[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64051-64055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-849, A-823-808, A-821-808, and A-791-804]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, Ukraine, 
the Russian Federation, and the Republic of South Africa

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Gray at (202) 482-0196 and 
Elizabeth Patience at (202) 482-0195, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

    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 
to

[[Page 64052]]

the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations 
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

The Petitions

    On November 5, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received petitions filed in proper form from Geneva Steel 
Company (Geneva) and Gulf States Steel, Inc. (Gulf States) 
(``petitioners''), domestic producers of certain cut-to-length carbon 
steel plate (CTL plate). The Department received amended petitions on 
November 14 and 15, 1996.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners alleged 
that imports of CTL plate from the People's Republic of China (China), 
Ukraine, the Russian Federation (Russia), and the Republic of South 
Africa (South Africa) 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, or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
    The Department finds that petitioners have standing to file the 
petitions because they are interested parties, as defined under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to 
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum 
percentage of the domestic industry supports an antidumping petition. A 
petition meets these minimum requirements 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.
    We received submissions from two importers, Ranger Steel Supply 
Corporation (Ranger) and Klockner Steel Trade (Klockner), alleging that 
these petitions were not filed on behalf of the domestic carbon steel 
plate industry. Moreover, Klockner, in filing its notice of appearance 
in the Chinese, Russian and Ukrainian proceedings, contended that there 
are 38 domestic firms that may have produced plate in 1992. Therefore, 
the importer questions whether petitioners identified all domestic 
plate producers in the petitions. Klockner's support for this assertion 
is based on a list of companies, prepared by the International Trade 
Commission for the 1992 carbon flat-rolled steel investigations, that 
produce, in general, carbon flat-rolled steel products which, depending 
on the producer, may or may not include plate. Independent sources 
readily available to the Department indicate that the domestic 
producers originally identified in the petition are the only producers 
of carbon steel plate in the United States. See Metal Bulletin Books, 
Iron and Steel Works of the World (11th ed., 1994).
    On November 18, 1996, counsel for Ranger submitted additional 
arguments on all four petitions contending that the petitions do not 
have industry support. Ranger argues that petitioners failed to 
demonstrate on the face of the petitions that Geneva and Gulf States 
account for more than 50 percent of total domestic production. Ranger 
also contends that the Department must determine through polling that 
domestic producers supporting the petitions account for more than 50 
percent of the production of CTL plate produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing a view on the petitions.
    On November 14, 1996, petitioners submitted amended petitions for 
the four countries with letters of support for the petitions from 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX 
Corporation. Letters of support were also submitted to the Department 
by the United Steelworkers of America on November 13, 1996. Based on 
the production data we collected from domestic steel-producing 
companies, Geneva, Gulf States, Bethlehem and USX account for 
significantly more than 50 percent of total production of the domestic 
like product. Because the amended petitions now establish sufficient 
support of domestic producers within the meaning of 732(c)(4)(D), the 
Department is not required to poll or rely on other information to 
determine if there is support for the petition. The Department received 
no expressions of opposition to the petitions from any U.S. producers 
or workers. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions 
have been filed on behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with 
sections 732(c)(4)(A) and 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of these investigations includes hot-rolled iron and non-
alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on 
four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not 
exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in 
coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither 
clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, 
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain 
iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of 
rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with 
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or 
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a 
width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. 
Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled 
products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Excluded from 
subject merchandise within the scope of this petition is grade X-70 
plate. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

South Africa

Export Price and Normal Value

    The petitioners based export price on the customs values derived 
from the IM-145 monthly import statistics for HTS subheading 
7208.51.0060 and 7208.52.0000, published by the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, for the month of July 1996. These customs values correspond 
to the month the available home market price lists were in effect. The 
customs values, which represent the f.o.b. South Africa price of the 
subject CTL plate, were adjusted for foreign inland freight, based on 
the freight charges by one South African producer. We find the customs 
values a reasonable basis for export prices because (1) the HTS 
subheadings contain only CTL plate and no other products, and (2) the 
customs values reported for IM-145 are based on the transaction value 
of the merchandise.
    The petitioners based normal value on July 1996 prices between a 
South African producer and its customers obtained from a market 
researcher. The gross home market prices were adjusted

[[Page 64053]]

downward for discounts and value-added tax. The petitioners converted 
the unit prices in South African rand to U.S. dollars using the 
exchange rates that were in effect on or about the time the home market 
sales occurred.
    Based on comparisons of export price to normal value, the estimated 
dumping margins for certain CTL plate from South Africa range from 6.66 
percent to 33.87 percent.

China

Export Price

    Petitioners based export price on two methods: 1) the import values 
declared to the U.S. Customs Service; and 2) actual U.S. selling prices 
obtained by Geneva. Petitioners used the HTS categories which contained 
only subject merchandise, as follows: 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 
7208.40.3030, and 7208.53.0000. Petitioners deducted foreign inland 
freight from the FAS customs values in order to obtain ex-factory 
prices. In order to calculate foreign inland freight, petitioners used 
Chilean rail rates. Petitioners explained that the only reasonably-
available public rates were from Chile and the United States. Because 
Chile's GNP is closer to China's, Chile's transport rates were used in 
petitioners' calculations. Based on the information presented by 
petitioners, we believe that their use of Chilean rail rates is 
acceptable for purposes of initiation of this investigation.

Normal Value

    Petitioners asserted that China is a non-market economy country 
(NME) to the extent that sales or offers for sale of such or similar 
merchandise in China or to third countries do not permit calculation of 
normal value under 19 C.F.R. 353.46, 353.49 or 353.53. Petitioners, 
therefore, constructed a normal value based on the factors of 
production methodology pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c). In previous 
investigations, the Department has determined that China is an NME. 
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 
1996). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for China has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the 
normal value of the product was appropriately based on the producers' 
factors of production, valued in a surrogate market economy country in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
    In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the 
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of 
China's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual 
exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    For their normal value calculation, petitioners based the factors 
of production, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw 
materials, labor, energy and capital cost), for CTL plate on 
petitioners' own usage inputs and amounts, adjusted for known 
differences in production efficiencies on the basis of available 
information. Petitioners asserted that no detailed information is 
available regarding the quantities of inputs used by plate producers in 
China. Thus, they have assumed, for purposes of the petition, that 
producers in China use the same inputs in the same quantities as 
petitioners, except where a variance from petitioners' cost model can 
be justified on the basis of available information. Petitioners argued 
that the use of their own factors is conservative because the U.S. 
steel industry is more efficient and technologically-advanced than the 
Chinese steel industry. Petitioners cited four different sources to 
support this contention. Based on the information provided by 
petitioners, we believe that petitioners' use of its own adjusted 
factors of production is appropriate for purposes of initiation of this 
investigation. See, Initiation of the Antidumping Duty Investigations 
of Melamine Institutional Dinner Products from Indonesia, Taiwan, and 
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 8039 (March 31, 1996).
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners then 
valued the factors of production, where possible, on reasonably 
available surrogate country data. Petitioners selected Indonesia as the 
primary surrogate. Petitioners argued that Indonesia is an acceptable 
surrogate country because its level of economic development is 
comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise (in accordance with 773(c)(4) of the Act). See, 
Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: Disposable Pocket 
Lighters from the People's Republic of China 60 FR 22359 (May 5, 1996). 
Petitioners stated that because the per-capita gross national product 
(GNP) of Indonesia and China are relatively close, the two countries 
may be considered economically comparable. Based on the information 
provided by petitioners, we believe that petitioners' use of Indonesia 
as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation of 
this investigation.
    Petitioners were unable to obtain port unloading charges for 
Indonesia and, therefore, chose the lowest charge applicable in Brazil 
based on a publicly-available news article. Petitioners chose Brazilian 
values because they were the only reasonably available figures for a 
country with a per-capita GNP similar to China's. Petitioners were also 
unable to find data on factory overhead, selling, general & 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit from Indonesia. Therefore, 
petitioners used overhead, SG&A and profit percentages used by the 
Department in a recent results of review (Preliminary Results of 
Review: Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 46440 
(September 3, 1996)) where India was the surrogate country in order to 
value these factors. Based on the information provided by petitioners, 
we believe that their use of the noted Brazilian and Indian surrogate 
values are acceptable for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    Based on comparisons of export price to the factors of production, 
the calculated dumping margins for CTL plate from China ranged from 
10.01-45.84 percent.

Russia

Export Price

    Petitioners based export price on two methods: (1) The import 
values declared to the U.S. Customs Service; and (2) actual U.S. 
selling prices known to petitioners. In order to ensure a fair 
comparison, petitioners used the HTS categories which contained only 
subject merchandise, as follows: 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 
7208.40.3030, and 7208.53.0000. Petitioners deducted foreign inland 
freight from the customs values in order to obtain ex-factory prices. 
In order to calculate foreign inland freight, petitioners used U.S. 
barge rates and Chilean rail rates because they were the only 
appropriate public figures reasonably available to the petitioners. 
Petitioners explained that they could only find barge rates for the 
United States that revealed the distances needed to permit calculation 
of a rate in dollars-per-ton. Further, they could only find data on 
rail rates from Chile and the United States which would permit the 
calculation of rail freight costs in such terms. They used the Chilean 
rail rate because Chilean per-capita GNP is much closer to Russia's 
than is the United States'.

[[Page 64054]]

Based on the information presented by petitioners, we believe that 
their use of U.S. barge and Chilean rail rates is acceptable for 
purposes of initiation of this investigation.

Normal Value

    Petitioners asserted that Russia is a non-market economy country 
(NME) to the extent that sales or offers for sale of such or similar 
merchandise in Russia or to third countries do not permit calculation 
of normal value under 19 CFR 353.46, 353.49 or 353.53. Petitioners, 
therefore, constructed a normal value based on the factors of 
production methodology pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c). In previous 
investigations, the Department has determined that Russia is an NME. 
See, e.g., Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the Russian 
Federation, 60 FR 16440 (March 30, 1995). In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in 
effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status 
for Russia has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, 
remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. 
Accordingly, the normal value of the product is appropriately based on 
factors of production, valued in a surrogate market economy country in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
    In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the 
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of 
Russia's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual 
exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    For the normal value calculation, petitioners based the factors of 
production, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, 
labor, energy and capital cost), for CTL plate on petitioners' own 
usage inputs and amounts, adjusted for known differences in production 
efficiencies on the basis of available information. Petitioners 
asserted that no detailed information is available regarding the 
quantities of inputs used by plate producers in Russia. Thus, they have 
assumed, for purposes of the petition, that producers in Russia use the 
same inputs in the same quantities as petitioners, except where a 
variance from petitioners' cost model can be justified on the basis of 
available information. Petitioners argued that the use of their own 
factors is conservative because the U.S. steel industry is more 
efficient and technologically-advanced than the Russian steel industry. 
Petitioners cited three different sources to support this contention. 
Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that 
petitioners' use of its own adjusted factors of production is 
appropriate for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners valued 
these factors, where possible, on reasonably available, published 
surrogate country data. Petitioners selected Turkey as their primary 
surrogate. Petitioners stated that the per-capita GNP of Turkey differs 
only slightly from Russia's and, thus, maintain that Turkey is the most 
suitable surrogate, amongst the potential surrogates, because it is at 
a level of comparable economic development and is also a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise (in accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act). See, Final Determination of Sales at Less-than-
Fair-Value of Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadiam From the Russian 
Federation, 60 FR 27957 (May 26, 1996). Based on the information 
provided by petitioners, we believe that petitioners' use of Turkey as 
a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation of this 
investigation.
    Petitioners state that they were unable to find publicly-available 
information on port unloading charges in Turkey and, therefore, chose 
the lowest charge applicable in Brazil as a surrogate value, based on a 
published news article. Petitioners were also unable to find a 
published source for the number of man-hours used to produce a ton of 
any steel product in Russia or Turkey, and, therefore, used a labor-
per-ton figure for Mexico, based on a published news article, as the 
surrogate value. Petitioners chose values from Brazil and Mexico, 
respectively, as surrogates because the information was reasonably 
available and the per-capita GNPs of these countries were most 
comparable to Russia's. Finally, petitioners valued Russian consumption 
rates for fuel, energy, and raw materials at 20 percent above 
petitioners' based on a publicly-available news article. Based on the 
information provided by petitioners, we believe that their use of the 
noted surrogate values is acceptable for purposes of initiation of this 
investigation.
    Based on comparisons of export price to the factors of production, 
the calculated dumping margins for CTL plate from Russia ranged from 
139.97-230.38 percent.

Ukraine

Export Price

    Petitioners based export price on two methods: (1) The import 
values declared to the U.S. Customs Service; and (2) actual U.S. 
selling prices known to petitioners. In order to ensure a fair 
comparison, petitioners used the HTS categories which contained only 
subject merchandise, as follows: 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 
7208.40.3030, and 7208.53.0000. Petitioners deducted foreign inland 
freight from the customs values in order to obtain ex-factory prices. 
In order to calculate foreign inland freight, petitioners used U.S. 
barge rates and Chilean rail rates because they were the only 
appropriate, public figures reasonably available to the petitioners. 
Petitioners explained that they could only find barge rates for the 
United States that revealed the distances needed to permit calculation 
of a rate in dollars-per-ton. Further, they could only find data on 
rail rates from Chile and the United States which would permit the 
calculation of rail freight costs in such terms. They used the Chilean 
rail rate because Chilean per-capita GNP is much closer to Ukraine's 
than is the United States'. Based on the information presented by 
petitioners, we believe that their use of U.S. barge and Chilean rail 
rates is acceptable for purposes of initiation of this investigation.

Normal Value

    Petitioners alleged that Ukraine is an NME to the extent that sales 
or offers for sale of such or similar merchandise in Ukraine or to 
third countries does not permit calculation of normal value under 19 
CFR 353.46, 353.49 or 353.53. Petitioners, therefore, constructed a 
normal value based on the factors of production methodology pursuant to 
19 U.S.C. 1677b(c). In previous investigations, the Department has 
determined that Ukraine is an NME. See, e.g., Final Determinations of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan and 
Ukraine; and Postponement of Final Determination; Ferrosilicon from the 
Russian Federation, 58 FR 13050 (March 9, 1993). In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains 
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME 
status for Ukraine has not been revoked by the Department and, 
therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this 
investigation. Accordingly, the normal value of the product is 
appropriately based on the producers' factors of production valued in a

[[Page 64055]]

surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act.
    In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the 
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of 
Ukraine's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual 
exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    For the normal value calculation, petitioners based the factors of 
production, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, 
labor, energy, and capital costs), for CTL plate on petitioners' own 
usage amounts, adjusted for known differences in production 
efficiencies on the basis of available information. Petitioners 
asserted that no detailed information is available regarding the 
quantities of inputs used by plate producers in Ukraine. Thus, they 
have assumed, for purposes of the petition, that producers in Ukraine 
use the same inputs in the same quantities as petitioners, except where 
a variance from petitioners' cost model can be justified on the basis 
of available information. Petitioners argued that the use of their own 
data is conservative because the U.S. steel industry is more efficient 
and technologically-advanced than the Ukrainian steel industry. 
Petitioners cited two different sources to support this contention. 
Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that 
petitioners' use of its own adjusted factors of production is 
appropriate for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners valued 
these factors, where possible, on reasonably available, published 
surrogate country data. Petitioners selected Peru as their primary 
surrogate. Petitioners argued that Peru is an acceptable surrogate 
country because its level of economic development is comparable to that 
of Ukraine and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise 
(in accordance with 773(c)(4) of the Act). See, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less-than-Fair-Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination of Silicomanganese From Ukraine 59 FR 31201 (June 
17, 1996). Petitioners stated that because the per-capita GNP of Peru 
and Ukraine are relatively close, the two countries may be considered 
economically comparable. Based on the information provided by 
petitioners, we believe that petitioners' use of Peru as a surrogate 
country is appropriate for purposes of initiation of this 
investigation.
    Petitioners were unable to obtain port unloading charges for Peru 
and, therefore, chose the lowest charge applicable in Brazil based on a 
published news article. Petitioners were also unable to find a 
published source for the number of man-hours used to produce a ton of 
any steel product in Ukraine or Peru, and, therefore, used a labor-per-
ton figure for Mexico based on a news article, as the surrogate value. 
Petitioners chose values from Brazil and Mexico, respectively, as 
surrogates because the information was reasonably available and the 
per-capita GNPs of these countries were most comparable to Ukraine's. 
Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that their 
use of the noted Brazilian and Mexican surrogate values is acceptable 
for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    Petitioners were also unable to find values for natural gas rates, 
factory overhead, selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
and profit from Peru. Therefore, petitioners used surrogate natural gas 
rates from Indonesia and Turkish values for factory overhead, SG&A, and 
profit. Values from Indonesia and Turkey were selected on the basis 
that these countries were closer to Ukraine in per-capita GNP than were 
other countries from which values could be ascertained by petitioners. 
Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe that their 
use of the noted Indonesian and Turkish surrogate values is acceptable 
for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    Based on comparisons of export price to the factors of production, 
the calculated dumping margins for CTL plate from Ukraine ranged from 
201.61-274.82 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of CTL plate from China, Ukraine, Russia and South 
Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value. If 
it becomes necessary at a later date to consider these petitions as a 
source of facts available, under section 776 of the Act, we may further 
review the calculations.

Initiation of Investigations

    We have examined the petitions on CTL plate from China, Ukraine, 
Russia and South Africa and have found that they meet the requirements 
of section 732 of the Act, including the requirements concerning 
allegations of material injury or threat of material injury to the 
domestic producers of a domestic like product by reason of the 
complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair value. In 
reaching this determination, we have examined the accuracy and adequacy 
of the evidence provided in the petitions based on information readily 
available to us, as required by section 732(c)(1)(A)(i). Therefore, we 
are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of CTL plate from China, Ukraine, Russia and South Africa are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary determination by 
April 14, 1997.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the 
public version of the petitions have been provided to the 
representatives of the governments of China, Ukraine, Russia and South 
Africa. We will attempt to provide copies of the public versions of the 
petitions to the exporters named in the petitions.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

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

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by December 20, 1996, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of CTL plate from China, Ukraine, 
Russia and South Africa are causing material injury, or threatening to 
cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination 
in any of these investigations will result in the respective 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    Dated: November 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa
Acting Assistant Secretary of Import Administration
[FR Doc. 96-30756 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P