11144 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Kuraray Co., Ltd. .......................... 4.87

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will conduct disclosure

within five days after the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Parties

are also encouraged to provide a

summary of the arguments not to exceed

five pages and a table of statutes,

regulations and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or at the hearing, if held, not later than

120 days after the date of publication of

this notice.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. The request should

contain: (1) The party’s name, address

and telephone number; (2) the number

of participants; and (3) a list of issues to

be discussed.

Cash Deposit and Assessment

Requirements

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review and

for future deposits of estimated duties.

The Department shall determine and

the Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. For Kuraray,

for duty assessment purposes, we intend

to calculate importer-specific

assessment rates by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

sales to each importer and dividing this

amount by the total entered value of the

same sales of subject merchandise for

each importer. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of PVA from Japan,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for Kuraray will be the rate

established in the final results; (2) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 77.49

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4406 Filed 2–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices 11145

1The 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.

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 ‘‘offspecification 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.

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 nonmagnesium 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,

11146 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

2The 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.

3 DSM was incorporated in 1996.

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 GrainOriented 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 presale 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 postprivatization.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices 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.

11148 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2001 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Announcing a Meeting of the

Computer System Security and Privacy

Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, DOC.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,

notice is hereby given that the Computer

System Security and Privacy Advisory

Board (CSSPAB) will meet Tuesday,

March 6, 2001, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

and Thursday, March 8, 2001, from 9

a.m. until 4 p.m. The Advisory Board

was established by the Computer

Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100–235) to

advise the Secretary of Commerce and

the Director of NIST on security and

privacy issues pertaining to federal

computer systems. All sessions will be

open to the public. Details regarding the

Board’s activities are available at

http://csrc.nist.gov/csspab/.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

March 6, 2001, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

and on March 8, 2001, from 9 a.m. until

4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the University Place Conference

Center and Hotel, Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis, 850

West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN.

Agenda

• Welcome and Overview

• Updates on Recent Legislative Issues

• Update on OMB Activities

• Overview of Reorganization of NIST

Computer Security Division

• Work Plan Review of Governance

Issues

• Work Plan Review of Best Practices

Issues

• Work Plan Review of GPEA Process

• Work Plan Review of Security Metrics

Issues

• Work Plan Review of Privacy Issues

• Work Plan Review of Baseline

Standards Issues

• Review of Plans for Privacy Event in

June

• Discussion of Follow-On Actions from

December 2001 Meeting