[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43166-43170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-811]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Rope From 
the Republic of Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: steel wire 
rope from the Republic of Korea.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate response 
filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate response 
from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an 
expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department 
finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated 
in the Final Result of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3207 
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological 
or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset 
reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies 
Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The product covered by this order is steel wire rope from Korea. 
Steel wire rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or 
carbon steel, other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or 
made up into articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of 
these products are currently classifiable under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 
7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless 
steel wire rope, i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded 
wire, of stainless steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into 
articles, which is classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. 
Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

History of the Order

    On February 23, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the final determination of sales at less than fair value on 
steel wire rope from Korea (see 58 FR 11029). In the original 
investigation, three companies were investigated and found to be 
dumping at the following weighted-average dumping margins: Korean Iron 
& Steel Wire, Ltd., (now KISWIRE, Ltd. (``KIS'')), 0.23 percent; Young 
Heung Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., (``YHC''), 0.10

[[Page 43167]]

percent; and Manho Mfg., Ltd. (``Manho''), 1.51 percent. In addition an 
``all others'' rate of 1.51 percent was established. On March 26, 1993, 
the Department's antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea 
was published in the Federal Register (see 58 FR 16397). As a result of 
the de minimis margins, entries of steel wire rope produced and sold by 
KIS and entries produced either by YHC or Dae Heung Industrial Co., 
Ltd. and sold by YHC were excluded from the application of the 
antidumping duty order.
    The Department has conducted several administrative reviews of this 
antidumping duty order.1 The antidumping duty order was 
subsequently revoked for Manho Rope Mfg., Ltd., and Chun Kee Steel & 
Wire Rope Co., Ltd., effective March 1, 1996 (see 62 FR 17171 (April 9, 
1997)). The antidumping duty order was revoked for Chung Woo Rope Co., 
Ltd., Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Sung Jin Co., 
effective March 1, 1997 (see 63 FR 17986 (April 13, 1998)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 60 FR 63499 
(December 11, 1995), Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 61 FR 55965 
(October 30, 1996), Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 17171 
(April 9, 1997), Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping 
Duty Order; 63 FR 17986 (April 13, 1998); and Steel Wire Rope From 
the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 17995 (April 13, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, no duty absorption findings have been made with respect to 
this case.

Background

    On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea, pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act, as amended. On January 19, 1999, the 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the 
Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers 
(``the Committee''), within the deadline specified in 
Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulation.
    On February 3, 1999, the Department received a complete substantive 
response from the Committee within the deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Committee claimed 
interested party status under section 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) and (F). The 
Committee asserts that it was the petitioner in the original 
investigation and has actively participated in the administrative 
reviews conducted by the Department since that time.
    On February 3, 1999 the Department received a substantive response 
from respondent, Kumho Wire Rope Manufacturer Co., Ltd. (``Kumho''), 
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under 
Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). Kumho asserts that it is a foreign manufacturer 
and exporter of the subject merchandise and is therefore, an interested 
party within the meaning of section 771(9)(A) of the Act. Kumho asserts 
that it was not a participant in the Department's original 
investigation, although it has participated in the four completed 
administrative reviews and is currently participating in the on-going 
fifth administrative review.
    On February 23, 1999, the Department informed the Commission that, 
on the basis of inadequate response from respondent interested parties, 
we were conducting an expedited sunset review of this order consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). (See Letter to Lynn Featherstone, 
Director, Office of Investigations from Barbara E. Tillman, Director 
for Policy and Analysis.) On March 12, 1999, we extended the deadline 
for filing comments on our adequacy determination. On March 18, 1999, 
we received comments from Kumho and the Committee regarding our 
adequacy determination. The Department determined on May 7, 1999, that 
the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from 
Korea is extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 
751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as 
extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order 
(i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995). (See section 
751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, the Department extended the time 
limit for completion of the final results of this review until not 
later than August 2, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of 
the Act. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, et. al.: Extension of Time 
Limit for Final Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 24573 (May 7, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adequacy

    Kumho argues that despite the fact that it accounts for 
significantly less than 50 percent of total imports from Korea of steel 
wire rope, Kumho accounts for significantly more than 50 percent of 
covered merchandise. Kumho asserts that the Department failed to 
consider that seven of the largest producers/exporters have already 
been excluded from the order. As a result, total import statistics 
overstate the volume and value of imports of subject merchandise.
    In its comments, the Committee agrees with the Department's 
original adequacy determination. The Committee argues that the 
Department's calculation of adequacy is correctly based on total 
imports of steel wire rope from Korea. The Committee asserts that 
companies that were excluded from the order, or for which the order has 
been revoked, may be brought back within the scope of the order if they 
were subsequently found to be selling at less than fair value (or below 
normal value) so long as the order continues to exist.
    The Department continues to find that Kumho's response does not 
form an adequate basis for conducting a full review, i.e., because 
Kumho does not account for enough of the total exports of subject 
merchandise (see 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A)). However, we disagree 
with the Committee that the determination should be based on total 
imports of steel wire rope from Korea. We agree with Kumho that the 
total value of imports used in our determination of adequacy should not 
include imports from revoked or excluded companies. The U.S. Customs 
Service, in its annual reports to Congress on the administration of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty, reports the value of entries 
subject to orders on an order-specific basis. 3 As noted 
above, on May 12, 1997, the order was revoked with respect to two 
companies and on April 13, 1998, the order was revoked with respect to 
an additional three companies. Therefore, the value of imports reported 
by Customs for the fiscal years 1993 through 1997 include the value of 
imports from companies for which the order has been revoked. The fiscal 
year 1998 import values reported by Customs would, however, include 
only half-year imports from the three companies for which revocation 
notice was published in April 1998. We note that the value of imports 
on which Customs was collecting antidumping duty deposits in fiscal 
1998 (approximately $16 million) declined by approximately five million 
dollars from the value in fiscal 1997 (approximately $21 million). We 
therefore considered that decline could be attributed to the April 1998 
revocation of the order with respect to three companies. We doubled the 
five

[[Page 43168]]

million dollar decline to take into account full year imports from the 
three companies for which the order was revoked in 1998, and, 
therefore, determine that entries subject to the order during fiscal 
1998 were approximately $10 million. Comparing the value of Kumho's 
exports 4 and the estimated value of imports subject to the 
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea in fiscal 1998, we 
continue to find that Kumho accounted for significantly less than 50 
percent of the value of imports of subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  As reported in Kumho's substantive response, exhibit 2. As 
a courtesy we make these statistics available to the public on the 
Import Administration sunset website at ``http://www.ita.doc.gov/
import_admin/records/sunset''.
    \4\  As reported in Kumho's substantive response, exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this 
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average 
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews 
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order and 
it shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the 
order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below. 
In addition, the parties' comments with respect to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are addressed 
within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt. 1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after 
the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated 
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject 
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
    In its substantive response, the Committee argues that revocation 
of the antidumping duty order of the subject merchandise would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The Committee 
asserts that as many as 20 companies remain subject to the order. 
Further, the Committee argues that most of these companies have failed 
to respond to the Department's questionnaires in any of the 
administrative reviews to which they were subject. In addition, the 
Committee argues that most of the Korean companies that are presently 
subject to the order have been assigned dumping margins based on the 
best information available (or facts otherwise available). Because the 
Department assigned dumping margins to these non-responding companies, 
the Committee argues that, in the instant proceeding, the Department 
must assume that these companies will continue to sell at dumped prices 
if the order is revoked.
    Additionally, the Committee argues that Korea is by far the largest 
foreign supplier of carbon steel wire rope to the U.S. market. 
Specifically, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 
Census, Report IM 146, the Committee asserts that for the period 
January through November 1998, imports from Korea accounted for nearly 
48 percent of the total imports of carbon steel wire rope. The 
Committee further asserts that the companies that remain subject to the 
order account for upwards of one third of the total volume of carbon 
steel wire rope imports from Korea.
    The Committee notes that the Korean won appreciated 24 percent 
against the U.S. dollar between the beginning of the second quarter of 
1998 and the present, and argues that current exchange rate trends give 
rise to the probability that revocation of the order is likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. The Committee argues that the 
marked appreciation of the Korean won over the past several months 
makes it likely that Korean companies will sell subject merchandise in 
the United States at dumped prices since the strengthening won will 
make home market prices in Korea higher relative to U.S. prices. Using 
import volume and value statistics, the Committee asserts that over the 
past several months the average unit value of imports from Korea 
classified under one of the covered HTSUS item numbers has decreased 
from $1,020 per net ton in January 1998 to $818 per net ton in November 
1998.
    In its substantive response, Kumho argues that revocation of the 
order would not likely lead to a recurrence of material injury or 
dumping. Kumho asserts that it is the only Korean company subject to 
the order actively shipping steel wire rope to the United States and it 
has never been found to sell the subject merchandise at less than fair 
value. Kumho further argues that since the major Korean wire rope 
companies have already been excluded from the order, and Kumho has 
never been found to be dumping, there are no grounds to believe that 
revocation would likely to lead to a continuation of injury or a 
recurrence of dumping. Additionally, Kumho argues that there is no 
evidence that any other Korean company subject to the order is actively 
shipping subject merchandise or, indeed, would be likely to ship 
subject merchandise in the event of revocation. Kumho argues that, of 
the 19 companies (including Kumho) for which petitioners requested 
administrative reviews in March 1998, three had previously been 
excluded from the order, five did not ship subject merchandise, four 
had gone out of business, and Kumho responded. While the remaining six 
companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, Kumho 
asserts that two had ceased operations, two had no shipments to the 
United States, and one had only one shipment to the United States and 
is not actively producing and shipping subject merchandise to the 
United States. As to the sixth company, Kumho asserts that it has no 
reason to believe that this company has ever shipped subject 
merchandise to the United States. In conclusion, Kumho argues that it 
is the only company that would be affected by the revocation of the 
order.
    In its rebuttal comments the Committee argues that Kumho's 
assertion that it is the only exporter of steel wire rope from Korea 
still subject to the order is mere conjecture. The Committee asserts 
that Kumho would like the Department to believe that Kumho is the only 
company subject to the order because, under the sunset mechanism, an 
order cannot be revoked on a company-specific basis. The Committee 
argues that, during the fifth administrative review, the Department 
found that both Kwangshin Rope and

[[Page 43169]]

Sungsan Special Steel Processing shipped subject merchandise to the 
United States. In addition, the Committee argues that the Department 
applied adverse facts available to four additional Korean companies 
that received, but did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. 
Thus the Committee concludes that the Department must find at least 
seven Korean companies remain subject to the order. Further, the 
Committee argues that the fact that some companies did not ship subject 
merchandise during the most recent administrative review, or declared 
bankruptcy, does not mean that these companies cannot or will not again 
sell subject merchandise to the United States.
    Finally, the Committee argues that a zero or de minimis dumping 
margin shall not by itself require the Department to determine that 
revocation of the order would not likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Rather, in many instances, a zero or de minimis 
dumping margin is likely a result of the antidumping duty order. 
Therefore, the Committee submits that the recent zero and de minimis 
margins are a testament to the remedial purpose of the antidumping duty 
order.
    In its rebuttal comments Kumho argues that the Committee's 
assertion that several Korean companies remain subject to the order is 
not supported by any evidence whatsoever in the history of this case. 
With respect to the two companies identified by the Committee as having 
exported during the most recent completed administrative review, Kumho 
argues that in the preliminary determination of that administrative 
review, the Department found that Sungsan had sold a quantity of 
merchandise purchased from another producer and that Kwangshin had some 
shipments during the period of review. Kumho asserts that with respect 
to the remaining companies that have recently received adverse facts 
available margins, the Committee has not provided any evidence that 
these companies actually exist, that they produce subject merchandise, 
that they ship merchandise, or that they would ship merchandise in the 
event of revocation. Kumho argues that it would be wrong for the 
Department to place on Kumho an affirmative burden of establishing that 
the companies named in the Committee's requests for administrative 
reviews do not ship to the United States. Kumho further argues that, 
given that the Department's role in the sunset review process is to 
determine whether dumping margins would exist in the event of 
revocation, such a determination must be based on actual and projected 
shipments rather than conjecture or automatic inferences regarding 
companies that may not even exist.
    Additionally, with respect to the Committee's arguments related to 
exchange rates, Kumho asserts that the Committee ignores the fact that 
Kumho and other respondents were nonetheless found to be selling at 
zero or de minimis dumping margins in the Department's recent 
administrative reviews. Finally, Kumho argues that the Committee's 
reliance on import statistics is misplaced. Specifically, Kumho asserts 
that its exports enter the United States under a different HTSUS item 
number than that relied on by the Committee and, that the unit values 
for the HTSUS item number under which Kumho imports have remained 
relatively stable.
    In compliance with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
examined the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the 
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea. Import data 
provided by Kumho, for the period covering 1992 through 1998, and 
confirmed by the Department's U.S. Census data, demonstrate that 
imports of steel wire rope from Korea have remained relatively steady.
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins 
after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation 
or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump with the 
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue if the discipline of the order were 
removed.
    In the instant proceeding, although the order has been revoked with 
respect to imports from several Korean producers/exporters of steel 
wire rope, and Kumho has maintained a zero or de minimis margin in each 
of the four completed administrative reviews, deposit rates above de 
minimis continue in effect for several producers/exporters of steel 
wire rope from Korea. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over 
the life of the order, the Department determines that dumping is likely 
to continue if the order were revoked.
    Because the Department has based this determination on the fact 
that dumping continued at levels above de minimis, we have not 
addressed the Committee's and Kumho's arguments concerning factors 
other than previously calculated margins and import volumes.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will 
provide to the Commission a margin from the investigation because that 
is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior or exporters 
without the discipline of an order in place. Further, for companies not 
specifically investigated, or for companies that did not begin shipping 
until after the order was issued, the Department normally will provide 
a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from the investigation. (See 
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this 
policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where 
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See 
sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)
    The Committee argues that, in this case, where the Department has 
applied adverse facts available to uncooperative respondents in a 
recent administrative review (1996/1997 review (see 63 FR 17986 (April 
13, 1998)), the use of the more recently calculated margin is 
appropriate. As it did in the fifth administrative review, however, the 
Committee asserts that rate is likely to be much higher.
    Kumho argues that the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail is 
zero. Kumho asserts that its margin has been de minimis for five 
consecutive administrative reviews. Therefore, Kumho argues that there 
is no reasonable basis to conclude that the dumping margin would 
increase in the event of revocation of the order.
    The Department disagrees with the Committee's argument that we 
should select the margin from the most recently completed 
administrative review as the margin likely to prevail if the order is 
revoked. As noted above, the Department normally will provide a margin 
from the original investigation because that is the rate that reflects 
the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of the order. The 
Sunset Policy Bulletin suggests that the Department select, as one 
alternative, a recently calculated rate, in cases where companies 
choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market 
share. However, in the instant case, the Committee did not argue or 
provide evidence that the uncooperative exporters from the 
administrative reviews have increased dumping in order to maintain or 
increase market share. Review of import statistics complied from tariff 
and trade data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Treasury, 
and the Commission demonstrate that imports of steel wire rope from 
Korea have remained relatively stable over the life of the

[[Page 43170]]

order. Therefore, we find no reason to deviate from our policy of 
selecting margins from the original investigation as probative of the 
behavior of absent the discipline of the order.
    With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail on 
exports by Kumho, we agree with Kumho. Although Kumho was not a 
participant in the original investigation, Kumho has participated in 
each of the administrative reviews of this order conducted by the 
Department. In each review, Kumho received a zero or de minimis margin. 
Although we acknowledge the Committee's assertion that the discipline 
of an order will, in many instances, lead to a zero or de minimis 
margin, we are not persuaded that Kumho is likely to begin dumping were 
the order revoked.
    Based on the above analysis, we will report to the Commission the 
margins indicated in the Final Results of the Review section of this 
notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                  Manufacturers/exporters                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kumho Wire Rope Manufacturer Co., Ltd......................            0
All Korean Manufacturers/Exporters.........................         1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted above, entries of steel wire rope produced 
and sold by Korean Iron & Steel Wire, Ltd. (KIS) were excluded from the 
scope of the order, as were entries produced by either Young Heung Iron 
& Steel Co., Ltd., (YHC) or Dae Heung Industrial Co., Ltd. and sold by 
YHC. Finally, the order has been revoked with respect to Manho Rope 
Mfg., Ltd.; Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd.; Chung Woo Rope Co., 
Ltd.; Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; and Sung Jin Co.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's 
regulation. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20452 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P