[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8339-8342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2521]



[[Page 8339]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-860]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle at (202) 
482-4162 or (202) 482-0650, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, 
Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that steel concrete reinforcing bar 
(rebar) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 18, 2000.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Austria, Belarus, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, 
Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea, 
the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 45754 (July 25, 
2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, 
the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in these investigations is the Rebar Trade 
Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual members, AmeriSteel, 
Auburn Steel Co., Inc., Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., 
Marion Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel and CMC Steel 
Group. (Auburn Steel was not a petitioner in the Indonesia case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the petition, filed on June 28, 2000, the petitioner alleged 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of rebar from the PRC. On 
August 30, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to exports of rebar from the PRC. See 
Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga Re: Preliminary Affirmative Determinations 
of Critical Circumstances (August 30, 2000); see also Preliminary 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From the People's Republic of China and Poland, 65 FR 54228 
(September 7, 2000).
    On August 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that a regional industry in the United States is materially 
injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from 
Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine 
of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars. See Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Austria, Belarus, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, 
Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 51329 
(August 23, 2000). With respect to subject imports from Austria, 
Russia, and Venezuela, the ITC determined that imports from these 
countries during the period of investigation (POI) were negligible and, 
therefore, these investigations were terminated. The ITC also 
determined that there is no reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of subject imports from Japan. Id.
    On August 18, 2000, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to the 
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade & Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) with 
a letter requesting that it forward the questionnaire to all exporters 
of rebar who had shipments during the POI.\2\ In addition, on August 
18, 2000, we sent the questionnaire to the Chinese exporter/producer 
Laiwu Steel Group, Ltd. (Laiwu), which had contacted us through 
counsel, with instructions to complete and return the questionnaire by 
the given deadline. We received a response only from Laiwu. 
Subsequently, we issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received 
responses from Laiwu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (This section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. In NME cases, 
Section D requests information on factors of production. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 13, 2000, we invited interested parties to provide 
comments on the surrogate country selection and publicly available 
information for valuing the factors of production. We received comments 
from the petitioner between October 16 and November 13, 2000, and from 
Laiwu on October 23, 2000.
    On November 9, 2000, the petitioner requested a postponement of the 
preliminary determination in this investigation. On November 21, 2000, 
the Department published a Federal Register notice postponing the 
deadline for the preliminary determination until January 16, 2001. See 
Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, 
Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea 
and Ukraine, 65 FR 69909 (November 21, 2000).

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 28, 2000, 
Laiwu requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination. In its request, Laiwu also requested that the Department 
extend by 60 days the application of the provisional measures 
prescribed under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 773(d) of the Act. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters account for 
a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the 
respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000. This period

[[Page 8340]]

corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2000).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all 
rebar sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically 
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar 
that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Non-market Economy Status for the People's Republic of China

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From 
the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation as a NME remains in effect 
until it is revoked by the Department (see section 771(18)(C) of the 
Act). The respondent in this investigation has not requested a 
revocation of the PRC's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily 
determined to continue to treat the PRC as a NME. When the Department 
is investigating imports from a NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 
directs us to base the normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors 
of production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of 
individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal Value section, 
below.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to investigation in a NME country a single rate, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Laiwu, the only responding 
company that has submitted a questionnaire response, has provided the 
requested company-specific separate rates information and has stated 
that there is no element of government ownership or control. In its 
questionnaire response, Laiwu states that it is an independent company 
``owned by all the people'' and controlled by the general assembly of 
workers and employees. Laiwu further claims that it does not maintain 
any corporate relationship with the central, provincial, and local 
government in terms of production, management, and operations. As 
stated in the Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide), and Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl 
Alcohol), ownership of a company by ``all the people'' does not require 
the application of a single rate. The Department's separate rate test 
is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls 
(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), 
particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, 
the test focuses on controls over the export-related investment, 
pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm 
level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 
(November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 
(November 17, 1997); and Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 
14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under this 
test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an 
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both (1) de jure 
and (2) de facto governmental control over export activities. See 
Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    Laiwu has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control, including the ``Foreign Trade Law of the 
People's Republic of China,'' promulgated on May 12, 1994, the ``Law of 
the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned By the 
Whole People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988, and the ``Regulations for 
Transformation of Operational Mechanism of State-Owned Enterprises,'' 
effective as of July 23, 1992. In prior cases, the Department has 
analyzed these laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure 
control. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995). We 
have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to 
reconsider this determination.
    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that the 
provisions of the above-cited 1988 Law and 1992 Regulations regarding 
enterprise autonomy have not been implemented uniformly among different 
sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC, (see ``PRC Government Findings 
on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in Foreign Broadcast Information Service-
China-93-133 (July 14, 1993)). Therefore, the Department has determined 
that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    Laiwu asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export 
prices independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) it negotiates contracts, without guidance 
from any

[[Page 8341]]

governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel 
decisions including the selection of management; and (4) it retains the 
proceeds of its export sales, and utilizes profits according to its 
business needs.
    Based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that 
Laiwu has met the criteria for the application of separate rates. We 
will examine this matter further at verification.
    Since Laiwu is the only responding producer/exporter, we 
preliminarily determine, as facts available, that all other non-
responsive producers/exporters have not met the criteria for 
application of separate rates.

The People's Republic of China-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available

    All exporters were given the opportunity to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received a timely 
response from only Laiwu, for which we have calculated a company-
specific rate. Our review of U.S. import statistics from the PRC, 
however, reveals that Laiwu did not account for all imports into the 
United States from the PRC. For this reason, we preliminarily determine 
that some PRC exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bars failed to 
respond to our questionnaire. In accordance with our standard practice, 
as adverse facts available, we are assigning as the PRC-wide rate the 
higher of: (1) The highest margin stated in the notice of initiation; 
or (2) the margin calculated for Laiwu (see, e.g., Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products From The People's Republic of China 64 FR 
34660 (May 31, 2000). In this case, the preliminary adverse facts 
available margin is 59.98 percent, which is the highest margin stated 
in the notice of initiation.
    Section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also SAA 
at 829-831. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the 
Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) in 
using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value (see SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation (see SAA at 870).
    In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the 
petitions for use as adverse facts available for purposes of this 
determination, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the 
petitions. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we examined the key elements of the (EP) and normal value 
(NV) calculations on which the margins in the petitions were based. Our 
review of the EP and NV calculations indicated that the information in 
the petitions has probative value, as certain information included in 
the margin calculations in the petitions is from public sources 
concurrent, for the most part, with the POI. For purposes of the 
preliminary determination, we attempted to further corroborate the 
information in the petition. We re-examined the EP and NV data which 
formed the basis for the highest margin in the petition in light of 
information obtained during the investigation and, to the extent 
practicable, found that it has probative value (see the January 16, 
2001, memoranda to the file regarding Corroboration of the Petition 
Data for the People's Republic of China on file in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B-099, of the Main Commerce Department building).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of rebar from the PRC were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared export price (EP) to 
NV based on a NME analysis, as described below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average 
EPs.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because Laiwu sold the subject merchandise directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation, and 
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise 
appropriate. We calculated EP based on packed free-on-board (FOB) or, 
where appropriate, cost and freight (C&F) prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of embarkation, insurance, 
brokerage and handling in China, ocean freight and marine insurance. 
Because certain domestic charges such as those for inland freight, 
insurance, brokerage and handling, and ocean freight were provided by 
NME companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India. 
(See Memorandum from the Team to the File, dated January 16, 2001 
(Surrogate Value Memorandum).)

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department 
initially determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and 
Philippines were the countries most comparable to the PRC in terms of 
overall economic development (see the August 31, 2000, memorandum, 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
(Rebar) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Nonmarket Economy 
Status and Surrogate Country Selection).
    Because of a lack of the necessary factor price information from 
the other potential surrogate countries that are significant producers 
of comparable products to the subject merchandise, we have relied, 
where possible, on information from India, the source of the most 
complete information from among the potential surrogate countries. 
Accordingly, we have calculated NV by applying Indian values to Laiwu's 
factors of production for virtually all factors. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
2. Factors of Production
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by Laiwu for the POI. To 
calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied 
by publicly available Indian surrogate values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. We added to Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier 
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir.

[[Page 8342]]

1997). Where a producer did not report the distance between the 
material supplier and the factory, we used as facts available the 
longest distance reported, i.e., the distance between the PRC seaport 
and the producer's location. For those values not contemporaneous with 
the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing materials (e.g., where 
appropriate, coal, iron ore, limestone, white ash, permanganese, 
aluminum manganese, ferro-silicon, silico-calcium, aluminum, steel 
strip, and wire rod) by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, using 
primarily imports statistics from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India and the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics. Where 
a material input was purchased in a market-economy currency from a 
market-economy supplier, we valued such a material input at the actual 
purchase price in accordance with section 351.408 (c)(1) of the 
Department's regulations.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the 1997 electricity rates, as 
adjusted for inflation, for India as reported in the publication Energy 
Prices and Taxes, 4th quarter 1999.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit on the 1999/2000 financial 
statements of The TATA Iron and Steel Company Limited, an Indian 
producer of products comparable to the subject merchandise.
    To value truck freight rates, we used freight costs based on price 
quotes obtained by the Department in November 1999 from trucking 
companies in India. For rail transportation, we valued rail rates using 
information published by the Indian Railway Conference Association in 
June 1998, as adjusted for inflation.
    For brokerage and handling, we used the recent publicly available 
source which is the public version of a U.S. sales listing reported in 
the questionnaire response submitted by Viraj Impoexpo in the New 
Shipper Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, 63 FR 48184 
(September 9, 1998).
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for the PRC when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Because of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
findings, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation 
of all unliquidated entries of rebar from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days 
prior to the date on which this notice is published in the Federal 
Register. We are instructing the Customs Service to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount 
by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These 
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laiwu Steel Group, Ltd.....................................        20.89
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................        59.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The China-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise except for entries from the exporter/factory that is 
identified above.

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of this determination to the parties of the proceedings in this 
investigation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our sales at LTFV and our affirmative critical circumstances 
preliminary determinations. If our final antidumping determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. 
The deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the 
date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one rebar 
case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all the 
cases. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    As noted above, the final determination for the PRC will be issued 
no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the 
preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 16, 2001.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2521 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P