production activities of Terni/TAS to ILVA. As best
we can follow, TAS remained to close down non-productive facilities and to carry on
financial operations connected with its liquidation. Consistent with the position
articulated most recently by the Department in the General Issues Appendix, at
37269, subsidies do not remain with closed down operations. Therefore, it is proper
to assign all benefits from the restructuring to the ongoing production operations
now located in ILVA. Similarly, because the entire production operations have
transferred to ILVA and because we believe we have captured the full amount of the
assistance needed to effect that transfer, any alleged subsidies to what remained in
TAS do not provide any benefit to the subject merchandise.
Based on the information provided above, we preliminarily find the estimated net
subsidy from the restructuring of Finsider to ILVA to be 5.70 percent ad valorem
for all manufacturers, producers and exporters in Italy of
the subject merchandise.
c. The 1987 Restructuring. As part of a 1987 restructuring, Terni conferred its
assets to TAS. For the reasons discussed under the "Restructuring of Finsider into
ILVA" section above, we have preliminarily determined not to treat the transfer of
assets as an equity infusion into TAS. However, we have treated as an equity
infusion capital received by TAS in 1987 that was not associated with the asset
transfer. The estimated net subsidy from this infusion is included in the equity
calculation above (see section a). Also, the subsidies received by Terni prior to the
1987 transfer are being allocated in full to TAS and, from 1988, to ILVA.

d. The Transfer of Lovere and Trieste to Terni in 1982. As discussed in the
"Corporate History" section of this notice, Lovere and Trieste were transferred from
Italsider to Terni as part of a 1982 restructuring. Petitioners included the value of
the transferred assets as part of their equity allegation for 1982.
We have preliminarily determined that this transaction is more correctly
characterized as an internal corporate restructuring that warrants a reallocation of
subsidies among government-owned units. When Italsider received untied subsidies
(e.g., equity infusions), those subsidies benefitted all of Italsider's operations,
including Lovere and Trieste. The transfer of these two industrial plants to Terni did
nothing to alter those subsidies. (See
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the United Kingdom 58 FR 12534,
January 27, 1993 ("Leaded Bar")). Therefore, consistent with our restructuring
methodology, when Lovere and Trieste "traveled" to Terni, they brought with them a
portion of the subsidies which had been provided to Italsider.
As stated in the General Issues Appendix at 37266, the Department does not
consider internal corporate restructurings that transfer or shuffle assets among
related parties to constitute a "sale" for purposes of its pass-through analysis.
However, when assets are transferred internally, the Department still needs to
allocate subsidies.
We do not have sufficient information on the current record as to the total amount
of untied benefits received by Italsider prior to the transfer of Lovere and Trieste.
ILVA has, however, provided the amount of equity infusions received by Italsider
from 1978 (the beginning of our allocation period) through 1982. Therefore, for
purposes for the preliminary determination, we have calculated the amount of
subsidies that travelled with Lovere and Trieste from Italsider to Terni based on the
equity infusions provided to Italsider.
We determined the amount of Italsider's subsidies attributable to Lovere and Trieste
by calculating the percentage of assets these two

*4686

companies represented of the total Italsider assets. We applied this percentage to
Italsider's subsidy amount to calculate the portion of benefit Lovere and
Trieste carried with them to Terni. This benefit for the POI was divided by the total
sales of the Terni division of ILVA. On this basis, we find the estimated net subsidy
from the transfer of Lovere and Trieste to Terni to be . 49 percent ad valorem for all
manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

2. Interest-Free Loan to ILVA

Based on ILVA's 1992 Annual Report, petitioners have alleged that the company
received a 300 billion lire equity infusion in that year. According to ILVA, this
amount does not represent an equity infusion but rather a loan.
Because the GOI has provided no information with respect to specificity, we are
assuming as BIA, that this loan was provided specifically to ILVA. ILVA has
provided no interest rate, repayment schedule, or other terms for the loan.
Therefore, we have assumed that this was an interest-free loan. To determine the
benefit, we first calculated the interest that would have been paid during the POI on
a 300 billion lire loan at the benchmark interest rate. We then divided this amount
by ILVA S.p.A's sales in the POI. On this basis, we determine the estimated net
subsidy from this program to be .65 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers,
producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

3. Law 675/77 Preferential Financing

a. General Description of Law 675/77. Law 675/77 was enacted to bring about
restructuring and reconversion in the following industrial sectors: (1) Electronic
technology; (2) the manufacturing industry; (3) the agro-food industry; (4) the
chemical industry; (5) the steel industry; (6) the pulp and paper industry; (7) the
fashion sector; and (8) the automobile and aviation sectors. Law 675/77 also
sought to promote optimal exploitation of energy resources, and ecological and
environmental recovery.
A primary goal of this legislation was to bring all government industrial assistance
programs under a single law in order to develop a system to replace indiscriminate
and random public intervention by the GOI. Other goals were (1) to reorganize and
develop the industrial sector as a whole; (2) to increase employment in the South;
and (3) to maintain employment in depressed areas. Among other measures taken,
the Interministerial Committee for the Coordination of Industrial Policy ("CIPI") was
created as a result of Law 675/77. CIPI approves specific projects in each of the
industrial sectors listed above.
Six main programs were provided under Law 675/77: (1) Interest contributions on
bank loans; (2) mortgage loans provided by the Ministry of Industry at subsidized
interest rates; (3) interest contributions on funds raised by bond
issues; (4) capital grants for projects in the South; (5) personnel retraining grants;
and (6) VAT reductions on purchases of capital goods by companies in the South.
Except for personnel retraining grants, Law 675/77 went into effect in 1977.
According to ILVA, the law has since expired. The GOI has not been specific on this
point but has stated that no company has applied for funding under Law 675/77
since 1982.
Information provided by the GOI shows that the steel industry was the single largest
recipient of benefits under Law 675/77 programs (1) through (3), listed above. The
GOI's response also indicates that the steel industry received a disproportionate
share of the benefits under this law. Based on this information, the Department
preliminarily determines that the steel industry was a dominant user of programs
under Law 675/77 and, therefore, that benefits received by ILVA under this law are
being provided to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or
industries. (See also Certain Steel.)
b. Countervailable Assistance Under Law 675/77.

(i) Interest Contributions on Bank Loans. Italian commercial banks provided loans
at market interest rates to industries designated under Law 675/77. However, the
interest owed by the recipient companies was offset by interest contributions from
the GOI. Terni received bank loans with interest contributions under Law 675/77
which were outstanding in the POI.

To determine whether this assistance conferred a benefit, we compared the effective
interest rate paid on these loans to the benchmark interest rate, discussed above.
Based on this comparison, we preliminarily determine that the financing provided
under this program is inconsistent with commercial considerations.
Because Terni knew that it would receive the interest contributions when it obtained
the loans, we consider the contributions to constitute reductions in the interest
rates charged rather than grants (see Certain Steel at 37335).
To calculate the benefit we used our standard long-term loan methodology as
described in §355.49(c)(1) of the Proposed Regulations. We then divided the benefit
allocated to the POI by the 1992 sales made by the Terni division of ILVA. On this
basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to be .07 percent
ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the
subject merchandise.

(ii) Mortgage Loans from the Ministry of Industry. Under Law 675/77, companies
could obtain low-interest mortgage loans from the Ministry of Industry. The
response indicates that Terni received two such loans which were still outstanding
in the POI.
To determine whether these loans were provided on terms inconsistent with
commercial considerations, we used the benchmark interest rates described above.
Because the interest rates paid on the Law 675/77 loans were below the
benchmark interest rates, the Department preliminarily determines that loans
provided under this program are countervailable.
We calculated the benefit using our standard long-term loan methodology. We then
divided the benefit allocated to the POI by the 1992 sales made by the Terni division
of ILVA. On this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to
be .20 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in
Italy of the subject merchandise.

(iii) Interest Contributions on Loans Financed by IRI Bond Issues. Under Law
675/77, IRI was allowed to issue bonds to finance restructuring measures of
companies within the IRI Group. The proceeds from the sales of the bonds were then
re-lent to IRI companies. The effective interest rate on such loans was reduced by
interest contributions made by the GOI. Terni had two of these loans outstanding
during the POI. Both loans had variable interest rates.
To determine whether these loans were countervailable, the Department used the
benchmark interest rate described above. (Because the loans in question have
variable interest rates, we would have preferred to use a variable rate benchmark.
However, we lack information to do this.) We compared the benchmark rates in the
year the loans were received to the effective rates paid by Terni in that year and
found that these loans were provided on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations.
To determine the benefit, we first calculated the difference between
what was paid on these loans during the POI and what would have been paid during
the POI had the loans been provided on commercial terms. We then divided the
resulting difference by the 1992 sales made by the Terni division of ILVA. On

*4687

this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to be .48
percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of
the subject merchandise.

4. Interest Grants for "Indirect Debts" Under Law 750/81

Interest grants pursuant to Law 750/81 were extended between 1981 and 1983 to
IRI-owned companies undergoing reconversion. Respondents have indicated that
Law 750/81 was enacted to implement Article 12 of Law 675/77 (see section I.3,
above), but that the interest contributions provided for under Law 750/81 were
separate from those made under Law 675/77. Article 12 of Law 675/77 outlines
various rules and budgetary considerations with regard to the extension of financial
aid to state-owned companies under Law 675/77.
Terni received 48.6 billion lire and 27.5 billion lire under this program in 1982 and
1983, respectively. The response does not tie the interest contributions to specific
loans and the payments, therefore, appear to have been provided to cover
aggregate interest payments on several different loans as opposed to interest
payments on specific loans.

Because interest contributions pursuant to Law 750/81 are limited to
government-owned companies in reconversion, we preliminarily find that
payments made under Law 750/81 also confer a countervailable subsidy. We
further determine that these payments are non-recurring grants (see General Issues
Appendix at 37226).
To calculate the benefit for the POI, we used our standard grant methodology (see
§355.49(b) of the Proposed Regulations) using the discount rate described above.
We divided the benefit allocated to the POI by the 1992 sales of the Terni division of
ILVA. On this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to be
.77 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy
of the subject merchandise.

5. Finsider Financing

The response indicates that Terni received four loans from Finsider of which only
one, provided at a variable interest rate, appears to have been outstanding in the
POI. ILVA has argued that such financing from a parent company to a subsidiary is a
normal transaction which should not be considered to provide a countervailable
benefit.
In Certain Steel from Spain (at 37383), the Department declined to find short- term
financing from the National Industrial Institute ("INI") to its subsidiary
Ensidesa (the state-owned steel company under investigation) to be
countervailable. In that investigation, the Department determined that there was no
evidence that the financing was a result of a program designed to benefit the steel
industry. Further, the Department found that INI was involved in a number of
sectors outside the steel industry and that INI was capable of generating funds
independently of the government.
In this investigation, however, we have found that Finsider was previously the
holding company only for state-owned steel companies. Therefore, Finsider's only
source of funds for internal lending, beyond government contributions, was its
other steel companies. Given the financial state of Terni and Finsider's other
subsidiaries (see Certain Steel at 37328), we find no reason to believe that its
companies could generate such funds. More importantly, Finsider has been found to
be the conduit for government- provided assistance to its steel companies. (See
Certain Steel at 37329: "The GOI made these investments by transferring funds to
the IRI Group, which either directly or through Finsider made equity infusions into
(Italsider, Nuova Italsider)." Emphasis added.) The Department, therefore,
preliminarily determines that all internal financing provided by Finsider is limited
to Finsider-owned companies and is countervailable to the extent that such
financing was provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
Because ILVA has provided incomplete information regarding this loan, the
Department has used BIA for the calculation of the benefit. Specifically, ILVA did
not provide the outstanding balance on this loan in the POI. Therefore, we have
assumed that the entire original loan amount was still outstanding. Also, because
ILVA has not reported the interest rate in effect during the POI, we have used the
reported interest rate from the most recent period.
To determine whether this loan was countervailable, the Department used the
benchmark interest rate described above. (Because the loan in question has a
variable interest rate, we would have preferred to use a variable rate benchmark.
However, we lack information to do this.) We compared the benchmark rate in the
year the loan was received to the rate paid by Terni in that year and found that this
loan was provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
We calculated the benefit for the POI as the difference between the interest that
would have been paid under a benchmark loan and the interest that was actually
paid in the POI. We then divided the benefit by the 1992 sales made by the Terni
division of ILVA. On this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this
program to be .03 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and
exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

6. Exchange Rate Guarantee Program

This program, which was enacted by Law 796/76, provided exchange rate
guarantees on foreign currency loans from the European Coal and Steel Community
("ECSC"). The recipient of a guaranteed loan would repay the loan at an agreed upon
exchange rate. In the event that the lire depreciated against the currency in which
the loan was denominated, the loan recipient would pay up to two percent more for
the loan. Any currency fluctuations above and beyond two percent of the fixed
exchange rate would be covered by the Treasury Ministry.
This program is limited to companies receiving loans under Articles 54 and 56 of the
ECSC Treaty, i.e., iron and steel companies. While all benefits under this program
were eliminated in 1991 by Law 333, guarantees granted before the enactment of
this law were still in effect in the POI.
The GOI has stated that the premium paid only covered part of the long-term costs
of the program. While we question whether payments under this program are
properly to be considered premiums, the fact that they are inadequate to cover the
costs of operating the guarantee program is sufficient to find that the program
confers a benefit. (See also Certain Steel) Moreover, we determine that benefits are
provided to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.
So long as the lire depreciates against the currency in which the loan is denominated
by more than the two percent maximum, the GOI makes payments on the
guaranteed loan. Because future currency fluctuations are not known at the time the
loan is taken out, no grant equivalent can be calculated for the guaranteed loans.
Therefore, we calculated the benefit as the payments on this loan made in the POI by
the Treasury Ministry. We divided this amount by the 1992 sales of ILVA's Terni
division. On this basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to
be .08 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in
Italy of the subject merchandise.

*4688

7. Early Retirement

Italy has had a series of laws providing for early retirement since the late 1960s.
Some older laws have been replaced by newer laws, while other older laws are still in
effect, overlapping with newer legislation.
In 1981, the parliament passed Law 155/81 with the intention to encourage people
to retire before the normal retirement age. Pursuant to this law, men could retire at
the age of 55 and women at the age of 50. Law 155/81 covered all manufacturing
industries, including steel, that the CIPI had declared to be in a state of crisis.
Government documentation provided with the response shows that Italian workers
received benefits under Law 155/81 through 1991. No information has been
provided with respect to usage of this early retirement provision in the POI.
Law 193/84 lowered the minimum age for early retirement specifically for steel
workers to 50 years for men and 47 years for women. Government documentation
provided with the response shows that workers received benefits under this law
through 1991. We have no information with respect to usage of the early retirement
provision under Law 193/84 in 1992.
Law 181/89 introduced various social and other measures related to rationalizing
the government-owned steel industry. It also set numerical targets for the number
of workers who could use early retirement. Pursuant to Law 181/89, a maximum of
8,500 steel workers were allowed to use early retirement from 1989 through 1991.
However, the GOI has stated that this number was insufficient to solve the problem
of surplus manpower in the steel industry. Therefore, a new law was passed in 1991
(Law 223/91) which authorized another 20,000 workers to use early retirement. Of
these 20,000 slots, 26 percent were allocated to the government-owned steel
industry while the rest were distributed among five other industries (shipbuilding,
aluminum, refractory materials and graphite electrodes, thermo-electrical
engineering, and "innovative industrial companies" in highly competitive sectors).
Law 223/91 also set minimum age limits for steel workers using the early retirement
provision under this law to 55 and 50 years for men and women, respectively, in the
private steel industry, and 50 and 47 years for men and women, respectively, in the
state-owned steel industry. Pursuant to Law
223/91, participating companies must make a financial contribution to the early
retirement plan corresponding to 30 percent of the pension. ILVA's 1992 Annual
Report indicates that 3,022 employees from ILVA S.p.A. used the early retirement
provisions under Law 223/91 in the POI.
Finally, Decree Law 14, passed in January 1992, allowed another 25,000 workers to
use the early retirement scheme. After having been re-issued several times, this
Decree was turned into Law 406 in October 1992. Employees in companies which
have adopted a reconstruction program approved by the Interministerial
Committee for Economic Planning ("CIPE") are eligible to use the program. The age
limits are 55 for men and 50 for women. The 25,000 slots are allocated by CIPE
among crisis-hit companies. The Department has no information on how the slots
were allocated among various crisis industries. Under Law 406/92, participating
companies pay 50 percent of the pension.
The GOI has stated that early retirement is available to workers in other sectors
beyond steel, e.g., commercial workers and workers in the cement industry.
However, information provided with the GOI's response shows that for these other
industries, the provisions for early retirement expired before the POI. Apart from
the latest early retirement provision in Law 406/92, pursuant to which a limited
number of workers in industries undergoing reconstruction are eligible for early
retirement, only eight industries (including steel) were eligible for some form of
early retirement program in the POI. These
industries were: steel, shipbuilding, aluminum, refractory materials and graphite
electrodes, thermo-electrical engineering, and "innovative industrial companies," all
pursuant to Law 223/91; dock workers pursuant to Law 230; and workers in the
publishing industry pursuant to Law 416.
Based on this, we preliminarily determine that early retirement benefits are
provided to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.
(See also Certain Steel.)
Respondents have further stated that Italian companies have no legal obligation to
offer early retirement to their employees. However, based on a statement made
during verification by an official at a private Italian steel company, we found in
Certain Steel that although Italian companies have no legal obligation to offer their
employees early retirement as an alternative to being laid off, social factors such as
the threat of strikes and social unrest prevent companies from simply firing surplus
workers. In addition, the GOI has stated in its response that early retirement is used
as an alternative to collective lay-offs. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
the government is relieving the steel companies of an obligation they would
otherwise incur. Hence, the program is countervailable.
In the General Issues Appendix to Certain Steel from Austria (at 37226), we listed
early retirement programs as typically providing recurring benefits. We have,
therefore, treated benefits received by ILVA under the
early retirement program as a recurring grant.
To calculate the benefit, we have estimated the amount the company saved by not
having to pay wages to the workers who took early retirement in 1992 by reference
to ILVA's 1992 Annual Report, which provides the total number of employees, the
total labor cost, and the number of workers who used early retirement. Had it been
provided, we would have subtracted ILVA's cost for the program from the wage bill.
(We have asked ILVA to provide this list before verification.)
We divided this benefit by the 1992 sales made by ILVA. On this basis, we determine
the estimated net subsidy from this program to be 3.54 percent ad valorem for all
manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

8. ECSC Article 56 Redeployment Aid

Pursuant to Article 56(2)(b) of the ECSC Treaty, redeployment assistance is
provided to workers affected by the restructuring of the coal and steel industries in
the ECSC member states. The assistance consists of the following types of grants: (1)
Income support grants for workers affected by unemployment, re-employment at a
lower salary or early retirement; (2) grants to enable companies to continue paying
workers who have been laid off
temporarily; (3) vocational training grants; and (4) resettlement grants. According
to the EC, Article 56 redeployment aid was disbursed to ILVA's workers in the POI
for training, early retirement, and unemployment.
The Article 56 redeployment grants, which are disbursed to the member states, are
paid from the European Commission's operational budget for the ECSC steel
program. This budget is funded by (1) levies imposed on coal and steel producers in
the member countries; (2) income from ECSC's investments; (3) guarantee fees and
fines paid to the ECSC; and (4) interest received from companies that have obtained
loans from the ECSC.
Because the ECSC contribution under Article 56 is sourced from producer

*4689

levies, we find the ECSC portion of such payments to be not countervailable (see
Certain Steel at 37336). However, according to the EC's response, the Commission's
decision to grant readaptation aid is contingent upon a matching contribution from
the member state. We further found that member state contributions are
countervailable to the extent that they are specific and relieve a company of an
obligation it would otherwise incur.
As with the early retirement benefits described above, the GOI has claimed that
ILVA had no obligation to provide the types of worker assistance described under
Article 56. With respect to vocational training grants, we have no evidence to refute
this claim. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that any vocational training
grants funded by the GOI in conjunction with Article 56 are
not countervailable. However, for reasons explained under the "Early Retirement"
section, above, we find that ILVA was relieved of obligations with respect to
unemployment and early retirement payments. Therefore, GOI contributions for
these purposes under Article 56(2)(b) provide a countervailable benefit to ILVA.
In the General Issues Appendix to Certain Steel, we listed early retirement and
worker assistance as programs which typically provide recurring benefits. We have,
therefore, treated the Article 56 redeployment aid as a recurring grant.
ILVA has stated that because payments under Article 56 go directly from the GOI to
the workers, the company has no records of the amount paid to the workers under
this program. The information provided by the GOI on the amount of its
contribution is not clear from the GOI response. However, we have obtained from
the EC the amount that the ECSC paid to ILVA's workers in the POI under Article 56.
As BIA, we have assumed that the GOI's contribution was equal to the payment
made by the ECSC. (See also Certain Steel at 37336.) We divided this amount by the
1992 sales made by ILVA S.p.A. On this basis, we determine the estimated net
subsidy from this program to be 1.27 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers,
producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

9. Urban Redevelopment Financing Under Law 181/89

Urban redevelopment financing is provided to fund re-industrialization projects and
to alleviate unemployment in areas affected by the crisis in the steel sector. With
regard to the re-industrialization projects, respondents have stated that the urban
redevelopment financing provided to ILVA did not involve or affect the
manufacture of steel, specifically not the production of the subject merchandise.
With respect to the benefits provided to laid-off employees, the response indicates
that Law 181/89 provided early retirement measures for steel workers.
This program provided benefits to priority areas hit by the steel crisis. Thus, we
preliminarily determine that assistance under this program is provided on a
regional basis and is, therefore, limited to a group of industries (Certain Steel at
37332). Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that early retirement
payments made to ILVA under Law 181/89 provide countervailable benefits.
ILVA has not provided any amounts received under this program, nor has ILVA
indicated whether funds under this program were received in the form of loans or
grants. As BIA, the Department has used the amount listed in ILVA's 1992 Annual
Report. In the General Issues Appendix (at 37226), we listed early
retirement programs as typically providing recurring benefits. We have, therefore,
treated benefits received by ILVA under this program as a recurring grant.
To determine the benefit under this program, we divided the amount received
during the POI by ILVA's 1992 sales. On this basis, we determine the estimated net
subsidy from this program to be .11 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers,
producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.

10. ECSC Article 54 Loans

Under Article 54 of the 1951 ECSC Treaty, the European Commission can provide
loans directly to iron and steel companies for modernization and the purchase of
new equipment. The loans finance up to 50 percent of an investment project. The
remaining financing needs must be met from other sources. The Article 54 loan
program is financed by loans taken by the Commission, which are then re-lent to
iron and steel companies in the member states at a slightly higher interest rate than
that at which the Commission obtained them.
ILVA had outstanding Article 54 loans in the POI. These loans, which were
originally received by Terni, were transferred to ILVA as part of the 1988 partial
transfer of Terni's assets and liabilities.
We preliminarily determine that this program is limited to the iron and steel
industry. Terni received a total of four Article 54 loans, two of which were
denominated in U.S. dollars and two in European Currency Units ("ECU"). To
determine whether the loans were provided on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations, we used the following benchmark interest rates. For the U.S. dollar
loan obtained in one of the years in which Terni has been found to be
uncreditworthy, we used, as a benchmark interest rate, the highest interest rate on
long-term fixed-rate U.S. dollar loans obtained in the United States, as reported by
the Federal Reserve. To this interest rate, we added a premium equivalent to 12
percent of the U.S. prime rate in that year. For the other U.S. dollar loan, which was
obtained in a year for which we have not made an uncreditworthiness
determination, we used the average interest rate on long- term fixed-rate U.S. dollar
loans obtained in the United States, as reported by the Federal Reserve.
We have found Terni to be uncreditworthy in both the years it obtained the ECU
loans. For these loans, we were unable to find the highest interest rate charged on
long-term fixed-rate ECU loans. Instead, we used as the benchmark interest rate, the
interest rate paid on 5-7 year ECU-denominated bonds, as reported in an EC
publication, plus a risk premium.
Because the interest rates paid on all the Article 54 loans were below the benchmark
interest rates, the Department preliminarily determines that loans provided under
this program are countervailable. We calculated the benefit
using our standard long-term loan methodology. We then divided the benefit
allocated to the POI by the 1992 sales made by the Terni division of ILVA. On this
basis, we determine the estimated net subsidy from this program to be .09 percent
ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the
subject merchandise.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable

A. Government Loan Guarantees

Finsider guaranteed certain loans taken out by Terni. Terni paid Finsider guarantee
fees in the form of a one-time payment of 0.2 percent of the loan amount. According
to ILVA's response, these fees were equal to the cost of commercially provided
guarantees. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the Finsider
loan guarantees were not provided on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations and, thus, not countervailable.

*4690

B. European Social Fund ("ESF") Grants

The ESF was established by the 1957 European Economic Community Treaty to
increase employment and help raise worker living standards.
We found in Certain Steel that the ESF receives its funds from the EC's general budget
whose main revenue sources are customs duties, agricultural levies, value-added
taxes collected by the member states, and other member state contributions.
The member states are responsible for selecting the projects to be funded by the EC.
The EC then disburses the grants to the member states which manage the funds and
implement the projects. According to the EC, ESF grants are available to (1) people
over 25 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months; (2) people under 25
who have reached the minimum school-leaving age and who are seeking a job; and
(3) certain workers in rural areas and regions characterized by industrial decline or
lagging development.
The GOI has stated that the ESF grants received by Italy have been used for
vocational training. Certain regions in the South are also eligible for private sector
re-entry and retraining schemes. Since 1990, the vocational training grants have
been available to unemployed youths and long-term unemployed adults all over
Italy, according to the GOI. Before 1990, however, the GOI gave preference to
certain regions in Italy.
In Certain Steel, we found that a preference was given to the southern region of
Italy in the distribution of benefits. Therefore, we determined that the program
was specific because benefits were provided on a regional basis (see Certain Steel, at
37335). However, based on the EC's response in this
investigation, it appears that all of the regions in Italy have received ESF funds.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program is not regionally specific
and therefore, not limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of
enterprises or industries. Furthermore, we note that to the extent there is a regional
preference (i.e., southern Italy) in the distribution of ESF benefits, it has not
resulted in a countervailable benefit to the production of the subject merchandise,
which is produced in northern Italy.

C. Personnel Retraining Grants under Law 675/77

The provision for retraining grants under Law 675/77 went into effect in 1980, but
the program was terminated in 1988 due to lack of funds, according to the response.
The purpose of the program was to retrain workers to use new manufacturing
technologies in companies undergoing reconstruction and reconversion. The GOI
has stated that Italian companies have no legal obligation to retrain their workers
and that the program, therefore, does not provide relief from such obligations. We
have no evidence to refute this claim. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
benefits under this program are not countervailable.

III. Programs Which Did Not Benefit the Subject Merchandise in the POI

The Department preliminarily determines that the following programs did not
benefit the subject merchandise in the POI:
A. Loans under the following programs were not outstanding in the POI, according
to the response.
1. Interest Subsidies under Law 617/81
2. Financing under Law 464/72

B. The following export loans were not used for exports to the United States,
according to the response.

Subsidized Export Financing Under Law 227/77

C. The following programs were directed to the South of Italy. Since production
of the subject merchandise takes place outside the South, the Department
preliminarily determines that countervailable benefits under these programs were
tied to products outside the scope of this investigation.
1. Law 675/77 Capital Grants
2. Reductions of the Value Added Tax ("VAT") under Law 675/77
3. Interest Contributions under the Sabatini Law (Law 1329/65)
4. Social Security Exemptions
5. ILOR and IRPEG Exemptions

D. Aid Under the National Research Plan

Aid under the National Research Plan is administered under Law 46/82. In 1985,
the Ministry for University, Technology and Scientific Research assigned 19 billion
lire to Terni under this plan. The purpose of this plan involves basic research
regarding the development of steel products to be employed in the energy and
chemical fields. The research funds cover costs of personnel assigned to specific
research projects in research laboratories. According to the GOI, the research
under this plan was contracted out to Terni as the result of a competitive bidding
process.
In order to receive funds under this plan, Terni and its subcontractors had to
provide to the Ministry a report for each project under the plan. In 1988, prior to
presentation of the report, Terni received an advance payment in the amount of
20% of the total in order to cover its first expenses of the research program. Since
that time, Terni has submitted interim reports of its progress on the particular
projects and, therefore, has received a portion of the funds to which it is entitled.
When the work is completed, a report will be submitted to the Ministry. At that time,
the Ministry will determine whether to approve the final disbursement to ILVA.

According to Article 11 of Law 46/82, the results of the research under this program
belong to the state and may only be assigned to a company for valuable
consideration. According to the GOI, the rights to the results of this project have not
yet been assigned. Therefore, because ILVA currently has no rights to the research
results, the Department preliminarily finds that ILVA received no benefits under
this program.

Verification

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

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 electrical steel from Italy, which
are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
the publication of this 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.

Electrical Steel
Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate 23.14 percent

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. 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 determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 45 days after the

*4691

Department makes its final determination.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to
afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary
determination on Monday, March 24, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit such a request within
ten days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room B099,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should
confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the
scheduled time.
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. In addition, ten copies of the business proprietary version and five
copies of the nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary no later than March 16, 1994. Ten copies of the business
proprietary version and five copies of the nonproprietary version of the rebuttal
briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than March 23, 1994.
An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments
included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be
submitted in accordance with section 355.38 of the Commerce Department's
regulations and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: January 25, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

(FR Doc. 94-2241 Filed 1-31-94; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P