[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11144-11148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4407]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-508-810]


Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Pure 
Magnesium From Israel

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2001.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Wells or Melanie Brown, Office of 
CVD/AD Enforcement I, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 3096, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6309 and (202) 482-4987, 
respectively.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to 
producers and exporters of pure magnesium from Israel. For information 
on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension 
of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

    The petition in this investigation was filed by the Magnesium 
Corporation of America (``Magcorp''), the United Steel Workers of 
America, Local 8319, and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 482 
(the petitioners).

Case History

    Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal 
Register (see Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation: Pure Magnesium from Israel, 65 FR 68126 (November 14, 
2000) (Initiation Notice)), the following events have occurred. On 
November 8, 2000, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the 
Government of Israel (GOI) and the sole producer/exporter of the 
subject merchandise, Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd. (DSM). On December 20, 
2000, we postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation 
until no later than February 14, 2001. See, Pure Magnesium from Israel: 
Postponement of Time Limit for Preliminary Determination of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 65 FR 81489 (December 26, 2000). We 
received responses to our initial questionnaires from the GOI and DSM 
on January 3, 2001. Between January 11 and 30, 2001, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and DSM, and we received 
responses to those questionnaires in January and February.

[[Page 11145]]

    On January 11, 2001, the petitioners requested that the Department 
include an additional program, the Israeli Foreign Trade Risk Insurance 
Corporation (IFTRIC), in our investigation. On January 22, 2001, the 
GOI and DSM submitted comments opposing the investigation of IFTRIC. On 
February 12, 2001, the Department declined to investigate the IFTRIC 
program. See, February 12, 2001, Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, from the Team, Allegation of Possible 
Subsidy: Magnesium from Israel.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation includes imports of pure magnesium 
products, regardless of chemistry, form, or size, including, without 
limitation, ingots, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and 
briquettes.
    Pure magnesium includes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 
percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-
pure'' magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent 
but not less than 99.8 percent pure magnesium, by weight (generally 
referred to as ``pure'' magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of 
pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium 
content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by 
weight, that do not conform to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium 
Alloy'' \1\ (generally referred to as ``off-specification pure'' 
magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures of pure magnesium and other 
material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or 
greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, except that mixtures 
containing 90 percent or less pure magnesium, by weight, when mixed 
with lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium 
carbonate, carbon slag coagulants, and/or fluorspar, are excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book of 
ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Comment on Scope

    In the Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 68126, we invited comments on 
the scope of this proceeding. On December 1, 2000, we received comments 
from the petitioners clarifying that finished mixtures containing pure 
magnesium and/or off-specification pure magnesium that are prepared 
solely for use as a desulfurizer in steel-making are excluded from the 
scope of the investigation, unless such mixtures contain only minimal 
amounts of non-magnesium materials in order to circumvent an 
antidumping or countervailing duty order. On January 30, 2001, the 
petitioners submitted proposed language to further clarify their intent 
with respect to the scope of this investigation. The resulting revised 
scope language is reflected in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section 
above.

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 to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Injury Test

    Because Israel 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 Israel materially injure, or threaten material 
injury to, a U.S. industry. On December 13, 2000, the ITC published its 
preliminary determination finding 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 Israel of 
the subject merchandise. (See Pure Magnesium from China, Israel, and 
Russia: Determinations, 65 FR 77910 (December 13, 2000).)

Period of Investigation (POI)

    The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring 
subsidies is calendar year 1999.

Change in Ownership

    DSM, the sole producer/exporter of subject merchandise from Israel, 
is a joint venture between the Israeli company, Dead Sea Works (DSW) 
and Volkswagen (VW). DSW, in turn, is owned by the Israeli company 
Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL). The subsidies were received by DSW and 
later, by DSM, after the formation of the joint venture.
    In 1991, the GOI announced its plan to privatize ICL, under the 
supervision of the Government Corporation Authority. Prior to that, in 
1987, the Ministry of Finance, which controlled the Government 
Corporation Authority, commissioned an investment banking firm, First 
Boston, to assist in the initial steps of the privatization process of 
government-owned corporations. The GOI's objective in privatizing these 
companies was to promote and strengthen free-market mechanisms in 
Israel, enhance competitiveness, and raise funds to reduce internal and 
external debt. See GOI Response at II-5. First Boston identified a 
number of government-owned corporations that were suitable for private 
sale or public offering, suggested schedules for each sale, and 
addressed technical issues relating to the Government Companies Law, 
accounting and tax issues, and privatization methods.
    In 1988, the Ministry of Finance's Government Economic Committee 
adopted First Boston's recommendations as the framework for a five-year 
plan for privatization. The Government Corporation Authority updated 
this plan in 1991 to include the sale of shares in government-owned 
companies on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In February 1992, the 
Committee on Privatization approved the sale of up to 72 percent of ICL 
through public and private sales.
    The GOI privatized ICL through a series of private sales and public 
offerings of existing shares of ICL conducted in the years 1992 through 
1995, and 1997 through 1999. The privatization of ICL, the parent 
company of DSW/DSM, directly and necessarily resulted in the 
privatization of the government's interest in DSW/DSM. The first 
partial privatization was conducted under a prospectus for sale of 
ICL's shares to the public and its employees that was published on 
February 19, 1992. According to the prospectus, the share capital of 
ICL consisted of 1,199,999,999 ordinary shares registered on the Tel 
Aviv Stock Exchange, and one special state share. Under this 
prospectus, the state sold 20 percent of ICL's shares, including 
226,619,916 shares sold to the public, and 13,068,999 shares sold to 
ICL employees. The GOI continued to hold the special state share after 
this and subsequent privatizations. See GOI Response at II-9 through 
II-12 for information relating to shares sold at each privatization.
    In this preliminary determination, we have applied our new 
privatization approach, first announced in a remand determination on 
December 4, 2000,

[[Page 11146]]

following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) in Delverde Srl v. United States, 202 F.3d 1360, 1365 
(Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied (June 20, 2000) (Delverde III). 
We have also applied this new approach recently in Grain-Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 2885 (January 12, 2001).
    Under this approach, the first requirement is to determine whether 
the person to which the subsidies were given is, in fact, distinct from 
the person that produced the subject merchandise exported to the United 
States. If the two persons are distinct, the original subsidies may not 
be attributed to the new producer/exporter.
    On the other hand, if the original subsidy recipient and the 
current producer/exporter are considered to be the same person, that 
person benefits from the original subsidies, and its exports are 
subject to countervailing duties to offset those subsidies. In other 
words, we will determine that a ``financial contribution'' and a 
``benefit'' have been received by the ``person'' that is the firm under 
investigation. Assuming that the original subsidy had not been fully 
amortized under the Department's normal allocation methodology as of 
the POI, the Department would then continue to countervail the 
remaining benefits of that subsidy.
    In making the ``person'' determination, where appropriate and 
applicable, we analyze factors such as (1) continuity of general 
business operations, including whether the successor holds itself out 
as the continuation of the previous enterprise, as may be indicated, 
for example, by use of the same name, (2) continuity of production 
facilities, (3) continuity of assets and liabilities, and (4) retention 
of personnel. No single factor will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication of any change in the entity under analysis. Instead, the 
Department will generally consider the post-sale entity to be the same 
person as the pre-sale entity if, based on the totality of the factors 
considered, we determine that the entity in question can be considered 
a continuous business entity because it was operated in substantially 
the same manner before and after the change in ownership.
    Using the approach described above, we analyzed the information 
provided by the GOI and DSM to determine whether the subsidies received 
by DSW and DSM prior to the privatization of ICL continued to benefit 
DSM during the POI. When we apply this approach to the facts and 
circumstances of the instant countervailing duty investigation of pure 
magnesium from Israel and the relevant privatization of ICL and its 
subsidiary, DSW/DSM, we find that the pre-sale and post-sale entities 
are not distinct persons.\2\ Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
the subsidies provided to DSW/DSM, prior to the privatization of ICL, 
continue to benefit DSW/DSM post-privatization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The GOI stated that it only provided subsidies to DSW/DSM 
because its parent company, ICL, is a holding company and was, 
therefore, not eligible to receive any of the reported subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the proprietary nature of the information submitted on the 
record by DSM, a more specific discussion of the factors considered in 
the change of ownership transactions of ICL is included in our 
Memorandum to the File dated February 14, 2001, Change in Ownership in 
the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from Israel 
(Change in Ownership Memorandum).

Creditworthiness

    In the Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 68128, the Department stated 
that it would investigate DSM's creditworthiness, based on the 
petitioners' allegation that DSM has been uncreditworthy since its 
inception.\3\ On January 11, 2001, the Department issued questions 
concerning DSM's creditworthiness and on February 1, 2001, DSM 
responded to those questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DSM was incorporated in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the only grants that were approved for DSM in 1996 or 
subsequent years, were either expensed in the year of receipt or did 
not give rise to a benefit during the POI, we have not addressed DSM's 
creditworthiness in this preliminary determination.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) states that we will presume the allocation 
period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) 
of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in 
the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation 
Range System and updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption 
will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do 
not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the 
company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish 
that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL 
for the industry under investigation is significant. The Department 
will use the criteria found in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(ii) and (iii) to 
decide whether the presumption has been rebutted.
    In this investigation, DSM has alleged that the IRS AUL is 
inaccurate for DSM and has supplied gross book values of depreciable 
productive assets, as well as the depreciation expenses recorded in the 
company's normal accounting records, for purposes of calculating a 
company-specific AUL. We have reviewed DSM's calculation of AUL and 
made several minor adjustments which are fully documented in the 
Department's Calculation Memorandum, dated February 14, 2001, on file 
in Room B-099 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 
Since DSM's AUL differs significantly from the IRS AUL, we have used 
DSM's AUL of 21 years to allocate all non-recurring subsidies, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2).

Discount Rates

    In selecting a discount rate to allocate non-recurring subsidies 
over time, the Department prefers to use:
    (1) The cost of long-term fixed-rate loans of the firm in question, 
excluding any loans that the Secretary has determined to be 
countervailable subsidies;
    (2) The average cost of long-term fixed-rate loans in the country 
in question; or,
    (3) A rate that the Secretary considers to be most appropriate. 
(See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)).
    DSW and DSM reported that they had long-term, variable-rate 
borrowings but no fixed-rate borrowings. In addition, based on the 
GOI's response there is no indication that long-term, fixed rate loans 
were available to private companies in Israel during these years. This 
is consistent with the Department's finding in the Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Israel, 60 FR 10569, 10570 (February 27, 1995) (Butt-Weld 
Fittings), that during the period examined in that case only variable-
rate lending was available on a long-term basis to private companies in 
Israel. Thus, we lack information on the first two preferred sources 
for a discount rate.
    Lacking fixed interest rates, we looked to DSW and DSM's reported 
interest rates. DSM stated that the interest rates on its long-term 
borrowings were calculated as a fixed percentage above the London 
Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). For purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have

[[Page 11147]]

calculated an annual average rate, based on DSM's reported borrowing 
rate of LIBOR plus the fixed percentage, for the years in which grants 
were approved to use as DSM's discount rate. This calculation is 
consistent with the discount interest rate used in Industrial 
Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results and Partial Recision of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 49460, 49461 
(September 13, 1999) (IPA). We will request additional information from 
DSM on its long-term loans which we will examine at verification.

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Encouragement of Capital Investments Law (ECIL)

    The ECIL is a regional development program aimed at providing 
assistance to enterprises located in disadvantaged regions of the 
country. This program is administered under the Law for the 
Encouragement of Capital Investments 5719-1959. Amendment No. 4 of the 
Law authorized grants beginning in 1967. The program contributes to the 
development of industrial enterprises to improve the economic situation 
in disadvantaged regions by encouraging population distribution, 
creating new sources of employment, aiding the absorption of 
immigrants, and developing the economy's production capacity.
    There are three mutually exclusive programs under the ECIL: grants, 
corporate income tax exemptions, and accelerated depreciation of 
assets. Investment grants are provided to companies as a specified 
percentage of the company's investment in eligible fixed assets. The 
amounts vary based on the region in which the assets are located. 
Companies can also receive reduced tax rates or a full tax exemption 
for the first two years in certain circumstances. Accelerated 
depreciation on eligible buildings and equipment is available for 
qualifying enterprises for the first five years of use at rates of 200 
percent of the ordinary rate for equipment and 400 percent of the 
ordinary rate for buildings, with depreciation on buildings not 
exceeding 20 percent per annum.
    To be eligible for benefits under ECIL applicants must be located 
within one of the designated development zones and meet one of the 
following requirements: utilize natural resources and existing plants 
to their full potential, absorb newly migrated persons, help to spread 
the population across the country, or create new jobs.
ECIL Grant Program
    For purposes of the ECIL program, Israel is divided into three 
zones--Development Zones A and B, and the Central Zone. DSM is located 
in Zone A and received ECIL grants for the construction of its 
magnesium plant.
    We preliminary determine that the investment grants provide 
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. The grants are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI providing a 
benefit in the amount of the grant. The grants are specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) because they are limited to firms 
located in a designated geographic regions.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we have treated these 
grants as non-recurring subsidies and have allocated the benefit over 
time. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the benefit 
attributable to the POI by the value of DSM's total sales during the 
POI. On this basis, we determine the countervailable subsidy for this 
program to be 12.99 percent ad valorem.

B. Infrastructure Grants

    Under the Infrastructure Grant Program, the GOI has established new 
industrial areas by partially reimbursing companies for their costs of 
developing the infrastructure in certain geographical zones. DSM 
received assistance under this program.
    We preliminary determine that the investment grants provide 
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. The grants are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI providing a 
benefit in the amount of the grant. The grants are specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) because they are limited to firms 
located in a designated geographic regions.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we have treated these 
grants as non-recurring subsidies and have allocated the benefit over 
time. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the benefit 
attributable to the POI by the value of DSM's total sales during the 
POI. On this basis, we determine the countervailable subsidy for this 
program to be .40 percent ad valorem.

C. Encouragement of Industrial Research and Development Law Grants 
(EIRD)

    The EIRD was established in 1984 and is administered by the Office 
of Chief Scientist (OCS) of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The 
benefits under this program include grants, loans, and tax exemptions. 
The OCS provides grants for 30 to 66 percent of the approved research 
and development expenditures (R&D), depending on the type of project to 
be undertaken and the location where the proposed R&D will be done. The 
typical level of support is 50 percent of the investment. Support for 
improvements in existing products is 30 percent of the investment. 
Support for R&D in Development Zone A is 60 percent of the investment. 
Support for R&D for which sole financing comes from the company 
performing the R&D is 66 percent of the investment.
    Persons applying for a grant are required to submit information to 
the OCS regarding the nature, aims and budget of the proposed project. 
The OCS considers the following criteria in determining whether to 
grant EIRD funds: (1) Whether the applicant company shows innovation in 
the development of new technologies; (2) the management, production and 
marketing capabilities of the firm, as well as any marketing strategy 
for the new product; (3) whether the product will be able to 
successfully compete in international markets; (4) whether the proposed 
R&D project will result in the introduction of new technology or 
scientific manpower. The OCS provided grants to DSM for industrial 
research and development projects which contribute to the Israeli 
economy and to its scientific and technological development. There is 
no indication that DSM's receipt of benefits was related to export 
performance.
    The grants provided under the program are subject to repayment, 
through the payment of royalties, if the supported R&D yields a 
commercially successful product. With respect to the grants provided to 
DSM for production of magnesium, one grant was partially repaid.
    We preliminarily determine that the grants received under the EIRD 
program are countervailable subsidies. The grants are a direct transfer 
of funds from the GOI. If not repaid, the grants confer a benefit in 
the amount equal to the difference between the non-specific base rate 
of 30 percent and the Development Zone A rate of 60 percent. In 
instances where the grant is repaid, the benefit is the company's 
interest-free use of money. The EIRD program is specific, at least for 
R&D undertaken in Development Zone A, because the level of assistance 
is greater for companies located in that zone.
    To calculate the benefit to DSM from the EIRD grants, we first 
tested whether the amounts approved exceeded 0.5 percent of sales in 
the year of approval.

[[Page 11148]]

If not, we expensed the grant in the year of receipt. DSM received no 
disbursements in the POI. If the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of sales in 
the year of approval, we treated it as a zero-rate loan. For ``loans'' 
outstanding during the POI, the subsidy was less than 0.005 percent 
under any calculation methodology. Therefore, we are not computing a 
benefit for this program. See the February 14, 2001, Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Pure Magnesium from 
Israel Calculation Memorandum for DSM.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    The following programs were not used:

A. ECIL Tax Rate benefits
B. ECIL Depreciation Preferences
C. Magnesium Research Institute (MRI) and Consortium Research Programs

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated an individual rate for DSM, the sole manufacturer of the 
subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that the total 
estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 13.39 percent ad valorem. 
Because we only investigated one producer/exporter, DSM's rate will 
also serve as the ``all others'' rate. Therefore, the ``all others'' 
rate is 13.39 percent ad valorem.
    In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of pure 
magnesium from Israel which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such 
entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. This 
suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. If our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to 
be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination or the next business day thereafter, at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must 
submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) 
The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, six copies of 
the business proprietary version and six copies of the nonproprietary 
version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination.
    As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a 
summary of the arguments, not to exceed five pages, and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business 
proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of 
the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no 
later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments 
should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be 
considered if received within the time limits specified above.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is 
fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.

    Dated: February 14, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement II.
[FR Doc. 01-4407 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P