[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68121-68125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29083]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-508-809, A-821-813, A-570-864]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Pure Magnesium 
From Israel, the Russian Federation, and the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Matney or James Nunno at (202) 
482-1778 and (202) 482-0783, respectively; 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

[[Page 68122]]

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 of Commerce's (the Department's) 
regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 
351 (April 2000).

The Petitions

    On October 17, 2000, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by the Magnesium Corporation of America (Magcorp) and the 
United Steel Workers of America, Local 8319. On October 26, 2000, the 
petitioners amended the petitions to include the United Steelworkers of 
America, Local 482, as co-petitioners. Collectively, these entities are 
hereinafter referred to as ``the petitioners.'' The Department received 
information supplementing the petitions throughout the initiation 
period.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of pure magnesium from Israel, the People's 
Republic of China (PRC), and the Russian Federation (Russia) 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.
    On November 3 and 6, 2000, we received a submission from producers 
of granular pure magnesium. On November 6, 2000, the petitioners filed 
a response. The Department has taken these submissions into 
consideration in making the initiation determination.
    The Department finds that the 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 that they are requesting the Department to 
initiate (see the following section, below).

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    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 the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. 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. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) provides 
that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers 
or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production 
of the domestic like product, the Department shall either poll the 
industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is 
support for 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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 subtitle.'' 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.
    The domestic like product described in the petitions is pure 
magnesium in all forms. Based upon our review of petitioners' claims we 
concur that there is a single domestic like product: pure magnesium, 
regardless of chemistry, form, or size, including, without limitation, 
ingots, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes. 
Moreover, because the Department specifically excluded granular 
magnesium from earlier proceedings covering pure magnesium (see, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and 
Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 57 FR 6094, 6095 (February 20, 1992) aff'd 
in Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Affirmative 
Determination; Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of 
Petition, 57 FR 30939 (July 13, 1992)), we have examined whether 
conditions in the magnesium industry have changed to an extent that it 
is now appropriate to include both forms in the proceedings covering 
Israel and Russia. Based on our review of the information provided in 
the petitions, we have concluded that conditions have changed and that 
we should include both granular magnesium and magnesium in ingot form 
in the same proceeding. See the Memorandum from the team to Richard W. 
Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Group I entitled ``Like Product and Industry Support Determinations in 
the Antidumping Duty Investigations of Pure Magnesium from Israel, the 
People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation and the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from Israel,'' 
dated November 6, 2000 (``Like Product/Industry Support Memo'').
    Concerning industry support, for all three countries covered by the 
petitions, the petitioners established industry support by 
demonstrating that they account for over 25 percent of total production 
of the domestic like product (see Antidumping Investigations Initiation 
Checklist, dated November 6, 2000 (Initiation Checklist and the Like 
Product/Industry Support Memo)), thereby meeting the first requirement 
under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act. On October 30, 2000, the 
Department obtained information from another significant producer of 
pure magnesium indicating that this company is neutral with respect to 
the petitions (see November 2, 2000, memorandum to the file regarding 
submission of additional domestic production data). Since those parties 
expressing an opinion support the petitions, the second requirement 
under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act is also met.
    Because the petitioners represent less than 50 percent of the 
domestic industry we have additionally examined industry support as 
required by section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. We find that, based on 
other information, there is sufficient support for the petition. 
Specifically, because the vast majority

[[Page 68123]]

of the industry has officially stated its position for the record as 
either supportive or neutral, any potential opposition could not 
represent over 50 percent of the industry that has expressed support or 
opposition to the petition (see the Like Product/Industry Support 
Memo). Accordingly, we determine that these petitions are filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act.

Scope of Investigations

    There is an existing antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from 
the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the 
People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice 
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium From the Russian 
Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The antidumping duty order with respect to the Russian 
Federation was revoked. See Notice of final results of five-year 
(``Sunset'') review: Revocation of antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from Russia, 65 FR 41944 (July 7, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of these investigations for Israel and the Russian 
Federation includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of 
chemistry, form, or size, including, without limitation, ingots, 
raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes. The scope 
of the PRC investigation includes all of the foregoing pure magnesium 
products except pure magnesium that is already covered by the existing 
order, and classifiable under 8104.11.00 and 8104.19.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
    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 primary magnesium, by weight (generally 
referred to as ``pure'' magnesium); and (3) products that contain 50 
percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent primary magnesium, by 
weight, and that do not conform to an ``ASTM Specification for 
Magnesium Alloy'' \3\ (generally referred to as ``off-specification 
pure'' magnesium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 the Israel and the Russian Federation 
investigations is classifiable under 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, and 
8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to the PRC 
investigation is classifiable under 8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. Although 
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 
preamble to the Department's regulations (see Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such 
comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this notice. 
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, DC 20230. 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 determinations.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions 
and adjustments relating to U.S. price, constructed value (CV), and 
factors of production are also discussed in the Initiation Checklist. 
Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available 
under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final 
determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate.
    Regarding the information involving non-market economies (NME), the 
Department presumes, based on the extent of central government control 
in an NME, that a single dumping margin, should there be one, is 
appropriate for all NME exporters in the given country. In the course 
of these investigations, all parties will have the opportunity to 
provide relevant information related to the issues of a country's NME 
status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. See, 
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

Israel

Export Price

    The petitioners based export price (EP) on the unit values for the 
period October 1999 through July 2000, as reported in the Bureau of the 
Census IM-145 data. Because this data represents a FOB foreign-port 
price, it was not necessary to adjust for U.S. and international 
movement expenses. Furthermore, the petitioners were not able to 
quantify foreign market brokerage, handling and inland freight 
expenses; therefore, they conservatively made no adjustment for such 
expenses. No other adjustments to the starting price were made to 
arrive at net U.S. price.

Normal Value

    The petitioners claimed that there were no home market sales of 
pure magnesium in Israel. Based on the data in the petition, however, 
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the home market for 
pure magnesium in Israel is not viable. Because the petitioners were 
unable to provide home market price information, we have relied on CV 
for purposes of calculating NV for this initiation. For further 
discussion, see the Initiation Checklist at page 8.
    According to the petitioners, there is only one producer of pure 
magnesium in Israel, Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd. (DSM). Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners 
calculated CV using the manufacturing costs for pure magnesium shown 
for DSM in the 1999 financial statements of its parent company, Dead 
Sea Works Ltd. (DSW). Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the 
petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication, plus amounts for home market general expenses (i.e., 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and interest), and 
packing. We relied on the reported CV amounts except for interest, 
which we recalculated using cost of sales as the denominator in the 
interest expense ratio consistent with our normal practice. Consistent 
with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners also added to CV an 
amount for profit. Profit was based upon the 1999 financial statements 
of DSW. We also made the following circumstance-of-sale adjustments to 
the data above: (1) Deducted HM imputed credit expenses and HM royalty 
expenses; and (2) added U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. royalty 
expenses. The Department adjusted the petitioners' calculation of the 
U.S. imputed credit expense based

[[Page 68124]]

on the average U.S. prime rate (see Initiation Checklist at page 9).
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the revised calculated 
estimated dumping margins range from 85.86 to 96.35 percent.

Sales Below Cost Allegation

    Based upon the petitioners' claim that no viable Israeli market 
existed for pure magnesium, the petitioners looked to the largest 
export market other than the United States for pure magnesium sales. 
The petitioners determined this market to be Belgium and stated that 
Belgium would be the appropriate third-country market for NV. The 
petitioners alleged, however, that there were reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of pure magnesium to Belgium 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. Because we find that the 
petitioners did not adequately support their claim that the home market 
in Israel is not viable, however, we have not used this third-country 
price information for purposes of determining whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Since we have rejected the use of Belgian 
prices and the petitioners have stated that there are no Israeli prices 
for pure magnesium, we have no price data upon which to perform a 
sales-below-cost analysis. Accordingly, we have not initiated a 
country-wide cost investigation. For further discussion, see the 
Initiation Checklist at pages 8-9.

The PRC

Export Price

    The petitioners based EP on the average unit value for the period 
April through July 2000, as reported in the Bureau of the Census IM-145 
data. The petitioners made no adjustments to the average unit value.

Normal Value

    The petitioners allege that the PRC is an NME country, and that in 
all previous investigations the Department has determined that the PRC 
is an NME. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads 
From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 13944, 13946 (Mar. 15, 
2000). In accordance with section 771(18)(c) of the Act, any 
determination that a foreign country has at one time been considered an 
NME shall remain in effect until revoked. Therefore, the PRC will 
continue to be treated as an NME unless and until its NME status is 
revoked. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, because the 
PRC's status as an NME remains in effect, the petitioners determined 
the dumping margin using an NME analysis.
    The petitioners assert that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC, claiming that India is: (1) A market economy; (2) 
a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC in terms of per-capita gross 
national product. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, 
we believe that the petitioners' use of India as a surrogate country is 
appropriate for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    In accordance with 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioners valued the 
factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public 
surrogate country data. Values for calcinate, No. 2 flux, flourite 
powder, sulfur powder, and barium chloride were based on 1998 Indian 
import statistics as published by the United Nations. The value for 
ferrosilicon was based on the average unit value of ferrosilicon 
reported in the 1999 financial statements of an Indian producer of 
magnesium metal. Values for dolomite and sulfuric acid were based on 
the values obtained from the 1995-96 financial statements of a producer 
of ferro-alloys and The Financial Express, respectively. Labor was 
valued using the Department's regression-based wage rate for the PRC, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Electricity was valued using 
the 1998 rates for India published by the International Energy Agency 
(IEA) in 1999. Coal was valued using 1998 Indian import statistics as 
published by the United Nations. All surrogate values that fell outside 
the anticipated period of investigation (POI), which in the PRC case is 
April 1, 2000, through September 30, 2000, were adjusted for inflation.
    To determine factory overhead, depreciation, selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and interest expenses, the petitioners 
relied on rates derived from the financial statements of the magnesium 
metal producer noted above. Because these financial statements showed a 
loss, the petitioners relied on the 1998 financial statements of two 
Indian producers of aluminum to derive the profit ratio used in their 
calculations. We, however, have excluded profit from the calculation of 
normal value. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we 
believe that the surrogate values represent information reasonably 
available to the petitioners and are acceptable for purposes of 
initiation of this investigation.
    Based upon comparisons of EP to NV, the revised calculated 
estimated dumping margins range from 161.36 to 305.56 percent.

Russia

Export Price

    The petitioners calculated EP using two methodologies. First, the 
petitioners based EP on their information regarding sales of Russian 
magnesium. The petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by deducting 
from this value the cost of transporting the subject merchandise from 
the plant to St. Petersburg, international freight, U.S. import duties, 
and an estimated importer markup of five percent. Because we could not 
ascertain the validity of the above-referenced price of Russian 
magnesium, we based one export price on alternate information contained 
in the petition regarding prices of Russian magnesium. We made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, an importer markup, 
international freight and handling charges, and U.S. import duties as 
described above.
    The petitioners also based EP on the unit values for the period 
April through July 2000, as reported in the Bureau of the Census IM-145 
data. The petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by deducting from 
this value the cost of transporting the subject merchandise from the 
plant to St. Petersburg.

Normal Value

    The petitioners assert that Russia is an NME country, and that in 
all previous investigations, the Department has determined that Russia 
is an NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the 
Russian Federation, 65 FR 42669, 42670-71 (July 11, 2000). Russia will 
be treated as an NME unless and until its NME status is revoked. 
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, because Russia's status 
as an NME remains in effect, the petitioners determined the dumping 
margin using an NME analysis.
    NV was calculated using the same methodology described above for 
the PRC, except as noted below. Further, South Africa was used as the 
surrogate country. We believe that South Africa is an appropriate 
surrogate for purposes of initiating this case with respect to

[[Page 68125]]

Russia because South Africa is: (1) A market economy; (2) a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) at a level of economic 
development comparable to Russia in terms of per-capita gross national 
product.
    Regarding NV, the petitioners valued petroleum coke, magnesium 
chloride, fluorspar, sulfuric acid, barium chloride, barium fluoride, 
potassium chloride, and packing materials using South African import 
statistics as published by the United Nations. The petitioners valued 
chlorine using a contemporaneous South African price quote. The 
petitioners deducted from the surrogate values of the two by-products 
(i.e., chlorine and potassium chloride) an amount for profit based on 
their own production experience in order to account for additional 
costs incurred to render these by-products marketable for sale. The 
petitioners also added to the surrogate value for chlorine an amount 
for re-vaporization based on the petitioners' production experience. 
The petitioners valued carnallite using a price quote for dolomite 
because the petitioners were unable to find a carnallite price quote. 
Because they were unable to find a surrogate value for dehydrated 
carnallite, the petitioners estimated the value of dehydrated 
carnallite as twenty times the value of carnallite. Labor was valued 
using the methodology described above for the PRC. Electricity was 
valued using the 2000 electricity rate schedule for large-volume users 
as published by one of South Africa's largest utility companies. The 
petitioners valued heavy oil using a 1999 price published by the 
International Energy Agency. All surrogate values that fell outside the 
anticipated POI were adjusted for inflation. The petitioners made 
purity adjustments for certain factors of production based on 
information from the investigation of pure and alloy magnesium from 
Russia.
    To determine fixed factory overhead, depreciation, SG&A, interest 
expenses, and profit, the petitioners relied on rates derived for the 
aluminum operations of two aluminum producers, as reflected on their 
parent company's financial statement, and a South African zinc 
producer. Although there are no producers of magnesium in South Africa, 
the petitioners identified two primary aluminum producers in South 
Africa. The petitioners used the consolidated financial statement of 
the South African aluminum producers' parent company because no 
separate financial statements for the two aluminum producers were 
available. Because the parent company's financial statements did not 
separately identify SG&A expenses, the petitioners relied on a zinc 
producer whose electrolytic process is similar to the magnesium 
production process. In addition, the petitioners adjusted the factory 
overhead rate to account for higher electrolytic cell rebuilding costs 
associated with the production of magnesium. Based on the information 
provided by the petitioners, we believe that the surrogate values 
represent information reasonably available to the petitioners and are 
acceptable for purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    Because we found certain discrepancies with the petitioners' 
calculations of surrogate values and constructed value, we recalculated 
margins for both Russian producers using both revised United States 
price information from the petition and the United States price based 
on Census Bureau data. See Initiation Checklist at pages 14 and 15. 
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated estimated dumping 
margins range from 23.45 to 39.14 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of pure magnesium from Israel, the PRC, and Russia 
are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise. The petitioners contend that the industry's 
injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating 
income, net sales volume and value, profit to sales ratios, and 
capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost 
sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by accurate 
and adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation (see Initiation Checklist). In accordance with section 
771(7)(G)(ii)(IV), which provides an exception to the mandatory 
cumulation provision for imports from Israel, we have considered the 
petitioners' allegation of injury with respect to Israel independent of 
their allegations with respect to the PRC and Russia.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on pure magnesium, we 
have found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of pure magnesium from Israel, the PRC, and 
Russia 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 
this initiation.

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 the governments of Israel, the PRC, and Russia. 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, no later than December 1, 2000, whether 
there is a reasonable indication that imports of pure magnesium from 
Israel, the PRC, and Russia 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 investigations being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-29083 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P