[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22209-22213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-307-820, A-533-823, and A-834-807]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Silicomanganese From Kazakhstan, India and Venezuela

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Gannon (India), Robert James 
(Venezuela), and Jean Kemp (Kazakhstan) at (202) 482-0162, (202) 482-
0649, and (202) 482-4037, 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 the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

The Petition

    On April 6, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a petition filed in proper form by the following parties: 
Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, 
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-0639 
(collectively, the petitioners). The Department received from the 
petitioners information supplementing the petition throughout the 20-
day initiation period.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, India, and 
Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and 
that such imports are materially injuring an industry in the United 
States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act and have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the 
antidumping investigations that they are requesting the Department to 
initiate (see the Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions 
section below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are all 
forms, sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, including 
silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a 
ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon and iron, and 
normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as 
carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese is sometimes referred 
to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is used primarily in 
steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese. 
Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 percent 
iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent silicon and 
not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is properly 
classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also be 
classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This petition covers 
all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff classification. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope remains dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, 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 (62 FR 27323), we are setting 
aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. 
The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments by May 
17, 2001. 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.

Determination of Industry 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 Therefore from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition. Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a definition of 
domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
    In this case, ``the article subject to investigation'' also is 
substantially similar to the scope of the Department's antidumping duty 
order involving silicomanganese published in 1994. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Silicomanganese From the People's Republic of 
China (PRC), 59 FR 66003 (December 22, 1994). Thus, based on our 
analysis of the information

[[Page 22210]]

presented to the Department above and the information obtained and 
reviewed independently by the Department, we have determined that there 
is a single domestic like product which is defined in the Scope of 
Investigations section above, and have analyzed industry support in 
terms of this domestic like product.
    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. The sole U.S. producer of the domestic 
like product, and the trade union which represents its workers, are 
petitioners in this case. Furthermore, the Department received no 
opposition to the petition. Therefore, we conclude that the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for 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. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also 
met.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act. See the Import Administration AD Investigation 
Checklist, April 26, 2001 (Initiation Checklist) (public version on 
file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room B-
099).

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions 
and adjustments relating to home market price, U.S. price, constructed 
value (CV) and factors of production (FOP) are detailed in the 
Initiation Checklist. Where the petitioners obtained data from foreign 
market research, we contacted the researcher to establish its 
credentials and to confirm the validity of the information being 
provided. See Memorandum to the File, Contacts with Source of Market 
Research for Antidumping Petition Regarding Imports of Silicomanganese 
from India and Kazakhstan, April 23, 2001 (Market Research for India 
and Kazakhstan), and see also Memorandum to the File, Contacts with 
Source of Market Research for Antidumping Petition Regarding Imports of 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, April 23, 2001 (Market Research for 
Venezuela). 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. The anticipated period of 
investigation (POI) for the market economy countries is April 1, 2000, 
through March 31, 2001, while the anticipated POI for Kazakhstan, the 
non-market economy (NME) country, is October 1, 2000, through March 31, 
2001.
    Regarding the investigation involving the 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. See, e.g., Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 
22585 (May 2, 1994). In the course of these investigations, all parties 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of Kazakhstan's NME status and the granting of separate 
rates to individual exporters.
    Lastly, export price (EP) was based on the data published by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission's dataweb, at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/REPORT.asp (dataweb). This data, as 
presented, is FOB customs value. Specifically, the petitioners 
calculated the average unit values (AUVs) of silicomanganese entering 
the United States from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela during the 
respective POIs, excluding February and March 2001, and made the 
applicable adjustments to the AUVs. The margins calculated using this 
methodology are as follows: India, 5.89 to 86.98 percent; Kazakhstan, 
164.29 percent; and Venezuela, 20.38 to 47.14 percent.
    Because the Department considers the country-wide import statistics 
to calculate estimated margins to be sufficient for purposes of 
initiation, we have initiated these investigations based on the 
country-wide import statistics for the POI, excluding February and 
March 2001, for which data was not available, for each country, 
respectively.

India

Export Price

    The petitioners based EP on the AUV of silicomanganese imported 
from India under the applicable HTSUS subheading, for the POI, 
excluding February and March 2001, based on the data published by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission's dataweb. This data, as presented, 
is FOB customs value. Net U.S. price was calculated by deducting 
foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling charges, which were 
based on foreign market research and inflated appropriately.

Normal Value

    With respect to normal value (NV), the petitioners provided a home 
market price that was obtained from foreign market research for a 
grade, i.e., silicon and carbon content, that is comparable or 
identical to that of the products exported to the United States which 
serve as the basis for EP. The petitioners state that the home market 
price quotation was ex-factory, and, therefore, they did not make any 
deductions for movement expenses from this price.
    Although the petitioners provided information on home market 
prices, they also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of silicomanganese in the home market 
were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, and requested 
that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost 
investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, COP refers to the 
total cost of producing the foreign-like product which includes the 
cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and packing expenses. The petitioners calculated COM 
based on their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce silicomanganese in the 
United States and India, using publicly available data, foreign market 
research, and price quotes from suppliers. To calculate SG&A, 
petitioners relied upon the aggregate financial and cost data for the 
metals and chemicals sector in India published by the Reserve Bank of 
India (RBI). Based upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign 
like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, 
we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign like product were made at prices below the COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation. See 
Initiation of Cost Investigations section below.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Tariff 
Act, petitioners

[[Page 22211]]

based NV for sales in India on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using 
the same COM and SG&A used to compute Indian home market costs. 
Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Tariff Act, petitioners 
included in CV an amount for profit. The petitioners calculated a 
profit amount using the data published by the RBI for the metals and 
chemicals processing and manufacturing sector.
    The estimated dumping margin for India based on a comparison 
between EP and home market price is 5.89 percent. Based upon the 
comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated an estimated dumping 
margin of 86.98 percent.

Kazakhstan

Export Price

    The petitioners identified Joint Stock Corporation Yermak Ferro-
Alloys (Yermak) and Temirtau Chemical and Metal Works (Temirtau) as the 
only producers of subject merchandise in Kazakhstan. The petitioners 
were unable to obtain specific sales or offers for sale of subject 
merchandise in the United States. Therefore, petitioners based EP on 
the AUVs for one ten-digit category of the HTSUS (7202.30.0000) on 
imports from Kazakhstan for the POI (excluding February and March 2001 
because data were not available at the time of the petition filing). 
For the HTSUS category under examination, the petitioners calculated 
the import AUVs using the reported quantity and Customs value for 
imports as recorded in the U.S. Census Bureau's official IM-145 import 
statistics. We note that Customs import value as defined by Technical 
Documentation for US Exports and Imports of Merchandise on CD-ROM 
excludes U.S. import duties, freight, insurance and other charges 
incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States. The 
petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by deducting from EP foreign 
inland freight to the port of exportation and brokerage and handling 
charges at the port of exportation. In order to calculate foreign 
inland freight, the petitioners determined that the distance by rail 
between each of the factories and the port exceeds 1,525 kilometers, 
and then applied an Indian rail rate as a surrogate. We note that the 
distance from both factories to the port of exportation appears to 
exceed 1,525 kilometers. For brokerage and handling charges at the port 
of exportation, petitioners used an Indian brokerage and handling rate 
as a surrogate. Both of these surrogate value rates, which were 
adjusted for inflation, were used in the Department's most recent final 
results of review in the Silicomanganese from the People's Republic of 
China antidumping case. See Silicomanganese From the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 
65 FR 31514 (May 18, 2000) (Silicomanganese from the PRC).

Normal Value

    The petitioners allege that Kazakhstan is an NME country, and in 
all previous investigations, the Department has determined that 
Kazakhstan is an NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys from 
the Republic of Kazakhstan, 62 FR 2648, 2649 (January 17, 1997). 
Kazakhstan will be treated as an NME unless and until its NME status is 
revoked. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act, because 
Kazakhstan's status as an NME remains in effect, the petitioners 
determined the dumping margin using a factors of production (FOP) 
analysis.
    For NV, the petitioners based the FOP, as defined by section 
773(c)(3) of the Tariff Act, on the consumption rates of Eramet's 
silicomanganese plant in the United States, adjusted for known 
differences in electricity and electrode consumption. The petitioners 
assert that information regarding either Kazakhstan producers' 
consumption rates is not available, and have therefore assumed, for 
purposes of the petition, that producers in Kazakhstan use the same 
inputs in the same quantities as the petitioners use, except where a 
variance from the petitioners' cost model can be justified on the basis 
of available information. The petitioners argue that the use of the 
petitioners' FOP is conservative for the following reasons: (1) They 
have not made adjustments to Eramet's FOP for the increases in certain 
FOP by the Kazakh producers; and (2) they have used a certain surrogate 
value. Because this information is proprietary, see the Initiation 
Checklist (proprietary version) for details. Based on the information 
provided by the petitioners, we believe the petitioners' FOP 
methodology represents information reasonably available to the 
petitioners and is appropriate for purposes of initiating this 
investigation.
    The petitioners assert that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for Kazakhstan because, pursuant to section 773(c), the 
Department calculates normal value in an NME antidumping investigation 
by valuing the FOP using values in a surrogate, market-economy country 
that (1) is at a comparable level of economic development to the NME 
and (2) is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Also, 
petitioners state that Indian data are available for nearly all FOP 
used to manufacture silicomanganese. 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 initiating this 
investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act, the 
petitioners valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public 
surrogate data from India. Raw and process materials were primarily 
valued based on price quotes from an Indian supplier, foreign research 
conducted in India (including using Eramet's cost methodology for 
valuing silicomanganese fines), and Indian import statistics from the 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports. 
(We note that petitioners did not directly value electrode paste but 
instead treated electrode paste as part of factory overhead, citing 
Silicomanganese from the PRC, in which the Department concluded that 
electrode paste may have been already included in the ``stores and 
spares'' overhead category. See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicomanganese from the 
People's Republic of China--December 1, 1997 through November 30, 1998 
(May 8, 2000). Also, we note that petitioners believe the correct 
approach is to directly value electrode paste because it is a direct 
input and to include ``stores and spares'' expenses in the numerator in 
the calculation of the factory overhead rate.) Labor was valued using 
the regression-based wage rate for Kazakhstan provided by the 
Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Electricity was 
valued using the rate for India published in a quarterly report of the 
OECD's International Energy Agency. For overhead, SG&A and profit, the 
petitioners, at the request of the Department, applied rates derived 
from the RBI for the Indian metals and chemicals sector. All surrogate 
values which fell outside the POI were adjusted for inflation based on 
the currency in which the source data were reported. The Indian 
wholesale price index, as published by the International Monetary 
Fund's International Financial Statistics, was used for these 
adjustments. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we 
believe their surrogate values represent information reasonably 
available to the petitioners and are acceptable for

[[Page 22212]]

purposes of initiation of this investigation.
    Based upon the comparison of EP to CV, the petitioners calculated 
an estimated dumping margin of 164.29 percent.

Venezuela

Export Price

    The petitioners based EP on the AUV of silicomanganese imported 
from Venezuela under the applicable HTSUS subheading, for the POI, 
excluding February and March 2001, based on the data published by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission's dataweb. This data, as presented, 
is FOB customs value. Net U.S. price was calculated by deducting 
foreign inland, which was based on foreign market research.

Normal Value

    Petitioners used data obtained from a foreign market researcher to 
determine the price charged in the home market. The price quote 
obtained by the researcher represents a selling price (exclusive of 
taxes) in U.S. dollars during the last half of 2000 and January and 
February 2001. Terms of sale were delivered. Petitioners then deducted 
an amount for inland freight. Information regarding inland freight 
charges in Venezuela was also obtained from the foreign market 
researcher. See Initiation Checklist.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of silicomanganese in the home market 
were made at prices below COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Tariff Act, and requested that the Department conduct a sales-
below-cost investigation for Venezuela.
    As indicated above, pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff 
Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A, and packing. Petitioners calculated 
COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between cost incurred to produce silicon manganese in the 
United States and Venezuela using publicly available data and foreign 
market research. To calculate SG&A, petitioners relied on data obtained 
from the financial statement of HEVENSA, a Venezuelan steel producer. 
Based upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in 
the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, the Department 
is initiating a cost investigation for Venezuela. See Initiation of 
Cost Investigations section below.
    Given the evidence of below-cost sales, petitioners also based NV 
on CV pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Tariff 
Act. The petitioners calculated CV using the same COM and SG&A used to 
compute Venezuelan home market costs. The petitioners did not include 
in CV an amount for profit. However, petitioners point out that, 
consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Tariff Act, the Department has 
to include an amount for profit in its NV and CV calculations during 
the investigation.
    The estimated dumping margin for Venezuela, based on a comparison 
between EP and home market price, is 20.38 percent. The estimated 
dumping margin for price-to-CV comparisons is 47.14 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

    As noted above, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the 
petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales in the home markets of India and 
Venezuela were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP and, 
accordingly, requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-
below-COP investigations in connection with the requested antidumping 
investigations for these countries. The Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA), submitted to the U.S. Congress in connection with the 
interpretation and application of the URAA, states that an allegation 
of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or 
producers. SAA, H. Doc. 103-316, at 833(1994); see also 19 CFR 
351.301(d)(2). The SAA, at 833, states that ``Commerce will consider 
allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, 
just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at less than 
fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an 
antidumping investigation.''
    Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains 
the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when 
an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon the 
comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition for the 
representative foreign like products to their COPs, we find the 
existence of ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of 
these foreign like products in the markets of India and Venezuela were 
made at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating the requested country-wide cost investigations.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and 
Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners 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 sold at less than NV. The petitioners 
contend that the industry's injured condition is evident in the 
declining trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, 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).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on silicomanganese, and 
the petitioners' responses to our supplemental questionnaire clarifying 
the petitions, as well as our conversations with the foreign market 
researcher who provided information concerning various aspects of the 
petition, we have found that it meets the requirements of section 732 
of the Act. See Initiation Checklist, Market Research for India and 
Kazakhstan, and Market Research for Venezuela. Therefore, we are 
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports 
of silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela 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

[[Page 22213]]

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 the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the governments of India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. We will attempt 
to provide a copy of the public version of the 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 May 21, 2001, whether there 
is a reasonable indication that imports of silicomanganese from India, 
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela are causing material injury, or threatening 
to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling 
the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 26, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-11149 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P