[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42084-42088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19919]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-826, A-469-809, A-588-852, A-580-841]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Structural Steel 
Beams From Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Spain

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James (Germany) at (202) 482-
5222; Abdelali Elouaradia (Japan) at (202) 482-2243; Rick Johnson 
(South Korea) at (202) 482-3818; and Linda Ludwig (Spain), at (202) 
482-3833, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

The Petition

    On July 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received petitions filed in proper form by Northwestern Steel and Wire 
Company, Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, TXI-Chaparral Steel Company, and 
United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO (collectively petitioners). The 
Department received supplemental information to the petitions on July 
8, July 21 and July 22, 1999.

[[Page 42085]]

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of structural steel beams (``structural beams'') from 
Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Spain are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring 
an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the 
antidumping investigations they are requesting the Department to 
initiate (see Determination of Industry Support for the Petition 
below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, 
formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm 
(3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) 
steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, 
or clad. These products (``Structural Steel Beams'') include, but are 
not limited to, wide-flange beams (``W'' shapes), bearing piles (``HP'' 
shapes), standard beams (``S'' or ``I'' shapes), and M-shapes.
    All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions 
provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
     Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear 
foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 
inches.
    In addition to the above exclusion, petitioners have requested that 
the Department exclude certain special section I-shapes. See Exhibit 5 
of the petition, submitted on July 7, 1999, see also Attachment A of 
the July 23, 1999 petition amendment. The Department is currently 
considering this exclusion request, and attempting to define the 
request using physical, mechanical, and chemical criteria.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 
7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that the scope in the petition accurately 
reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 
Moreover, as we discussed in the preamble to the Department's 
regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments by August 16, 1999. Comments should be 
addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230. Any product coverage comment filed must be 
filed for the record of each structural steel beam investigation (i.e., 
commentors must file all coverage comments on the record of the 
investigations for structural steel beams from Germany, Japan, South 
Korea (both antidumping and countervailing duty investigations) and 
Spain). The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the 
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult 
with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law (see Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United 
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content 
Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final 
Determination; Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of 
Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition. Moreover, petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic 
like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
    The domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single 
domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the 
petition's definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. 
The Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product 
definition set forth in the petition.
    In this case, the Department has determined that the petition and 
supplemental information to the petition contain adequate evidence of 
sufficient industry support (see Attachment to the Initiation Checklist 
Re: Industry Support, July 27, 1999). For all countries, producers and 
workers supporting the petition represent over 50 percent of total 
production of the domestic like product.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions are 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate these 
investigations are based. Should

[[Page 42086]]

the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations for purposes of facts available under section 776 
of the Act, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate.
Germany
    Petitioners have identified Salzgitter AG (Salzgitter) and 
Stahlwerk Thuringen GmbH (Stahlwerk Thuringen) as possible exporters of 
structural beams from Germany and the primary producers of subject 
merchandise in Germany. Petitioners based export price (``EP'') on two 
price offerings for structural beams, one by Salzgitter and one by 
Stahlwerk Thuringen, made in the fourth quarter of 1998 to unaffiliated 
U.S. purchasers. Petitioners deducted inland freight obtained from a 
price quote for trucking wide-flange beams from the German mill to the 
port of exportation. Petitioners then subtracted ocean freight and 
insurance costs, calculated as the difference of the unit customs value 
from the unit C.I.F. value of the subject merchandise. In addition, 
petitioners deducted port fees, which they acquired from an official 
port schedule for one of the price offerings and documented by 
affidavit for the other, and U.S. customs duties, which were obtained 
from the 1999 HTSUS.
    In calculating NV, petitioners used two home market price quotes 
(one from Salzgitter and one from Stahlwerk Thuringen). Petitioners 
stated that these prices were quoted for wide-flange beams for sale in 
the first quarter of 1999 and that the grade offered in these quotes is 
equivalent to the grades in the U.S. offerings used to compute EP. 
Because the terms of Salzgitter and Stahlwerk Thuringen's sales were on 
a delivered basis, petitioners subtracted the cost of delivery to 
customers in Germany from the delivered prices. Petitioners obtained 
inland freight costs for shipping a truckload of structural beams in 
Germany from a freight forwarder. To compute normal value petitioners 
also deducted home market credit expenses, which were calculated using 
the average days of credit offered on sales of wide-flange beams in 
Germany, the home market delivered price, and the average German prime 
rate (from the Bundesbank) for January and February 1999. In addition, 
petitioners added an amount for imputed U.S. credit expense in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Petitioners derived 
the imputed U.S. credit expense using the standard days of credit 
offered on sales of German wide-flange beams in the U.S., the U.S. 
delivered price, and the average U.S. prime lending rate during the 
period of shipment.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that home market sales of the subject merchandise 
were made at prices below the cost of production (``COP''), within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a country-wide sales below cost investigation. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing 
(``COM''), selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), 
and packing costs. To calculate COP, the petitioners based COM on their 
own production experiences for COM adjusted for known differences 
between costs incurred to produce structural beams in the United States 
and Germany. To calculate SG&A petitioners relied on their own 
experience. Petitioner's relied upon their own experience for SG&A 
because as documented in the petition, they were unable to obtain an 
SG&A rate for a German steel producer. In addition, we note that the 
SG&A rate used appears to be conservative. To calculate financial 
expenses, petitioners relied upon the 1998 net financial expense from 
the financial statements of one of the named producers.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the COP. For these 
sales, petitioner based NV on the constructed value (``CV'') of the 
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A 
expenses, packing costs and profit of the merchandise. To calculate the 
COM, SG&A, and packing costs for CV, petitioners followed the same 
methodology used to determine COP. The petitioners derived profit for 
CV based on the 1998 financial statements of one of the producers named 
in the petition. We adjusted petitioners' calculated profit to exclude 
investment write-offs and equity earnings in affiliated companies.
    The estimated dumping margins based on a comparison between 
Salzgitter and Stahlwerk Thuringen's U.S. prices and CV, as adjusted by 
the Department, are 67.78 percent and 88.83 percent, respectively. 
Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, petitioners' 
calculated dumping margins range from 45.91 percent to 49.45 percent, 
respectively.
Japan
    The petitioners based EP for both Tokyo Steel and Nippon Steel on 
three U.S. price offerings for sales of wide flange beams to 
unaffiliated purchasers during the fourth quarter of 1998 for delivery 
in either the first or second quarter of 1999. The terms of sale were 
FOB truck or ex-dock duty paid per hundred weight, which the 
petitioners multiplied by twenty to calculate a price per short ton. 
The petitioners stated that they were unable to obtain rates for 
trucking the subject merchandise from the locations of each Japanese 
mill to the port of export; therefore, they did not deduct any Japanese 
trucking and/or port fees from the U.S. price. However, petitioners did 
subtract ocean freight, port fees (from an industry expert's affidavit 
and U.S. government statistics, respectively), and U.S. customs duties 
(from the 1999 HTSUS schedule).
    The petitioners based NV on December 1998 quoted transaction prices 
for wide-flange beams identical or similar to those sold in the United 
States, produced by Tokyo Steel and Nippon Steel and sold or offered 
for sale to customers in Japan. The prices used in the calculation of 
NV were ex-factory prices. Petitioners deducted inland freight (from an 
industry expert's affidavit) and credit expense from the starting 
price. Petitioners used a credit period that was based on a quoted 
transaction price, and used an interest rate from the International 
Financial Statistics. Petitioners did not add back an amount of U.S. 
credit. Further, petitioners did not make any adjustment for 
differences in packing.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that home market sales of the subject merchandise 
were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) 
of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide 
sales below cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A and packing costs. To calculate COP, 
the petitioners based COM on the costs of a surrogate producer because 
this producer has comparable scrap-based, electric arc furnace 
production facilities. Petitioners stated that the surrogate producer's 
costs were representative of Tokyo Steel's and Nippon Steel's cost in 
producing the same product. For Nippon, petitioners increased the 
surrogates labor cost by five times based on information contained in a 
newspaper article. For Nippon, to calculate SG&A, and financial 
expenses,

[[Page 42087]]

the petitioners relied upon the non-consolidated financial statements 
of Nippon Steel Corporation for fiscal year 1998. For Tokyo Steel, to 
calculate depreciation, SG&A, and financial expenses, the petitioners 
relied upon the financial statements of Tokyo Steel for the fiscal year 
1998. We relied on the cost data contained in the petition except in 
the following instances.
    1. We revised Nippon's SG&A rate to include miscellaneous income 
and expenses, retirement expenses, and past service pension costs. We 
also revised Tokyo's SG&A rate to include past service pension costs, 
loss on disposal of fixed assets and plant shutdown costs.
    2. We recalculated Nippon's net financial expense rate using 
Nippon's consolidated financial statements. See Japan Attachment 6 to 
the Initiation Checklist. We also reduced Nippon's and Tokyo's 
financial expense by short-term interest income. We based the short-
term interest income offset on the ratio of cash and cash equivalents 
to total interest bearing assets for both Nippon and Tokyo.
    3. We recalculated Tokyo's depreciation expense using the 
depreciation expense of the same surrogate producer used to compute the 
other manufacturing costs contained in the petition.
    4. We did not rely on petitioners' revised labor cost submitted on 
July 22, 1999, because the newspaper article which was relied upon 
contained inconsistencies. Therefore, we relied on the surrogate's 
labor cost as indicated in the affidavit provided in the petition.
    Based upon our analysis of the adjusted petition information, 
certain of the home market sales reported in the petition were shown to 
be made at prices below the COP. Thus, we find reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made 
below the COP. Accordingly, we are initiating a country-wide-sales-
below-cost investigation.
    For below-cost sales, petitioners based NV on the CV of the 
merchandise, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, 
packing costs, and profit of the merchandise. To calculate the COM, 
SG&A expenses and packing costs for CV, petitioners followed the same 
methodology used to determine COP. Accordingly, we relied on this 
methodology after adjusting certain cost elements as noted above. The 
petitioners derived Nippon's profit for CV based on certain sales of 
the surrogate producer used to compute COM. The petitioners derived 
Tokyo's profit from the one sale which passed the cost test. For 
Nippon, we recalculated profit based on Nippon's 1998 unconsolidated 
financial statements. Because Tokyo's 1998 financial statements 
reflected a net loss, we based the profit for Tokyo on the recalculated 
Nippon profit rate. See Japan cost section of Initiation Checklist.
    The estimated dumping margins, based on a comparison between Nippon 
and Tokyo Steel's U.S. prices and adjusted CV, range from 1.58 percent 
to 23.13 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, 
petitioners calculated dumping margins of 22.21 percent.
South Korea
    Petitioners identified Inchon Iron & Steel Co. Ltd (``Inchon'') and 
Kangwon Industries Co. Ltd. (``Kangwon'') as the primary producers and 
exporters of subject merchandise from South Korea to the United States 
in 1998. Petitioners based EP for Inchon on an April 1999 U.S. price 
offering for a sale to an unaffiliated purchaser. For Kangwon, 
petitioners based EP on a December 1998 offer for sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser. Because the price offers are for products 
delivered to the United States, petitioners calculated a net U.S. price 
for each product by subtracting estimated costs for shipment from the 
factory in South Korea to the port of export and port charges. In 
addition, petitioners subtracted unloading and wharfage charges, ocean 
freight and insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. Customs duties.
    To calculate NV, petitioners obtained home market prices for Inchon 
and Kangwon (from foreign market research and an affidavit from a U.S. 
producer), contemporaneous with the pricing information used as the 
basis for EP, for products offered for sale to customers in South Korea 
which are either identical or similar to those sold to the United 
States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting foreign 
movement charges and credit expenses.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that home market sales of the subject merchandise 
were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) 
of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide-
sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A, and packing costs. To calculate 
COP, petitioners based COM on their own experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce structural beams in the 
United States and South Korea. To calculate SG&A and financial 
expenses, petitioners relied upon the 1997 financial statements for 
each of the two South Korean producers named in the petition. We relied 
on the cost data contained in the petition except for the following. We 
revised the financial expense ratio to include an offset amount for 
short-term interest income.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the COP. For these 
sales, petitioner based NV on the CV of the merchandise, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of 
the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, packing costs, and profit of the 
merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A, and packing costs for CV, 
petitioners followed the same methodology used to determine COP. 
Accordingly, we relied on this methodology after adjusting certain cost 
elements as noted above. The petitioners derived profit for CV based on 
the South Korean producers' 1997 financial statements.
    The estimated dumping margins, based on a comparison between Inchon 
and Kangwon's U.S. prices and CV, as adjusted by the Department, range 
from 89.67 to 107.07 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home 
market prices, as adjusted by the Department, petitioners' calculated 
dumping margins range from 50.00 to 62.95 percent. A description of the 
adjustments which the Department made to petitioners' calculations of 
export price and normal value are contained in the Initiation 
Checklist.
Spain
    The petitioners identified Corporacion Jose Maria Aristrain SA 
(``Aristrain'' (single Spanish entity) or ``Arbed'' (consolidated group 
of companies)) as the possible exporter of structural beams from Spain. 
The petitioners further identified this exporter as the primary 
producer of subject merchandise in Spain. The petitioners based EP for 
Aristrain on a U.S. price offering for the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser during the fourth quarter of 1998. Because the 
terms of Aristrain's U.S. sale were FOB truck at the U.S. port of 
entry, the petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting 
estimated costs for shipment from the factory in Spain to a port of 
export (from an industry expert's affidavit regarding the cost of 
inland freight). In addition, the petitioners subtracted ocean freight 
and insurance, unloading charges, and wharfage (from official U.S. 
tariff rates and official U.S.

[[Page 42088]]

import statistics), and estimated costs for U.S. import duties and fees 
(both from the 1999 HTSUS schedule).
    With respect to NV, petitioners obtained a per metric ton price of 
wide-flange steel beams offered (or sold) by Aristrain sold (or to be 
sold) in Spain. Petitioners adjusted this price by subtracting credit 
expenses (from an industry expert's affidavit and official 
International Monetary Fund statistics).
    Petitioners failed to provide information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the subject 
merchandise were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, at this time we are not 
initiating a sales-below-cost investigation. See Spain cost section of 
Initiation Checklist.
    The estimated dumping margin in the petition, based on a comparison 
between Aristrain's U.S. price and NV, is 66.94 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

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

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of structural beams from Germany, Japan, South 
Korea, and Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair 
value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners explained 
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining 
trends in output and net operating profits. The allegations of injury 
and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. The Department 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury and causation and determined that these allegations are 
supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation (see Attachments to Initiation Checklist, 
Re: Material Injury, July 27, 1999).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on structural beams and 
petitioners' responses to our supplemental questionnaire clarifying the 
petitions, as well as our discussion with the authors of the foreign 
market research reports supporting the petition on South Korea and 
other measures to confirm the information contained in these reports, 
we have found that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 
of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty 
investigations to determine whether imports of structural beams from 
Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Spain are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline 
is extended, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

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

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by August 23, 1999, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of structural beams from Germany, 
Japan, South Korea, and Spain are causing material injury, or 
threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative 
ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation 
being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 27, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19919 Filed 8-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P