[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2241]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 1, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-475-812]

 

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

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 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, Sec. 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 
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 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 
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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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.
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 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.
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 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