[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30624-30636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-475-825]


Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Craig W. Matney, 
Gregory W. Campbell, or Alysia Wilson, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, 
Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-4087, 482-1778, 482-2239, or 482-0108, 
respectively.

Final Determination

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of

[[Page 30625]]

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy. For information on 
the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the Suspension of 
Liquidation section of this notice.

The Petitioners

    The petition in this investigation was filed by Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, Armco, Inc., J&L Specialty Steels, Inc., Lukens Inc., AFL-
CIO/CLC (USWA), Butler Armco Independent Union and Zanesville Armco 
Independent Organization, Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel 
Corp., United Steel Workers of America (the petitioners).

Case History

    Since our preliminary determination on November 9, 1998 
(Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Italy, 63 FR 63900 (November 17, 1998) (Preliminary 
Determination)), the following events have occurred:
    We conducted verification in Belgium and Italy of the questionnaire 
responses of the European Commission (EC), Government of Italy (GOI), 
Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A.(AST), and Arinox S.r.L. (Arinox) from 
November 11 through November 27, 1998. The petitioners, AST, and Arinox 
filed case and rebuttal briefs on February 17 and February 23, 1999. A 
public hearing was held on February 25, 1999. After the hearing, at the 
Department's request, additional comments were submitted by petitioners 
and respondents on March 2, 1999. On March 12, 1999, the EC submitted 
additional comments. On May 6, 1999, the Department solicited 
information from the EC clarifying information already on the record. 
Parties submitted comments on this information on May 11, 1999.

Scope of Investigation

    We have made minor corrections to the scope language excluding 
certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters and 
certain specialty stainless steel products in response to comments by 
interested parties.
    For purposes of this investigation, 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, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation 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 (i.e., cold-rolled 
sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not 
more than 9.5 mm), 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 not more than 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. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These excluded products 
are described below:
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this investigation. This stainless 
steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 
and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb 
structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel 
contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of 
no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, 
chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more 
than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 
percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with 
the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also

[[Page 30626]]

excluded from the scope of this investigation. This ductile stainless 
steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this investigation. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this investigation. This high-strength, 
ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified 
Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 
11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 
manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 
percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 
0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 
added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 
1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 
aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is 
generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in 
widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the 
manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These include stainless 
steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools 
(e.g., carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to AISI grade 
420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The 
steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, 
sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 
percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 
sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \5\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the 
Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 
351 (1998).

Injury Test

    Because Italy is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade 
Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the 
subject merchandise from Italy materially injure, or threaten material 
injury to, a U.S. industry. On August 5, 1998, the ITC published its 
preliminary determination 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 (see Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 
Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 41864 (August 5, 1998)).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies 
(the POI) is calendar year 1997.

Respondents Investigated

    In this investigation there are six respondents, AST and Arinox, 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise, and the governments 
of Italy, Terni, Liguria and the EC.
    Of these two, only AST and its predecessors underwent changes in 
ownership during the period for which we are measuring subsidy 
benefits.

Corporate History of AST

    The corporate history of AST is described fully in Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils form Italy (Plate Final), 64 FR 15508-15509 (March 31, 1999).

Changes in Ownership

    Factual information pertaining to AST, parties' comments on our 
methodology, our responses to those comments and the application of our 
change-in-ownership methodology we employed in the instant case have 
not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a full 
explanation (64 FR at 15509-15510).

Subsidies Valuation Information

    Benchmarks for Long-term Loans and Discount Rates: Consistent with 
our finding in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40474, 40477 
(October 22, 1997) (Wire Rod from Italy), we have based our long-term 
benchmarks and discount rates on the Italian Bankers' Association (ABI) 
rate. Because the ABI rate represents a long-term interest rate 
provided to a bank's most preferred customers with established low-risk 
credit histories, commercial banks typically add a spread ranging from 
0.55 percent to 4 percent onto the rate for other customers, depending 
on their financial health.
    In years in which Arinox and AST or its predecessor companies were 
creditworthy, we added the average of

[[Page 30627]]

that spread to the ABI rate to calculate a nominal benchmark rate. In 
years in which AST or its predecessor companies were uncreditworthy 
(see Creditworthiness section below), we calculated the discount rates 
in accordance with our methodology for constructing a long-term 
interest-rate benchmark for uncreditworthy companies. (Arinox was not 
alleged to be uncreditworthy.) Specifically, we added to the ABI rate a 
spread of four percent in order to reflect the highest commercial 
interest rate available to companies in Italy. We added to this rate a 
risk premium equal to 12 percent of the ABI, as described in section 
355.44(b)(6)(iv) of our 1989 Proposed Regulations (see Countervailing 
Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment, 
54 FR 23366, 23374 (May 31, 1989) (1989 Proposed Regulations)). While 
the 1989 Proposed Regulations are not controlling, they do represent 
the Department's practice for purposes of this investigation.
    Additionally, information on the record of this case indicates that 
published ABI rates do not include amounts for fees, commissions and 
other borrowing expenses. Because such expenses raise the effective 
interest rate that a company would experience, and because it is our 
practice to use effective interest rates, where possible, we have 
included an amount for these expenses in the calculation of our 
effective benchmark rates (see section 355.44(b)(8) of the 1989 
Proposed Regulations and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30366, 30373 (June 14, 
1996)). While we do not have information on the expenses that would be 
applied to long-term commercial loans, the GOI supplied information on 
the borrowing expenses on overdraft loans as an approximation of 
expenses on long-term commercial loans. This information shows that 
expenses on overdraft loans range from 6 to 11 percent of interest 
charged. Accordingly, we increased the nominal benchmark rate by 8.5 
percent, which represents the average reported level of borrowing 
expenses, to arrive at an effective benchmark rate.
    Allocation Period: In the past, the Department has relied upon 
information from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the 
industry-specific average useful life of assets in determining the 
allocation period for non-recurring subsidies. See the General Issues 
Appendix (GIA), attached to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37227 
(July 9, 1993) (Certain Steel from Austria). In British Steel plc v. 
United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995) (British Steel I), the U.S. 
Court of International Trade (CIT) held that the IRS information did 
not necessarily reflect a reasonable period based on the actual 
commercial and competitive benefit of the subsidies to the recipients. 
In accordance with the CIT's remand order, the Department calculated a 
company-specific allocation period for non-recurring subsidies based on 
the average useful life (AUL) of non-renewable physical assets. This 
remand determination was affirmed by the court in British Steel plc v. 
United States, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996) (British Steel II). In 
recent countervailing duty investigations, it has been our practice to 
follow the court's decision in British Steel II and to calculate a 
company-specific allocation period for all countervailable non-
recurring subsidies.
    After considering parties' comments and based upon our analysis of 
the data submitted by AST regarding the AUL of its assets, we are using 
a 12-year AUL for AST. This 12-year AUL is based on information in Wire 
Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40477, and in the Preliminary Determination, 
63 FR at 63903, which we find to be a good estimate of the AUL of the 
Italian stainless steel industry. For an explanation of why we have 
rejected AST's company-specific AUL, see our response to Comment 6. For 
Arinox, we are using its company-specific AUL, which is also 12 years.

Equityworthiness

    In measuring the benefit from a government equity infusion, the 
Department compares the price paid by the government for the equity to 
a market benchmark, if such a benchmark exists. In this case, a market 
benchmark does not exist. Therefore, we examined whether AST's 
predecessors were equityworthy in the years they received infusions. 
See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Steel Wire Rod 
From Trinidad and Tobago, 62 FR 50003, 50004 (October 22, 1997). In 
analyzing whether a company is equityworthy, the Department considers 
whether that company could have attracted investment capital from a 
reasonable private investor in the year of the government equity 
infusion, based on information available at that time. See GIA, 58 FR 
at 37244. Our review of the record has not led us to change our finding 
from that in Wire Rod from Italy, in which we found AST's predecessors 
unequityworthy from 1986 through 1988 and from 1991 through 1992 (63 FR 
40477). The petitioners did not allege in the petition that Arinox 
received GOI equity infusions; therefore, we did not examine Arinox's 
equityworthiness.
    Consistent with our equity methodology described in the GIA, 58 FR 
at 37239, we consider equity infusions into unequityworthy companies as 
infusions made on terms inconsistent with the usual practice of a 
private investor and, therefore, we have treated these infusions as 
grants. This methodology is based on the premise that a finding by the 
Department that a company is not equityworthy is tantamount to saying 
that the company could not have attracted investment capital from a 
reasonable investor in the year of the infusion. This determination is 
based on the information available at the time of the investment.

Creditworthiness

    When the Department examines whether a company is creditworthy, it 
is essentially attempting to determine if the company in question could 
obtain commercial financing at commonly available interest rates. See, 
e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain 
Steel Products from France, 58 FR 37304 (July 9, 1993); Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Steel Wire Rod from 
Venezuela, 62 FR 55014 (October 21, 1997).
    Terni, TAS and ILVA, AST's predecessor companies, were found to be 
uncreditworthy from 1986 through 1993 in Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From 
Italy, 59 FR 18357, 18358 (April 18, 1994) (Electrical Steel from 
Italy), and in Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40477. No new information 
has been presented in this investigation that would lead us to 
reconsider these findings. (See Comment 14 below regarding the issue of 
AST's creditworthiness in 1993.) Therefore, consistent with our past 
practice, we continue to find Terni, TAS, and ILVA uncreditworthy from 
1986 through 1993. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295, 37297 
(July 9, 1993). We did not analyze AST's creditworthiness in 1994 
through 1997 because AST did not negotiate new loans with the GOI or EC 
during these years. There was no allegation in the petition that Arinox 
was uncreditworthy; therefore, we did not analyze its creditworthiness.

[[Page 30628]]

I. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable

GOI Programs

A. Equity Infusions to Terni, TAS and ILVA
    The facts pertaining to AST and its predecessor companies with 
respect to these equity infusions and our methodology have not changed 
since the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a full explanation 
(64 FR at 15511-15512). Accordingly, we determine the estimated net 
benefit to be 0.99 percent ad valorem for AST. Arinox did not receive 
any GOI equity infusions.
B. Benefits From the 1988-90 Restructuring of Finsider 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This program was referred to as Debt Forgiveness: Finsider-
to-ILVA Restructuring in Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy, 
the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of South Africa, 63 FR 23272 
(April 28, 1998) (Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The facts pertaining to AST and its predecessor companies with 
respect to restructuring benefits and our methodology have not changed 
since the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a full explanation 
(64 FR at 15512). Accordingly, we determine the estimated net benefit 
to be 2.71 percent ad valorem for AST. Arinox did not receive any 
benefit under this program.
C. Debt Forgiveness: ILVA-to-AST 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Includes the following programs from the Initiation Notice: 
Working Capital Grants to ILVA, 1994 Debt Payment Assistance by IRI, 
and ILVA Restructuring and Liquidation Grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of December 31, 1993, the majority of ILVA's viable 
manufacturing activities had been incorporated separately (or 
``demerged'') into either AST or ILVA Laminati Piani (ILP); ILVA 
Residua was primarily a shell company with liabilities far exceeding 
assets, although it did contain some operating assets which it spun off 
later. In contrast, AST and ILP, now ready for sale, had operating 
assets and relatively modest debt loads.
    We determine that AST (and consequently the subject merchandise) 
received a countervailable subsidy in 1993 when the bulk of ILVA's debt 
was placed in ILVA Residua, rather than being proportionately allocated 
to AST and ILP. The amount of debt that should have been attributable 
to AST but was instead placed with ILVA Residua was equivalent to debt 
forgiveness for AST at the time of its demerger. In accordance with our 
past practice, debt forgiveness is treated as a grant which constitutes 
a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and 
provides a benefit in the amount of the debt forgiveness. Because the 
debt forgiveness was received only by privatized ILVA operations, we 
determine that it is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act.
    In the Preliminary Determination, 63 FR at 63904, the amount of 
liabilities that we attributed to AST was based on the EC's 9th 
Monitoring Report of the total cost of the liquidation process to the 
GOI. However, for this final determination, we have re-examined our 
methodology and determined that it is more appropriate to base our 
calculation on the gross liabilities left behind in ILVA Residua. See 
our response to Comment 9 and the March 19, 1999, Memorandum to Richard 
W. Moreland on the 1993 Debt Forgiveness.
    In calculating the amount of unattributable liabilities remaining 
after the demerger of AST, we started with the most recent ``total 
comparable indebtedness'' amount from the 10th Monitoring Report, which 
represents the indebtedness, net of debts transferred in the 
privatizations of ILVA Residua's operations and residual asset sales, 
of a theoretically reconstituted, pre-liquidation ILVA. In order to 
calculate the total amount of unattributed liabilities which amount to 
countervailable debt forgiveness, we made the following adjustments to 
this figure: for the residual assets that had not actually been 
liquidated as of the 10th and final Monitoring Report (see Comment 13); 
for assets that comprised SOFINPAR, a real estate company, because 
these assets were sold prior to the demergers of AST and ILP; for the 
liabilities transferred to AST and ILP; income received from the 
privatizations of ILVA Residua's operations; for the amount of the 
asset write-downs specifically attributable to AST, ILP, and ILVA 
Residua companies; and for the amount of debts transferred to Cogne 
Acciai Speciali (CAS), an ILVA subsidiary that was left behind in ILVA 
Residua and later spun off, as well as the amount of ILVA debt 
attributed to CAS and countervailed in Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 
40478. See May 19, 1999, Calculation Memorandum and our responses to 
Comments 9-15 below for further information on our calculation 
methodology.
    The amount of liabilities remaining represents the pool of 
liabilities that are not individually attributable to specific ILVA 
assets. We apportioned this debt to AST, ILP, and operations sold from 
ILVA Residua based on their relative asset values. We used the total 
consolidated asset values reported in AST's and ILP's December 31, 
1993, financial results and used the sum of purchase price plus debts 
transferred as a surrogate for the asset value of the operations sold 
from ILVA Residua. Because we subtracted a specific amount of ILVA's 
gross liabilities attributed to CAS in Wire Rod from Italy, we did not 
include its assets in the amount of ILVA Residua's privatized assets. 
Also, consistent with our Preliminary Determination, we did not include 
in ILVA Residua's viable assets the assets of the one ILVA Residua 
company sold to IRI because this sale does not represent a sale to a 
non-governmental entity.
    We treated the debt forgiveness to AST as a non-recurring grant 
because it was a one-time, extraordinary event. The discount rate we 
used in our grant formula included a risk premium based on our 
determination that ILVA was uncreditworthy in 1993 (see Comment 14 
below and March 19, 1999, Memorandum on the Appropriate Basis for 1993 
Creditworthiness Analysis of AST). We followed the methodology 
described in the Change in Ownership section above to determine the 
amount appropriately allocated to AST after its privatization. (The 
change in the total amount of debt forgiveness attributed to AST from 
the Plate Final changes the total percent of subsidies repaid in the 
1994 privatization calculations. The change in this ratio affects the 
amount of subsidies repaid to the GOI for all programs which pass 
through this calculation.) We divided this amount by AST's total 
consolidated sales during the POI. Accordingly, we determine the 
estimated net benefit to be 6.79 percent ad valorem for AST. Arinox did 
not receive any benefits under this program.
D. Law 796/76: Exchange Rate Guarantees
    The facts pertaining to AST with respect to Law 796/76 exchange-
rate guarantees and our methodology have not changed since the Plate 
Final. Please see that notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15513). 
Accordingly, we determine the estimated net benefit to AST for this 
program to be 0.82 percent ad valorem. Arinox did not receive any 
benefits under this program.
E. Law 675/77
    The facts pertaining to AST with respect to Law 675/77 benefits and 
our methodology have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that 
notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15513). Accordingly, we 
determine the estimated net benefit from this program to be 0.07 
percent ad valorem for AST. Arinox did not receive any benefits under 
this program.

[[Page 30629]]

F. Law 10/91
    The facts pertaining to AST with respect to Law 10/91 benefits and 
our methodology have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that 
notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15514). Accordingly, we 
determine the estimated net benefit in the POI for AST to be 0.00 
percent ad valorem. Arinox did not receive any benefits under this 
program.
G. Pre-Privatization Employment Benefits (Law 451/94)
    Law 451/94 was created to conform with EC requirements on 
government assistance related to restructuring and capacity reduction 
in the Italian steel industry. Law 451/94 was passed in 1994 and 
enabled the Italian steel industry to implement workforce reductions by 
allowing steel workers to retire early. During the 1994-1996 period, 
Law 451/94 provided for the early retirement of up to 17,100 Italian 
steel workers. Benefits applied for during the 1994-1996 period 
continue until the employee reaches his/her natural retirement age, up 
to a maximum of ten years. Employees at both AST and Arinox received 
payments under Law 451 during the POI.
    In the Plate Final and the Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, 63 FR 47246 (September 4, 1998) (Plate 
Preliminary), the Department determined that the early retirement 
benefits provided under Law 451/94 are a countervailable subsidy under 
section 771(5) of the Act. Law 451/94 provides a financial 
contribution, as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, because 
it relieves the company of costs it would have normally incurred. Also, 
because Law 451/94 was developed for and exclusively used by the steel 
industry, we determined that Law 451/94 is specific within the meaning 
of section 771 (5A)(D) of the Act.
    In the Plate Preliminary, we used the Cassa Integrazione Guadagni--
Extraordinario (``CIG-E'') program as our benchmark to determine what 
the obligations of Italian steel producers would have been when laying 
off workers. We compared the costs the steel companies would incur to 
lay off workers under the CIG-E program to the costs they incurred in 
laying off workers under Law 451/94. We found that the steel companies 
received a benefit by virtue of paying less under Law 451/94 than what 
they would have paid under CIG-E.
    In the preliminary determination of the instant proceeding, 63 FR 
at 63908, we changed our benchmark because record evidence suggested 
that the CIG-E program applied in situations where the laid-off workers 
were expected to return to their jobs after the layoff period. Since 
the workers retiring early under Law 451/94 were separated permanently 
from their company, we adopted the so-called ``Mobility'' provision as 
our benchmark. Like Law 451/94, the Mobility provision addressed 
permanent separations from a company.
    Since then, we have learned more about the GOI's unemployment 
programs under Law 223/91 (including CIG-E and Mobility) and the early 
retirement program under Law 451/94. Based on this information, we do 
not believe that any of the alternatives described under Law 223/91 
provides a benchmark per se for the costs that AST and Arinox would 
incur in the absence of Law 451/94. As noted above, the CIG-E program 
addresses temporary layoffs. The Mobility provision serves merely to 
identify the minimum payment the company would incur when laying 
workers off permanently. Under the Mobility provision, the company is 
first directed to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the unions 
prior to laying workers off permanently. Only if the negotiations fail 
will the company face the minimum payment required under Mobility.
    Recognizing that Arinox and AST would be required to enter into 
negotiations with the unions before laying off workers, the difficult 
issue for the Department is to determine what the outcome of those 
negotiations might have been absent Law 451/94. At one extreme, the 
unions might have succeeded in preventing any layoffs. If so, the 
benefit to the companies would be the difference between what it would 
have cost to keep those workers on the payroll and what the companies 
actually paid under Law 451/94. At the other extreme, the negotiations 
might have failed and both companies would have incurred only the 
minimal costs described under Mobility. Then the benefit to AST and 
Arinox would have been the difference between what they would have paid 
under Mobility and what they actually paid under Law 
451/94.
    We have no basis for believing either of these extreme outcomes 
would have occurred. It is clear that AST and Arinox sought to layoff 
workers. However, we do not believe that the companies would simply 
have fired the workers without reaching accommodation with the unions. 
Statements by GOI officials at verification indicated that failure to 
negotiate a separation package with the union would lead to labor 
unrest, strikes, and lawsuits. Therefore, we have proceeded on the 
basis that AST and Arinox's early retirees would have received some 
support from the companies.
    In attempting to determine the level of post-employment support 
that AST and Arinox would have negotiated with their unions, we looked 
to the companies' own experiences. As we learned at verification, by 
the end of 1993, AST had established a plan for the termination of 
redundant workers (as part of an overall ILVA plan). Under this plan, 
the early retirees would first be placed on CIG-E as a temporary 
measure and then they would receive benefits under Law 451/94. 
According to AST officials, the temporary measure was needed because 
``they were waiting for the passage of the early retirement program 
under Law 451/94, which at the time had not been implemented by the 
GOI.'' Similarly, Arinox placed workers on the mobility program while 
waiting to enroll in the Law 451/94 early retirement program.
    The evidence on the record indicates that at the time agreement was 
reached with the unions on the terms of the layoffs, the companies and 
their workers were aware that benefits would be made available under 
Law 451/94. In such situations, i.e., where the company and its workers 
are aware at the time of their negotiations that the government will be 
making contributions to the workers' benefits, the Department's 
practice is to treat half of the amount paid by the government as 
benefiting the company. See GIA, 58 FR at 37225. In the GIA, the 
Department stated that when the government's willingness to provide 
assistance is known at the time the contract is being negotiated, this 
assistance is likely to have an effect on the outcome of the 
negotiations. In these situations, the Department will assume that the 
difference between what the workers would have demanded and what the 
company would have preferred to have paid would have been split between 
the parties, with the result that one-half of the government payment 
goes to relieving the company of an obligation that would exist 
otherwise. See GIA, 58 FR at 37256. This methodology was upheld in LTV 
Steel Co. v. United States, 985 F. Supp. 95, 116 (CIT 1997) (LTV 
Steel).
    Therefore, with respect to AST, Arinox and their workers, we 
determine the following: (1) Under Italian Law

[[Page 30630]]

223/91, both companies would have been required to negotiate with their 
unions about the level of benefits that would be made to workers 
separated permanently from the company, and (2) since AST, Arinox, and 
their unions were aware at the time of their negotiations that the GOI 
would be making payments to those workers under Law 451/94, the benefit 
to AST and Arinox is one half of the amount paid to the workers by the 
GOI under Law 451/94. See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach on Law 451/
94--Early Retirement Benefits dated May 19, 1999.
    Consistent with practice, we have treated benefits to AST and 
Arinox under Law 451/94 as recurring grants expensed in the year of 
receipt. See GIA, 58 FR at 37226. To calculate the benefit received by 
the companies during the POI, we multiplied the number of employees who 
were receiving early retirement benefits during the POI by the average 
salary. In the case of AST, the Department had information specifying 
salary amounts by worker type, so we applied this average instead of a 
broader salary average. See Plate Final, 64 FR at 15515. Since the GOI 
was making payments to these workers equaling 80 percent of their 
salary, and one-half of that amount was attributable to AST and Arinox, 
we multiplied the total wages of the early retirees during the POI by 
40 percent. We then divided this total amount by total consolidated 
sales during the POI. On this basis, we determine the estimated net 
benefit during the POI to AST to be 0.69 percent and Arinox 0.57 
percent ad valorem.
H. Law 181/89: Worker Adjustment and Redevelopment Assistance 
8
    The facts pertaining to AST with respect to Law 181/89 benefits and 
our methodology have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that 
notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15515). Consequently, we 
determine the estimated net benefit to AST in the POI for this program 
to be 0.00 percent ad valorem. Arinox did not receive any benefits 
under this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Includes the Decree Law 120/89: Recovery Plan for Steel 
Industry program contained in Initiation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Law 488/92
    Law 488/92 provides grants for industrial projects in depressed 
regions of Italy. The subsidy amount is based on the location of the 
investment and the size of the enterprise. The funds used to pay 
benefits under this program are derived in part from the GOI and in 
part from the Structural Funds of the European Union (EU). To be 
eligible for benefits under this program, the enterprise must be 
located in one of the regions in Italy identified as EU Structural 
Funds Objective 1, 2 or 5b.
    We determine that this program constitutes a countervailable 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The grants are 
a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act 
providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. Because assistance is 
limited to enterprises located in certain regions, we determine that 
the program is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act.
    According to AST officials, although the company has applied for 
aid under this program, no approval has yet been granted and no funds 
have yet been disbursed. Accordingly, we determine the estimated net 
benefit to AST to be 0.00 percent ad valorem.
    Under this program during the POI, Arinox received one grant, 
disbursed in two portions. We have treated benefits under this program 
as non-recurring because each grant requires separate government 
approval. The benefit to Arinox was calculated as the sum of the two 
portions provided. Because this sum is greater than 0.5 percent of 
Arinox's sales, we allocated the benefit over Arinox's AUL. We divided 
the benefit allocated to the POI by Arinox's total sales during the 
POI. Accordingly, we determine the estimated net benefit to Arinox to 
be 0.12 percent ad valorem.

EU Programs

A. ECSC Article 54 Loans
    The facts pertaining to AST with respect to ECSC Article 54 loan 
benefits and our methodology have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15515). 
Accordingly, we determine the estimated net benefit to AST to be 0.11 
percent ad valorem. Arinox did not have any outstanding Article 54 
loans during the POI.
B. European Social Fund
    The European Social Fund (ESF), one of the Structural Funds 
operated by the EU, was established to improve workers' opportunities 
through training and to raise workers' standards of living throughout 
the European Community by increasing their employability. There are six 
different objectives identified by the Structural Funds: Objective 1 
covers projects located in underdeveloped regions, Objective 2 
addresses areas in industrial decline, Objective 3 relates to the 
employment of persons under 25, Objective 4 funds training for 
employees in companies undergoing restructuring, Objective 5 pertains 
to agricultural areas, and Objective 6 pertains to regions with very 
low population (i.e., the far north).
    During the POI, AST received ESF assistance for projects falling 
under Objectives 2 and 4, and Arinox received assistance under 
Objective 2. In the case of AST, the Objective 2 funding was to retrain 
production, mechanical, electrical maintenance, and technical workers, 
and the Objective 4 funding was to train AST's workers to increase 
their productivity. The grants Arinox received were for worker 
training.
    The Department considers worker-training programs to provide a 
countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an 
obligation it would have otherwise incurred. See Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta (``Pasta'') From 
Italy, 61 FR 30287, 30294 (June 14, 1996) (Pasta From Italy). Since 
companies normally incur the costs of training to enhance the job-
related skills of their own employees, we determine that this ESF 
funding relieves AST and Arinox of obligations they would have 
otherwise incurred.
    Therefore, we determine that the ESF grants received by AST and 
Arinox are countervailable within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. The ESF grants are a financial contribution as described in 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act which provide a benefit to the 
recipient in the amount of the grants.
    Consistent with prior cases, we have examined the specificity of 
the funding under each Objective separately. See Wire Rod from Italy, 
63 FR at 40487. In this case, the Objective 2 grants received by AST 
and Arinox were funded by the EU, the GOI, the regional government of 
Umbria acting through the provincial government of Terni for AST, and 
the regional government of Liguria for Arinox. In Pasta From Italy, 61 
FR at 30291, the Department determined that Objective 2 funds provided 
by the EU and the GOI were regionally specific because they were 
limited to areas within Italy which are in industrial decline. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in 
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding. The 
provincial government of Terni and regional government of Liguria did 
not provide information on the distribution of their grants under 
Objective 2. Therefore, since the regional governments failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability by not supplying the requested 
information on the distribution of grants under Objective 2, we are 
assuming, as adverse facts

[[Page 30631]]

available under section 776(b) of the Act, that the funds provided by 
the governments of Terni and Liguria are specific.
    In the case of Objective 4 funding, the Department has determined 
in past cases that the EU portion is de jure specific because its 
availability is limited on a regional basis within the EU. The GOI 
funding was also determined to be de jure specific because eligibility 
is limited to the center and north of Italy (non-Objective 1 regions). 
See Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40487. AST has argued that this 
decision is not reflective of the fact that ESF Objective 4 projects 
are funded throughout Italy and all Member States, albeit under the 
auspices of separate, regionally limited documents (see Comment 16). We 
agree with AST that it may be appropriate for us to revisit our 
previous decision regarding the de jure specificity of assistance 
distributed under the ESF Objective 4 Single Programming Document (SPD) 
in Italy. Our decision in Wire Rod from Italy was premised upon our 
determination in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination; Certain Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from Canada, 51 FR 
10055 (March 24, 1986) (Groundfish from Canada). In that case, 
respondents argued that benefits provided under the General Development 
Agreement (GDA) and Economic and Regional Development Agreements (ERDA) 
were not specific because the federal government had negotiated these 
agreements with every province. We did not accept this argument because 
the GDAs and ERDAs ``do not establish government programs, nor do they 
provide for the administration and funding of government programs.'' 
Instead, the Department analyzed the specificity of the ``subsidiary 
agreements'' negotiated individually under the framework of the GDA and 
ERDA agreements.
    In contrast to Groundfish from Canada, 51 FR at 10066, the 
agreements negotiated between the EU and the Member States (i.e., 
Single Programming Documents and Community Support Frameworks) both 
establish government programs and provide for the administration and 
funding of such programs throughout the entirety of the European Union. 
Therefore, if we were to consider all the EU-Member State agreements 
together, we would arguably be unable to determine that the program is 
de jure specific.
    Notwithstanding this argument, given the lack of information on the 
use of Objective 4 funds by either the EC or GOI, we must, as adverse 
facts available in the instant case, find the aid to be de facto 
specific. Both the EC and GOI stated that they were unable to provide 
us with the industry and region distribution information for each 
Objective 4 grant in Italy despite requests in our questionnaires and 
at verification. While the GOI, at verification, provided a list of 
grantees that received funds under the multiregional operating programs 
in non-Objective 1 regions, it declined the opportunity to identify the 
industry and region of such grantees (see February 3, 1999, memorandum 
on the Results of Verification of the GOI at 16). Furthermore, the 
regional governments have refused to cooperate to the best of their 
ability in this investigation despite our requests. Therefore, we 
continue to find that the aid received by AST is specific.
    The Department normally considers the benefits from worker-training 
programs to be recurring. See GIA, 58 FR at 37255. However, consistent 
with our determination in Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40488, that 
these grants relate to specific, individual projects, we have treated 
these grants as non-recurring grants because each required separate 
government approval.
    Because the amount of funding for each of AST's projects was less 
than 0.5 percent of AST's sales in the year of receipt, we have 
expensed these grants received in the year of receipt. Two of AST's 
grants were received during the POI. For these grants, we divided this 
benefit by AST's total sales during the POI and calculated an estimated 
net benefit of 0.01 percent ad valorem for ESF Objective 2 funds and 
0.03 percent ad valorem for ESF Objective 4 funds. In the case of 
Arinox, since the amount of ESF Objective 2 funding was more than 0.5 
percent of Arinox's sales in the year of receipt, we have allocated 
these grants over Arinox's AUL. We divided the benefit allocated to the 
POI by Arinox's total sales during the POI. Accordingly, we determine 
the estimated net benefit to Arinox for this program to be 0.34 percent 
ad valorem.

II. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable

A. AST's Participation in the THERMIE Program

    The facts pertaining to the THERMIE program and our analysis of 
that program have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that 
notice for a full explanation (64 FR at 15517).

IV. Other Programs Examined

A. Loan to KAI for Purchase of AST

    The facts pertaining to the loan to KAI for the purchase of AST 
have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a 
full explanation (64 FR at 15517). Using even the most adverse of 
assumptions, the estimated net benefit to AST for this program would be 
0.00 percent ad valorem, when rounded. Therefore, we find it 
unnecessary to analyze this program.

B. Brite-EuRam

    The facts pertaining to the Brite-EuRam program have not changed 
since the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a full explanation 
(64 FR at 15517-15518). Consistent with the Plate Final, we are not 
making a determination on the countervailability of the Brite-EuRam 
program in this proceeding. Should an order be put in place, however, 
we will solicit information on the Brite-EuRam program in a future 
administrative review, if one is requested. See 19 CFR 351.311(c)(2).

V. Programs Determined To Be Not Used

GOI Programs

A. Benefits from the 1982 Transfer of Lovere and Trieste to Terni 
(called ``Benefits Associated With the 1988-90 Restructuring'' in the 
Initiation Notice)
B. Law 345/92: Benefits for Early Retirement
C. Law 706/85: Grants for Capacity Reduction
D. Law 46/82: Assistance for Capacity Reduction
E. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 Restructuring Plan
F. Law 675/77: Mortgage Loans, Personnel Retraining Aid and VAT 
Reductions
G. Law 193/84: Interest Payments, Closure Assistance and Early 
Retirement Benefits
H. Law 394/81: Export Marketing Grants and Loans
I. Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95
J. Law 227/77: Export Financing and Remission of Taxes

EU Programs

A. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates and Redeployment 
Aid
B. European Regional Development Fund
C. Resider II Program and Successors
D. 1993 EU Funds

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: The Extinguishment v. Pass-Through of Subsidies during 
Privatization

    The facts at hand regarding this issue, parties' arguments, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since

[[Page 30632]]

the Plate Final. Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 
1, 64 FR at 15518-15519).

Comment 2: Calculation of ``Gamma''

    The facts at hand, parties'' arguments regarding this issue, and 
our response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 2, 64 FR at 
15519).

Comment 3: Calculation of the Purchase Price

    AST argues that the Department undervalued the subsidies repaid in 
the preliminary determination by basing the purchase price only on the 
cash paid for the company. Instead, AST suggests that the purchase 
price should also include the debt assumed by the purchasers as part of 
the sales transaction.
    AST maintains that including assumed debt in the purchase price is 
appropriate because buyers and sellers are indifferent as to the mix of 
cash paid and debt assumed; a dollar of debt assumed, AST argues, is 
equivalent to a dollar of cash paid. If the buyers of ILVA's stainless 
division had offered only the cash portion of their offer and had not 
agreed to assume the debt, AST contends that their bid would not have 
been accepted.
    To support its argument, AST offers the example of purchasing a 
house with an assumable mortgage. A person wanting to buy the house, 
according to AST, has several financing options: (1) Paying cash for 
the total sales price, (2) paying a down payment for some portion of 
the sales price and obtaining a new mortgage on the balance, or (3) 
assuming the existing mortgage and paying cash for the balance. AST 
states that, in all cases, the purchase price of the home remains the 
same.
    Moreover, AST contends, by not including assumed debt in the 
purchase price, the Department's privatization methodology for 
determining the amount of subsidies repaid will render different 
results depending upon the mix of assumed debt and cash required in a 
particular purchase.
    The petitioners counter by stating that the cash price paid for a 
company already reflects the liabilities in that the price paid is the 
valuation by the buyer of the company as a whole, including assumed 
liabilities. In addition, the petitioners claim that it is the 
Department's well-established practice not to add assumed liabilities 
to the purchase price citing Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 62 FR 55490, 55001 (October 
22, 1997) (Wire Rod from Germany), and Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination: Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 62 FR 54972, 54986 
(October 22, 1997) (Wire Rod from Canada), as two cases in which the 
Department declined expressly to make an upwards adjustment to price to 
account for assumed liabilities/obligations. In looking at AST's 
example of a home purchased with an assumable mortgage, the petitioners 
point out that the value of that home to the buyer is the net equity 
position-the difference between the value of the home and the mortgage. 
Additionally, the petitioners point out that the seller of the home 
only receives the amount of equity in the home and not the full market 
value.
    Department's Position: For purposes of this final determination, we 
have continued to calculate the purchase price as the amount of cash 
received and have not included the amount of debt assumed by the 
purchasers of AST. As noted by petitioners, it has not been the 
Department's practice to include assumed debt as part of the purchase 
price in calculating the amount of subsidies that are repaid through a 
privatization transaction (see cases cited by petitioners). Moreover, 
beyond its mere assertion that buyers and sellers are indifferent as to 
the mix of cash paid and debt assumed, AST has not provided any 
information to support its claim that cash paid and debt assumed by the 
buyer are interchangeable. See also our response to Comment 3 in the 
Plate Final (64 FR at 15520).

Comment 4: Repayment in Spin-Off Transactions

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 4, 64 FR at 
15520).

Comment 5: Sale of a Unit to a Government Agency

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 5, 64 FR at 
15520).

Comment 6: Use of Company-Specific AUL

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 6, 64 FR at 
15521).

Comment 7: Revision of AST's Volume and Value Data

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 7, 64 FR at 
15521-15522).

Comment 8: Ratio Adjusting the Benefit Stream for the Sale of AST

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 8, 64 FR at 
15522).

Comment 9: Use of Gross Versus Net Debt in 1993 Debt Forgiveness 
Calculation

    AST argues that the record of this case establishes a precise 
amount that represents the ``actual cost to the GOI'' for the 
liquidation of ILVA, based on the EC's strict monitoring. Assuming that 
the Department countervails these costs, AST argues that the Department 
cannot consider the benefit to the recipients to be larger than the 
amount calculated by the EC as the actual cost to the GOI.
    AST states that, in past cases, such as Al Tech Specialty Steel 
Corp. v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1206, 1213 (CIT 1987), the 
Department concluded that it would be inappropriate to look behind the 
action of a tribunal charged with the administration of a liquidation 
process. AST states that the GOI would have been subject to significant 
legal penalty had it failed to abide by the requirements of the EC-
supervised liquidation. Thus, AST implicitly argues that the Department 
should accept the amount of remaining debt calculated by the EC, 
without examining the underlying calculation of this remaining debt 
figure.
    Furthermore, AST asserts that, because buyers should be indifferent 
to the mix of cash paid and debts assumed in purchasing a company, the 
Department's methodology inappropriately attributes a greater amount of 
debt forgiveness to a company whose buyers assume less debt but pay a 
higher cash price. In fact, claims AST, if the GOI had paid down the 
same amount of ILVA's liabilities calculated as uncovered in the EC's 
Monitoring Reports prior to the liquidation process, each of the 
companies could have been ``sold'' entirely for a transfer of debt 
(i.e., no cash transfer) in the amount of transferred assets. In this 
event, AST argues, there would be no residual debt and the Department's 
methodology

[[Page 30633]]

would lead it to countervail only the grant given prior to the 
liquidation process.
    The petitioners state that the Department, consistent with its 
practice, should consider the total amount of ILVA's liabilities and 
losses forgiven on behalf of AST at the time of its spin-off as the 
benefit to AST. See, e.g., Electrical Steel from Italy, 59 FR at 18365, 
and Certain Steel from Austria, 58 FR at 37221. The petitioners assert 
that the income received as a result of the sales of ILVA's productive 
units should not be deducted from the gross amount of ILVA's losses and 
liabilities for three reasons. First, the petitioners argue, the debt 
forgiveness occurred prior to the actual sales of ILVA's productive 
units and, thus, should be treated separately. Second, the petitioners 
contend, the amount of income at the time of the sales was greater than 
it would have been without the debt reduction. Finally, according to 
the petitioners, the Department's change-in-ownership methodology 
accounts separately for repayment of prior subsidies associated with 
the purchase price of the company sold.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AST that we are precluded 
from ``looking behind'' the EC's Monitoring Report. While the EC's 
Monitoring Report is a useful source of information about the 
liquidation of ILVA, the methodologies the EC uses to measure and 
report amounts associated with the liquidation may not be appropriate 
for our purposes, i.e., for identifying and measuring the 
countervailable benefit to AST from the GOI liquidation activities. For 
example, we could not rely on calculations based on the cost to the 
government rather than the benefit to the recipient.
    As we understand AST's argument, rather than carry out the 
liquidation of ILVA and privatization of ILVA's constituent parts as it 
did, the GOI could simply have forgiven the ILVA Group's debt up to the 
point where assets equaled liabilities (and the Group's net equity was 
zero). In turn, each of the constituent parts of ILVA could be ``sold'' 
with assets equal to liabilities at a price of zero. Under this 
scenario, the total countervailable subsidy under the Department's 
methodology would clearly be the amount of debt forgiven, which 
corresponds to the amount in the EC's Monitoring Report. However, 
because the privatization was structured so that ILVA's constituent 
parts took certain liabilities with them when they were privatized and 
because the Department does not include debt assumed as part of the 
purchase price, the amount of the debt forgiveness and, consequently, 
the amount of the subsidy the Department found was vastly larger that 
the amount in the EC's Monitoring Report. In AST's view, this anomaly 
should be addressed by treating the amount of debt forgiveness reported 
by the EC as a grant to the new companies (and, hence, not passing 
through the change-in-ownership calculation), while the debt assumed by 
the purchasers should be included in the purchase price in calculating 
the amount of old subsidies that are repaid through privatization.
    As discussed above in response to Comment 3, the Department's 
practice is not to include debt assumed by the buyer as part of the 
purchase price, and AST has not supported its assertion that buyers and 
sellers would be indifferent as to the mix of cash paid and debt 
assumed. See also our response to Comment 3 in the Plate Final (64 FR 
at 15520). Without support for this premise, we believe that AST's 
proposed methodology measures the cost to the Government of Italy of 
liquidating ILVA and not the benefit to AST resulting from the 
assignment and forgiveness of debt involved in the AST's demerger.

Comment 10: 1993 Debt Forgiveness Apportionment

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 10, 64 FR at 
15523).

Comment 11: ILVA Residua Asset Value

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 11, 64 FR at 
15523).

Comment 12: Use of Consolidated Asset Values for 1993 Debt Forgiveness 
Calculation

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 12, 64 FR at 
15523-15524).

Comment 13: ILVA to AST Debt-Forgiveness Methodology

    AST argues that, if the Department maintains the debt-forgiveness 
methodology it used in the Plate Final, it should make certain 
adjustments to its calculation to improve its accuracy. Specifically, 
AST asserts that the Department's methodology overstates the amount of 
liabilities assigned to AST as debt forgiveness by understating both 
the amount of residual assets liquidated and the amount of liabilities 
that were transferred in the privatization of ILVA Residua's 
operations. AST claims that the Department can correct both of these 
errors by basing its calculation on the ``total comparable 
indebtedness'' as calculated in the EC 10th Monitoring Report rather 
than ILVA Residua's 1993 financial statement.
    Although the Department declined to make the requested adjustments 
as clerical-error corrections in the Plate Final, AST asserts that 
additional information exists on the record of the instant case that 
would allow the Department to make the requested adjustments in the 
final determination. Specifically, AST states that the Department's May 
6, 1999, Memorandum to File, detailing a telephone conversation between 
Department personnel and the EC official who was in charge of compiling 
the Monitoring Reports, provides definitive support to make the 
requested changes. AST asserts that this telephone conversation 
confirmed that the Department did not take into account additional, 
``non-financial'' (e.g., accounts payable, accruals), liabilities that 
were transferred to the companies privatized from ILVA Residua, and 
that certain other residual assets, other than just liquid assets, were 
sold in the liquidation process. AST states that the EC official also 
confirmed that the Monitoring Report methodology accounts for both of 
these issues. Furthermore, while AST admits that the Department in past 
cases has only reduced the remaining liability pool by liquid assets, 
AST states that this was because it was not known whether any other 
assets had value. However, in this case, AST asserts, the Department 
has information on the value of all residual assets in the EC's 
Monitoring Reports. Despite the petitioners' claims in the Plate Final, 
AST submits that the Department did not specifically reject the use of 
the Monitoring Reports in the Plate Final but rather ``re-examined'' 
its methodology with regard to a different issue, the use of gross 
versus net debt (discussed in Comment 9).
    The petitioners argue that the Department should not alter its 
calculation of the 1993 debt forgiveness adopted in the Plate Final 
because the suggested changes are not supported by record evidence, are 
based on events that happened after the 1993 demerger, and contain 
other errors. The petitioners contend that the Department found, in its 
May 4, 1999, Memorandum on Ministerial Errors in the Plate Final, that

[[Page 30634]]

the Monitoring Reports did not support the changes suggested by AST. 
Thus, the EC official's ``mere references'' to this report supporting 
AST's alleged errors in the May 6 telephone conference does not provide 
``definitive proof of AST's claim,'' states the petitioners. 
Additionally, the petitioners argue that the amount of non-financial 
debts that were allegedly transferred with the privatized companies may 
have been influenced by changes in the amounts of such debt after the 
1993 demergers. While the petitioners admit that, if actually 
transferred, it would be appropriate to deduct any of ILVA's non-
financial debts, they argue that the record does not establish any such 
non-financial debts transferred as tied to pre-demerger ILVA. 
Continuing, the petitioners argue that at the time of AST's demerger, 
ILVA Residua's liquidators could only be assured that its liquid assets 
would sell at their stated value. The fact that certain fixed and 
capital assets were sold later is irrelevant to the Department's intent 
to calculate the debt forgiveness conferred at the moment of AST's 
demerger, the petitioners posit. The petitioners also contend that the 
Department already accounted for fixed-asset sales through its change-
in-ownership methodology such that it would be inappropriate to deduct 
these sales from ILVA's total indebtedness. Last, petitioners argue 
that AST's proposed calculation methodology uses the 1998 rather than 
the 1993 ``total comparable indebtedness'' figure from the Monitoring 
Reports incorrectly, and that the amount AST subtracted for the pre-
demerger sale of assets should be added rather than subtracted.
    Department's Position: In contrast to the Plate Final, the record 
of the instant case confirms AST's assertion that a greater amount of 
liabilities than we accounted for in the Plate Final were actually 
transferred with ILVA Residua's privatized assets and that the ``total 
comparable indebtedness'' reported in the Monitoring Reports more 
accurately reflects the residual assets that were sold in liquidation 
than the amount of ``liquid assets'' we used in the Plate Final. We 
agree with AST that we did not reject the use of the Monitoring Reports 
in the Plate Final but rather changed our methodology to capture the 
debt-forgiveness benefit to AST by starting with the gross rather than 
the net debt (see our response to Comment 9). We also agree with AST 
that our typical practice of deducting only liquid assets from total 
liabilities left in a shell company is based on the presumption that 
the value of other residual assets is unknown and difficult to 
determine, and is likely to be far less than their book value. However, 
in this case, the Monitoring Reports provide an actual accounting of 
the liquidation process through June 1998. We note that 423 billion 
lire of non-liquid assets remained in ILVA Residua as of June 1998. 
Because we do not know what the actual value of these assets will be in 
liquidation, nor will there be any further monitoring of their 
liquidation by the EC (see May 6, 1999, Memorandum to File), we 
increased the indebtedness we allocated to ILVA's viable assets by this 
amount. Additionally, while it is possible that the composition of the 
non-financial debts transferred in the sales of ILVA's viable assets 
changed somewhat after the demergers of AST and ILP, there is no 
evidence on the record to indicate that such debts, which arise as a 
direct result of the operations of the business units privatized, would 
have changed dramatically over this time period.
    We do not agree with the petitioners that our methodology is to 
calculate the amount of debt forgiveness as of the moment AST was 
demerged. While we have set the benefit stream to AST to begin with the 
demerger, we view AST's demerger as only one part of the process of 
liquidating ILVA. That process involved a series of actions, including 
the demergers of AST and ILP. If we were to look only at the assets and 
liabilities that had been disposed of by the time of AST's demerger, we 
would be ignoring much of the liquidation activity inappropriately. For 
example, CAS had not been sold as of the time of AST's demerger. Thus, 
under the petitioners' approach, subsidies which we assigned to CAS in 
Wire Rod would also be assigned to AST just because of the sequence of 
events.
    We also disagree with the petitioners that we had accounted for the 
residual assets in question already in our change-in-ownership 
methodology. None of the residual assets at issue constitute 
``productive units'' (i.e., a collection of assets capable of 
generating sales and operating independently, see GIA at 37268). 
Therefore, application of the change-in-ownership methodology would be 
inappropriate. Instead, it is appropriate to net the liquidation value 
of these individual assets against residual liabilities in the same 
manner as liquid assets. Last, because the 1998 ``total comparable 
indebtedness'' provides a more accurate basis than the similar 1993 
figure, we have used this as the starting point of our calculation.
    While we have not altered our determination with regard to the 
issue of gross debt versus net debt, we can address both that issue and 
calculate a more accurate amount of debt forgiveness by using the final 
``total comparable indebtedness'' figure reported in the 10th 
Monitoring Report as the starting point of our calculation. For an 
overview of our calculation methodology, see ILVA to AST Debt 
Forgiveness section above.

Comment 14: 1993 Creditworthiness

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 13, 64 FR at 
15524).

Comment 15: ILVA Asset Write-Downs

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 14, 64 FR at 
15524-15525).

Comment 16: ESF Objective 4 Specificity

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 15, 64 FR at 
15525).

Comment 17: ESF Objective 3

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 16, 64 FR at 
15525).

Comment 18: Law 10/91

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 17, 64 FR at 
15525-15526).

Comment 19: Specificity of THERMIE

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 18, 64 FR at 
15526).

Comment 20: Law 675 Bond Issues

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 19, 64 FR at 
15526).

Comment 21: 1988 Equity Infusion

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to

[[Page 30635]]

those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. Please see that 
notice for a full explanation (Comment 20, 64 FR at 15526-15527).

Comment 22: Law 451/94

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 21, 64 FR at 
15527).

Comment 23: Law 675/77--Worker Training Program

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 22, 64 FR at 
15527-15528).

Comment 24: Law 796/76 Benefit Calculation

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 23, 64 FR at 
15528).

Comment 25: AST's Brite-EuRam Grant

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 24, 64 FR at 
15528).

Comment 26: ECSC Article 56 Aid

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 25, 64 FR at 
15528).

Comment 27: ECSC Article 54 Loans

    The facts at hand, parties' arguments regarding this issue, and our 
response to those arguments have not changed since the Plate Final. 
Please see that notice for a full explanation (Comment 26, 64 FR at 
15528-15529).

Comment 28: Exclusion of Floor Plate from the Scope of the 
Investigation

    AST requests that the Department exclude floor plate from the scope 
of the instant proceeding. AST argues that floor plate should not be 
included in the scope of this investigation because floor plate is not 
manufactured in the United States, it does not compete with any product 
manufactured in the United States or with imports of other covered 
products, and it is materially different from the other products 
subject to this investigation. Furthermore, AST argues that floor plate 
has only one end-use, which is as flooring material and it cannot be 
used for any other application that requires a smooth surface, as is a 
common requirement of end-uses of stainless steel. Lastly, AST argues 
that the Department has the inherent authority to exclude products from 
the scope of an investigation that are not included properly therein.
    The petitioners object to AST's request to exclude floor plate from 
the scope of this investigation. The petitioners argue that floor plate 
falls clearly within the scope of this case. Furthermore, the 
petitioners cite Melamine Institutional Dinnerware Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 1708 (January 13, 1997), as evidence 
of the Department's clear and consistent practice of examining the 
interests of the domestic industry in defining the scope of a case. The 
petitioners point out that numerous requests to exclude certain 
products from the scope have been considered and, where there was no 
interest on the part of the domestic industry, the petitioners have 
excluded such products from the scope as evidenced in the revisions to 
the initial scope definition set forth in the Preliminary 
Determination. The petitioners object to AST's argument that, in order 
for a product to remain within the scope, the domestic industry must be 
producing currently. The petitioners state that often products are 
included in the scope of an investigation because they are similar to 
and competitive with the domestic like product.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AST. Despite AST's 
arguments, the scope as set forth in the Preliminary Determination 
covers merchandise described as floor plate if it is less than 4.75 in 
thickness. The scope specifically describes the subject merchandise as 
``flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and 
less than 4.75 mm in thickness' and notes further that ``[t]he 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.'' See 
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Italy, and the Republic of 
Korea Notice of Initiation, 63 FR 37521 (July 13, 1998). Additionally, 
the petitioners have objected to the exclusion of floor plate from the 
scope of the investigation. Furthermore, we have addressed this issue 
earlier. See Memorandum to the File regarding Scope Changes in 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea, Italy and France, 
dated December 14, 1998. Therefore, the Department has not amended the 
scope of the investigation to exclude stainless steel floor plate.

Comment 29: Termination of Investigation of Arinox

    The petitioners argue that the Department should terminate its 
investigation of Arinox for failure to comply with the statute and 
agency regulations and, furthermore, the Department should assign 
Arinox the ``All Others'' rate. The petitioners object to the 
Department's acceptance of Arinox's information, given the company's 
failure to comply with the Department's instructions for submitting 
factual information. The petitioners point out that Arinox has 
consistently neglected to serve its responses on the petitioners and, 
by not enforcing the statutory requirement to serve interested parties 
with all information submitted, the Department has deprived the 
petitioners of the opportunity to submit comments on potential 
subsidies to Arinox. Moreover, the petitioners assert, by accepting the 
procedurally defective submissions of Arinox and calculating a de 
minimis subsidy rate in the Preliminary Determination based on those 
submissions, the Department would exclude Arinox from the scope of the 
countervailing duty order at the outset of this proceeding, thus 
precluding the petitioners from ever analyzing Arinox's data and the 
Department from assessing the potential countervailable benefits.
    Arinox states that it is a small company and was unfamiliar with 
the process of serving its submissions on interested parties. Arinox 
argues that it has cooperated fully with the Department's investigation 
by providing information as requested. Arinox points out that, at 
verification, the company welcomed Department personnel and provided 
information requested in order to verify the information provided. 
Arinox argues that since it has cooperated fully in the investigation 
and the Department verified the information provided by the company, it 
would be inappropriately punitive to apply the ``All Others'' rate to 
Arinox. Finally, Arinox maintains that it is a fairly new company which 
has never been owned by the Italian government and the only programs in 
which it participated are small social programs which help depressed 
areas in Italy.
    Department's Position: The Department recognizes the petitioners' 
concerns regarding the failure of Arinox to comply with the statutory 
requirement to serve all interested

[[Page 30636]]

parties with its responses to the Department's questionnaires in a 
timely fashion. However, the Department believes that Arinox, a pro se 
company, was operating in good faith and to the best of its ability in 
attempting to respond to the Department's requests for information. 
Although Arinox's responses to our questionnaires and other information 
were not served immediately upon the petitioners, it submitted this 
information in a timely fashion, was sufficiently complete so as to 
provide a reliable basis for our determination, was capable of being 
used without undue difficulty, and we provided it to the petitioners 
shortly before the preliminary determination. We conducted the 
verification of Arinox approximately three weeks later and verified the 
accuracy of Arinox's submissions. This three-week period provided the 
petitioners with a reasonable amount of time to make substantive 
comments regarding any potential subsidies to Arinox prior to 
verification. For these reasons and consistent with sections 782(c)(2) 
and (e) of the Act, the Department has continued to calculate a 
separate ad valorem subsidy rate for Arinox in this final 
determination.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information used in making our final determination. We followed 
standard verification procedures, including meeting with government and 
company officials, and examining relevant accounting records and 
original source documents. Our verification results are detailed in the 
public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the 
Central Records Unit.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated an individual rate for each company investigated. We 
determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 
12.22 percent ad valorem for AST and 1.03 percent ad valorem for 
Arinox. The All Others rate is 12.09 percent, which is the weighted 
average of the rates for both companies.
    In accordance with our Preliminary Determination, we instructed the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy, which were entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 17, 
1998, the date of the publication of our Preliminary Determination in 
the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we 
instructed the U.S. Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of 
liquidation for merchandise entered on or after January 2, 1999, but to 
continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made between November 
17, 1998, and January 1, 1999. We will reinstate suspension of 
liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC issues a final 
affirmative injury determination and will require a cash deposit of 
estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the 
amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or 
threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be 
terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a 
result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related 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 Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material 
injury, does not exist, these proceedings will be terminated and all 
estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the 
suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. If, however, 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue a 
countervailing duty order.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their 
responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to 
comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 19, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-13683 Filed 6-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P