[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37521-37528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18602]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-814, A-428-825, A-475-824, A-588-845, A-201-822, A-580-834, A-
583-831, A-412-818]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, 
South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abdelali Elouaradia (France), at (202) 
482-2243; Robert James (Germany), at (202) 482-5222; Rick Johnson 
(Italy, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202) 482-3818; Dorothy 
Woster (Japan), at (202) 482-3362; Tom Killiam (Mexico), at (202) 482-
2704; Nancy Decker (United Kingdom), at (202) 482-0196, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 
1997).

The Petition

    On June 10, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received petitions filed in proper form by Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, Armco, Inc.,1 J&L Specialty Steel, 
Inc.,2 Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation (formerly Lukens, Inc.), the United Steelworkers of 
America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the Butler Armco Independent Union 3 
and the Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc.4 
(petitioners). The Department received supplemental information to the 
petitions on June 15, 16, 17, 19 and 24, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Armco, Inc. is not a petitioner in the Mexico case.
    \2\ J& L Specialty Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in the France 
case.
    \3\ Butler Armco Independent Union is not a petitioner in the 
Mexico case.
    \4\ Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. is not a 
petitioner in the Mexico case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS) from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, 
and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring an industry 
in the United States.
    The Department finds that petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9) (C) and (D) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the 
antidumping investigations they are requesting the Department to 
initiate (see Discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are 
certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an 
alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 
10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 
7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,

[[Page 37522]]

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this petition are the following: (1) 
sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to 
length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire, and (5) razor blade 
steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, 
not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a 
width of 9.5 to 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing 
by weight 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of 
entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS, ``Additional U.S. and Note'' 1(d).
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed scope with 
petitioners to insure that the scope in the petitions accurately 
reflect the product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the new regulations (62 FR 27323), we are 
setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments 
by July 20, 1998. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the 
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult 
with parties prior to the issuance of our preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, 
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The domestic like product referred to in the petitions is the 
single domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find 
petitioners' definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. 
The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product 
definition set forth in the petitions. In this case the Department has 
determined that the petitions and supplemental information contained 
adequate evidence of sufficient industry support, and, therefore, 
polling is unnecessary (See Attachment to the Initiation Checklist, Re: 
Industry Support, June 30, 1998). For France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, petitioners 
established industry support representing over 50 percent of total 
production of the domestic like product.
    Additionally, no member of the domestic industry pursuant to 
section 771(9)(C) (D) or (E) has expressed opposition on the record to 
the petition. Therefore, to the best of the Department's knowledge, the 
producers who support the petitions account for 100 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by the portion of the 
industry expressing an opinion regarding the petitions. Accordingly, 
the Department determines that these petitions are filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act.
    Nippon Steel Corp. Japan (NSC) submitted a letter claiming that 
petitioners do not manufacture suspension foil, and thus, do not have 
standing to file an antidumping petition against such product. However, 
there is no requirement that petitioners manufacture all merchandise 
within the like product designation, only that they are producers of 
the like product. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, 58 FR 37062 (1993). Because petitioners produce the domestic 
like product they are interested parties within the meaning of sections 
771(9)(C) (D) and (E). Therefore, in accordance with section 732(b)(1), 
they have standing to file the petition. Based on the foregoing, the 
Department determines that these petitions are filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate these 
investigations are based. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information in our preliminary or final determinations for purposes of 
facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
France
    Petitioners identified Ugine, a division of Usinor, S.A. (Usinor), 
and Imphy, S.A. as possible exporters of SSSS from France. Petitioners 
further stated that Usinor accounts for nearly all of the production in 
France. Petitioners based export price (EP) for Usinor on prices at 
which the merchandise was

[[Page 37523]]

first sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States in December 
1997. See petitioners' affidavit at Exhibit 6. Because the terms of 
Usinor's U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S. customer, petitioners 
calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs for shipment 
from Usinor's factory in France to the port of export. See Declaration 
of (Foreign Market Researcher) Regarding Sales and Production Cost in 
France of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 1 of 
petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. In addition, petitioners 
subtracted ocean freight and insurance based on official U.S. import 
statistics, and estimated costs for U.S. import duties and fees based 
on the 1997 HTSUS schedule. Petitioners also subtracted amounts for 
U.S. merchandise processing fees and U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 
CFR 24.23 and 24.24, respectively). Finally, petitioners obtained net 
U.S. prices by subtracting U.S. inland freight costs (for a discussion 
of the freight cost estimate, see petitioners' affidavit at Exhibit 
23), and credit expenses.
    With respect to normal value (NV), based on foreign market 
research, petitioners determined that the volume of French home market 
sales was sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Petitioners obtained from foreign market 
research gross unit prices for products offered for sale during the 
second and third quarter of 1997 and first quarter of 1998, to 
customers in France which are either identical or similar to those sold 
to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting 
estimated average delivery costs and credit expenses, and by adding an 
amount for alloy surcharge. See Declaration of (Foreign Market 
Researcher) Regarding Sales and Production Cost in France of Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 1 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 
submission. These net home market prices were then converted to U.S. 
dollar prices using the official exchange rate in effect for the month 
of the comparison U.S. sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below the cost of 
production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and 
requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales below cost 
investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists 
of the cost of manufacturing (``COM''), selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and packing costs. To calculate 
COP, petitioners relied on foreign market research and their own 
production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce SSSS in the United States and in the foreign 
market. We relied on the cost data contained in the petition except in 
the following instances: (1) rather than rely on the foreign market 
research for raw material consumption rates, we recalculated raw 
material costs using the submitted average domestic industry material 
costs in the petition adjusted for known differences in raw material 
input prices between the U.S. and France based on market research (in 
this regard, we consider it more appropriate to rely on actual raw 
material usage rates from a producer of the merchandise rather than 
hypothetical rates derived from foreign market research); (2) we 
recalculated fixed overhead using Usinor's 1996 audited financial 
statements; and (3) we recalculated SG&A and financial expenses using 
Usinor's 1997 consolidated financial statements.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the constructed value (``CV'') of the 
merchandise, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A 
expenses, packing costs and profit of the merchandise. To calculate the 
COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs for CV, petitioners followed the 
same methodology used to determine COP. Accordingly, we relied on this 
methodology after adjusting certain cost elements as noted above. 
Petitioners derived profit for CV based on amounts reported in Usinor's 
1997 financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margins, based on a comparison between 
Usinor's U.S. prices and adjusted CV, range from 23.74 to 24.76 
percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, petitioners 
calculated dumping margins range from 10.02 to 39.20 percent.
Germany
    Petitioners identified Krupp Thyssen Nirosta GmbH (Krupp) as a 
possible exporter of SSSS from Germany. Petitioners further identified 
Krupp as the only substantial producer of subject merchandise in 
Germany. Petitioners based EP for Krupp on prices at which the 
merchandise was first sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States (sales were made in the second and third quarters of 1997, and 
the second quarter of 1998). See petitioners' affidavit, submitted as 
petition Exhibit 21. The terms of Krupp's sales were either delivered 
or FOB duty-paid U.S. port. Therefore, petitioners calculated FOB 
prices for these U.S. sales by subtracting amounts for U.S. inland 
freight, international freight and marine insurance based on official 
U.S. import statistics, U.S. import duties based on the 1997 HTSUS 
schedule, and foreign inland freight estimated based on foreign market 
research (see Declaration of (Foreign Market Researcher) Regarding 
Sales and Production Cost in Germany of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils, Exhibit 2 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission). 
Petitioners also subtracted amounts for U.S. merchandise processing 
fees and U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR, sections 24.23 and 
24.24, respectively). Finally, petitioners obtained net U.S. prices by 
subtracting credit expenses and adding alloy surcharges to applicable 
sales from petitioners' affidavit (see petition at Exhibit 21, and 
submission dated June 17, 1998, Exhibit E).
    With respect to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that the volume of German home market sales was sufficient 
to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Petitioners obtained from foreign market research gross unit prices for 
products offered for sale (sales were made in the second and third 
quarters of 1997) to customers in Germany which are either identical or 
similar to those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these 
prices by subtracting amounts for foreign inland freight (see 
Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding Sales and 
Production Cost in Germany of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, 
Exhibit 2 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission) and imputed credit 
expenses (based on ``International Financial Statistics'' of the 
International Monetary Fund, April 1998) and added an alloy surcharge 
(See petitioners' affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 21) for 
applicable sales. These net home market prices were then converted to 
U.S. dollar prices using the official exchange rate in effect for the 
month of the comparison U.S. sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that the certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below the COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A, and

[[Page 37524]]

packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on foreign market 
research and their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce SSSS in the United States 
and in the foreign market. We relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition except in the following instances: (1) rather than rely on the 
foreign market research for raw material consumption rates, we 
recalculated raw materials costs using the submitted average domestic 
industry material costs in the petition adjusted for known differences 
in raw material input prices between the U.S. and Germany based on 
market research (in this regard, we consider it more appropriate to 
rely on actual raw material usage rates from a producer of the 
merchandise rather than hypothetical rates derived from foreign market 
research); and (2) we recalculated fixed overhead using Krupp's 1997 
audited financial statements.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 
CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and profit of the 
merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A, and packing costs for CV, 
petitioners followed the same methodology used to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost 
elements as noted above. Petitioners derived profit for Krupp based on 
amounts reported in Krupp's 1997 financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margins, based on a comparison between 
Krupp's U.S. price and the adjusted CV, range from 32.67 to 41.98 
percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market price, petitioners 
calculated dumping margins ranging from 11.81 to 17.46 percent.
Italy
    Petitioners identified Arinox Srl (Arinox) and Acciai Speciali 
Terni SpA (AST) as possible exporters and producers of SSSS from Italy. 
Petitioners relied on price information for AST, which, according to 
petitioners, accounts for 99 percent of exports of SSSS exported to the 
United States from Italy. Petitioners based EP on U.S. sales prices 
obtained by petitioners for sales to an unaffiliated purchaser from 
June through October 1997. See petitioners' affidavit, submitted as 
petition Exhibit 20. Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by 
subtracting amounts for foreign inland freight (see Declaration of 
{Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding Sales and Production Cost in 
Italy of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 3 of 
petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission), U.S. inland freight (see 
petitioners' affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 20), 
international freight and insurance based on average import charges 
reported in the official U.S. import statistics for 1997 for HTSUS 
categories 7219 and 7220, U.S. merchandise processing fees and U.S. 
harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 24.24, respectively), and 
estimated costs for U.S. import duties based on 1997 and 1998 HTSUS 
schedules. Imputed credit was also deducted from export price for the 
price-to-price comparison, using the lending rate as published in 
``International Financial Statistics'' of the International Monetary 
Fund, April 1998. Petitioners added an alloy surcharge for certain U.S. 
sales (see petitioners' affidavit submitted as Attachment 1 of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, June 19, 1998).
    With respect to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that the volume of Italian home market sales was sufficient 
to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Petitioners obtained from foreign market research gross unit prices for 
products offered for sale in the second, third and fourth quarters of 
1997 to customers in Italy which are either identical or similar to 
those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by 
subtracting inland freight (see Declaration of {Foreign Market 
Researcher} Regarding Sales and Production Cost in Italy of Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 1 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 
submission), and imputed credit expenses based on ``International 
Financial Statistics'' of the International Monetary Fund, April 1998. 
Petitioners added an alloy surcharge for certain home market sales (see 
petitioners' affidavit submitted as Attachment 1 of Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, June 19, 1998). Petitioners did 
not adjust for packing costs because petitioners claim that data for 
packing for U.S. sales is not available. These net home market prices 
were then converted to U.S. dollar prices using the official exchange 
rate in effect for the month of the comparison U.S. sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, 
and packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on foreign 
market research and their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce SSSS in the United States 
and in the foreign market. We relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition except in the following instance. We did not rely on the 
foreign market research for raw material consumption rates. Instead, we 
recalculated raw materials costs in the petition using the submitted 
average domestic industry material costs adjusted for known differences 
in raw material input prices between the U.S. and Italy based on market 
research (in this regard, we consider it more appropriate to rely on 
actual raw material usage rates from a producer of the merchandise 
rather than hypothetical rates derived from foreign market research).
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773(b) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 
CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and profit for the 
merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs for 
CV, petitioners followed the same methodology used to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost 
elements as noted above. Petitioners derived profit AST based on 
amounts reported in AST's financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margins, based on a comparison between AST's 
U.S. price and the adjusted CV, range from 0.15 to 35.54 percent. Based 
on a comparison of EP to home market price, petitioners calculate 
dumping margins ranging from 6.02 to 18.77 percent.
Japan
    Petitioners identified Kawasaki Steel Corp., Nippon Steel 
Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co. Ltd., Nippon Yakin Kogyo, Nippon Metal 
Industries, and Sumitomo Metal Industries as possible exporters of SSSS 
from Japan. Petitioners further identified Nisshin, Kawasaki, and 
Nippon Steel as the three largest producers of subject merchandise in 
Japan. Petitioners based

[[Page 37525]]

EP on U.S. sales prices from Sumitomo Metal Industries and Marubeni of 
America, a Japanese trading company that sells on behalf of Japanese 
producers in the United States, to unaffiliated trading companies in 
the United States in the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first quarter 
of 1998. See petitioners' affidavit, submitted as Exhibit 3 of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France and Japan, June 9, 
1998. Because the terms of the U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S. 
customer, petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting 
estimated costs for shipment from the Japanese factory to the port of 
export based on foreign market research. See Declaration of {Foreign 
Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 4 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. 
In addition, petitioners subtracted ocean freight and insurance based 
on official U.S. import statistics, and estimated costs for U.S. import 
duties and fees based on the 1997 and 1998 HTSUS schedules. Petitioners 
also subtracted amounts for the U.S. merchandise processing fees and 
U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 24.24, respectively). 
Finally, petitioners obtained net U.S. prices by subtracting costs 
incurred to transport the merchandise from the U.S. port to the 
customer's location in the United States (see petitioners' affidavit 
submitted as petition Exhibit 11), and credit expenses.
    With respect to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that volume of Japan home market sales from Kawasaki Steel 
Corp., Nippon Steel Corporation, and Nisshin Steel Co. Ltd. was 
sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Act. See Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding 
Sales in Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 4 
of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. Petitioners obtained gross 
unit prices from foreign market research for the products offered for 
sale in the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998 to 
customers in Japan which are identical to those sold to the United 
States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting estimated 
average delivery costs and credit expenses based on foreign market 
research. See Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding 
Sales in Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 4 
of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. These net home market prices 
were then converted to U.S. dollar prices using the official exchange 
rate in effect for the month of the comparison U.S. sale.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a 
comparison of EP to home market prices, range from 19.9 to 57.87 
percent.
Mexico
    Petitioners identified Mexinox, S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) as the 
exporter of subject merchandise from Mexico. Petitioners further 
identified Mexinox as the sole producer of subject merchandise in 
Mexico.
    Petitioners based EP on prices obtained from foreign market 
researchers for sales by Mexinox of grades 304 and 430 stainless steel 
in coils to the United States between the third quarter of 1997 and the 
first quarter of 1998. See petitioners' affidavit, submitted as 
petition Exhibit 13. One sale had an alloy surcharge.
    For the delivered sales, petitioners subtracted estimated U.S. 
inland freight charges, based on the experience of one petitioner. For 
all the U.S. sales, petitioners subtracted amounts for international 
freight and insurance, based on ``import charges'' in IM146 import 
statistics. Petitioners subtracted amounts for U.S. import duties based 
on the 1997 import duty rate of 6 percent of dutiable value, or the 
1998 rate of 5 percent, as appropriate. Petitioners also subtracted 
amounts for U.S. merchandise processing fees of 0.19 percent of 
dutiable value (19 CFR section 24.23). Petitioners did not adjust for 
the U.S. harbor maintenance fee on the assumption that the exported 
product would have been shipped overland. Petitioners did not adjust 
for U.S. handling or packing costs, though these charges were included 
in the quoted U.S. prices, and did not adjust for imputed credit 
expenses.
    With regard to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that the volume of Mexican home market sales was sufficient 
to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
See Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher}, Exhibit 5 of 
petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. Petitioners obtained from 
foreign market research gross unit prices for products offered for sale 
in the first quarter of 1998 to customers in Mexico which are either 
identical or similar to those sold in the United States. Petitioners 
did not subtract credit expenses or make any adjustments to price, 
other than converting the unit of measure from metric tons to pounds. 
These net home market prices were then converted to U.S. dollar prices 
using the official exchange rate in effect for the month of the 
comparison U.S. sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A, and 
packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on their own 
production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce SSSS in the United States and the foreign market. 
For certain costs, petitioners used the financial statement information 
from Hylsamex, a Mexican steel producer, because they were unable to 
obtain Mexinox's financial statements. For raw material costs, 
petitioners used their own operating experience as the only information 
reasonably available. Petitioner's calculated SG&A, and financial 
expenses from Hylsamex's 1997 consolidated financial statements.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 
CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and profit of the 
merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs for 
CV, petitioners followed the same methodology used to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on the methodology presented in the June 24, 
1998 submission. Petitioners derived profit based on amounts reported 
in Hylsamex's 1997 consolidated financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition (as amended), based 
on a comparison between Mexinox's U.S. prices and CV, range from 30.09 
to 41.17 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, 
petitioners' calculated dumping margins range from 37.58 to 51.95 
percent.
Republic of Korea
    Petitioners identified Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO), Sammi 
Steel Company (Sammi), and Inchon Iron and Steel Company (Inchon) as 
producers and possible exporters of SSSS from the Republic of Korea. 
Petitioners based EP on price quotations obtained by petitioning 
companies for sales to

[[Page 37526]]

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers of SSSS manufactured by POSCO. See 
petitioners' affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 24. The quoted 
prices were for delivered, duty paid SSSS sold during the third quarter 
of 1997. Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting from 
the reported U.S. price shipment costs from POSCO's factory in Korea to 
the port of export estimated from foreign market research (see 
Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in Korea of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 6 of petitioners' 
June 15, 1998 submission), costs for ocean freight and insurance based 
on the average import charges reported in official U.S. import 
statistics for Korea, import duties based on the 1997 HTSUS schedule, 
merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 
24.24, respectively) and domestic inland freight (see petitioners' 
affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 27).
    With regard to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that the volume of South Korean home market sales in 1997 
was sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) 
(ii)(II) of the Act. See Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} 
Regarding Sales in Korea of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, 
Exhibit 6 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. Petitioners 
obtained from foreign market research gross unit prices for SSSS 
manufactured by POSCO and offered for sale to customers in the Republic 
of Korea which are either identical or similar to those sold to the 
United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting 
estimated average delivery costs based on foreign market research. See 
Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in Korea of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 6 of petitioners' 
June 15, 1998 submission. These net home market prices were then 
converted to U.S. dollar prices using the official exchange rate in 
effect for the month of the comparison U.S. sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, 
and packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on foreign 
market research and their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce SSSS in the United States 
and in the foreign market. We relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition except in the following instances: (1) rather than rely on the 
foreign market research for raw material consumption rates, we 
recalculated raw materials costs in the petition using the submitted 
average domestic industry material costs adjusted for known differences 
in raw material input prices between the U.S. and Korea based on market 
research (in this regard, we consider it more appropriate to rely on 
actual raw material usage rates from a producer of the merchandise 
rather than hypothetical rates derived from foreign market research); 
and (2) we revised the SG&A and net financing expenses based on POSCO's 
1997 audited financial statements.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773. (e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the 
Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and profit of 
the merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs 
for CV, petitioners followed the same methodology to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost 
elements as noted above. Petitioners derived profit for POSCO based on 
amounts reported in POSCO's 1997 financial statements.
    Based on comparisons of EP to adjusted CV, estimated margins range 
from 18.40 to 58.79 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market 
price, estimated dumping margins range from 5.58 to 13.05 percent.
Taiwan
    Petitioners identified Tang Eng Iron Works, Co., Ltd. (Tang Eng), 
Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd. (Tung Mung), and Yieh United Steel Corp. 
(Yieh United) as exporters and producers of SSSS from Taiwan. 
Petitioners based EP on price quotations made to unaffiliated U.S. 
purchasers prior to the date of importation. See petitioners' 
affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 22. The quoted prices were for 
delivered and duty paid SSSS produced by Tung Mung, Yieh United and 
Tang Eng during the third and fourth quarter of 1997 and the first 
quarter of 1998. Petitioners calculated net U.S. price by subtracting 
amounts for U.S. inland freight (see petitioners' affidavit, submitted 
as petition Exhibit 22), international freight and marine insurance 
based on the average import charges reported in the official U.S. 
import statistics for stainless steel products under the 1997 HTSUS 
categories 7219 and 7220, U.S. import duties based on the 1997 HTSUS 
schedule, and foreign inland freight (see Declaration of {Foreign 
Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in Taiwan of Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 7 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 
submission). Petitioners also subtracted amounts for U.S. merchandise 
processing fees and U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 
24.24, respectively). Petitioners calculated imputed credit expenses 
for these U.S. sales by using 30 days as the term of payment (see 
petitioners' affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 22) and the 
average lending rate of 8.25 percent for the period April 1997 through 
March 1998, as published in ``International Financial Statistics'' of 
the International Monetary Fund, April 1998. Finally, petitioners did 
not adjust for differences in U.S. and home market packing expenses 
because those data were not available for U.S. sales.
    With respect to NV, based on foreign market research, petitioners 
determined that the volume of Taiwanese home market sales was 
sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Act. See Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding 
Sales in Taiwan of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 7 
of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. Petitioners obtained from 
foreign market research gross unit prices for sales of SSSS by Tung 
Mung, Yieh United, and Tang Eng which are either identical or similar 
to those sold to the United States. To arrive at each net home market 
price for price-to-price comparison purposes, petitioners adjusted the 
gross prices by subtracting amounts for foreign inland freight (see 
Declaration of {Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in Taiwan of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 7 of petitioners' 
June 15, 1998 submission) and imputed credit expenses. Finally, 
petitioners converted the home market prices from New Taiwan dollars to 
U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate published by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York for the month in which each sale took place.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the

[[Page 37527]]

Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. 
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A, 
and packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on foreign 
market research and their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce SSSS in the United States 
and in the foreign market. We relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition except in the following instances: (1) rather than rely on the 
foreign market research for raw material consumption rates for Tang Eng 
and Yieh United, we recalculated raw materials costs in the petition 
using the submitted average domestic industry material costs adjusted 
for known differences in raw material input prices between the U.S. and 
Taiwan based on market research for Tang Eng and Yieh United (in this 
regard, we consider it more appropriate to rely on actual raw material 
usage rates from a producer of the merchandise rather than hypothetical 
usage rates derived from foreign market research); and (2) we have not 
relied on the costs for Tang Mung because petitioners failed to address 
market price differences between the U.S. and Taiwan for the type of 
raw material used by Tang Mung. For amounts where there was no company 
specific information we used the average of the amounts for companies 
where there was information available.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 
CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and profit. To 
calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs for CV, petitioners 
followed the same methodology used to determine COP. Accordingly, we 
relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost elements as 
noted above. We derived profit for Tang Eng and Yieh United using the 
company-specific financial statements where the financial statements 
showed a profit, otherwise we used the average profit from the other 
companies showing a profit on their financial statements.
    Based on comparisons of EP to adjusted CV, estimated margins range 
from 12.74 to 55.01 percent. The estimated dumping margins in the 
petition, based on a comparison between U.S. prices and home market 
price, range from 8.23 to 77.08 percent.

United Kingdom

    Petitioners identified two United Kingdom producers and exporters 
of SSSS: Avesta Sheffield Ltd. (AS) and Lee Steel Strip Ltd. (Lee). 
Petitioners noted that, to the best of their knowledge, AS accounted 
for 90 percent of the exports of subject merchandise from the United 
Kingdom. Petitioners based EP for AS on U.S. sales to unaffiliated U.S. 
purchasers in the third and fourth quarter of 1997. See petitioners' 
affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 15. Because the terms of AS's 
U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S. customer, petitioners calculated 
the net U.S. price by adding alloy surcharges (see petitioners' 
affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit 15) and subtracting estimated 
costs of shipment from AS's factory in the United Kingdom to the port 
of export (see Declaration of Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Sales 
in the United Kingdom of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, 
Exhibit 8 of petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission). Petitioners also 
subtracted ocean freight and insurance based on official U.S. import 
statistics, U.S. import duties based on the 1997 HTSUS schedule, and 
U.S. merchandise processing fees and U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 
CFR, sections 24.23 and 24.24, respectively). Finally, petitioners 
calculated net U.S. price for AS by subtracting costs incurred to 
transport the stainless steel sheet and strip from the U.S. port to the 
customer's location in the United States (see petitioners' affidavit, 
submitted as petition Exhibit 18).
    With respect to NV, based on information available to them, 
petitioners determined that volume in the United Kingdom in 1997 is 
sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to Section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. Petitioners obtained from foreign market research 
gross unit prices for AS for representative grades, thicknesses, 
finishes, and widths of subject merchandise. Petitioners adjusted these 
prices by adding an amount for alloy surcharge and subtracting amounts 
for foreign inland freight and imputed home market credit expenses. See 
Declaration of Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Sales in the United 
Kingdom of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 8 of 
petitioners' June 15, 1998 submission. Imputed U.S. credit was added to 
the net home market price for the price-to-price comparisons. These net 
home market prices were then converted to U.S. dollar prices using the 
official exchange rate in effect for the month of the comparison U.S. 
sale.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that certain of the home market sales of SSSS 
provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, 
and packing costs. To calculate COP, petitioners relied on foreign 
market research and their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce SSSS in the United States 
and in the foreign market. We relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition except in the following instances: (1) we did not rely on the 
foreign market research for raw material consumption rates. Instead, we 
recalculated raw materials costs in the petition using the submitted 
average domestic industry material costs adjusted for known differences 
in raw material input prices between the U.S. and the United Kingdom 
based on market research. In this regard, we consider it more 
appropriate to rely on actual raw material usage rates from a producer 
of the merchandise rather than hypothetical rates derived from foreign 
market research; (2) we revised the SG&A expense using British Steel's 
1997 audited financial statements; (3) we revised net financing 
expenses to include an offset for short term interest income.
    Based on an analysis, certain of the home market sales reflected in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigations). For these sales, 
petitioners based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to sections 
773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, 
CV consists of the COM, SG&A, packing costs, and profit of the 
merchandise. To calculate COM, SG&A, and packing costs for CV, 
petitioners followed the same methodology used to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost 
elements as noted above. Petitioners derived profit based on amounts 
reported in British Steel's 1997 financial statements.
    Based on comparisons of EP to adjusted CV, estimated margins range 
from 5.42 to 14.76 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market 
prices, estimated dumping margins range from 9.99 to 29.37 percent.

[[Page 37528]]

Initiation of Cost Investigations

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, petitioners provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales in the home markets of France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South 
Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom were made at prices below the 
fully allocated COP and, accordingly, requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales-below-COP investigation in connection with 
the requested antidumping investigations in each of these countries. 
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), submitted to the Congress 
in connection with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not 
be specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that 
``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.''
    Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains 
the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when 
an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon the 
comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition of the 
representative foreign like products in their respective home markets 
to their costs of production, we find the existence of ``reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of these foreign like 
products in each of the listed countries were made below their 
respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating the requested country-
wide cost investigations (see country-specific sections above).

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are 
being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners explained 
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining 
trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit to sales 
ratios, and capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. The Department 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury and causation and determined that these allegations are 
supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation (see Attachments to Initiation Checklist, 
Re: Material Injury, June 30, 1998).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on SSSS, as well as our 
discussion with the authors of the foreign market research reports 
(See, memoranda to the file, dated June 30, 1998), we have found that 
the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary 
determinations by November 17, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Republic 
of Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. We will attempt to provide a 
copy of the public version of each petition to each exporter named in 
the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by July 27, 1998, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom 
are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, 
to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will 
result in the investigations being terminated with respect to that 
country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 777 (i) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18602 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P