[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47384-47388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-827]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-0165.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Germany are being, or are likely to be, 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

    On January 31, 2000, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 
from Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines. See Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 65 FR 4595 
(January 31, 2000) (``Notice of Initiation''). Since the initiation of 
this investigation the following events have occurred.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage (see Notice of Initiation at 
4596). A response was received from Coprosider S.p.A. (``Coprosider'') 
on February 1, 2000, agreeing with the scope of the investigation. On 
February 3, 2000, Wilh. Schulz GmbH and its affiliates (``Schulz'') 
submitted comments to the Department requesting that the scope be 
limited only to specification ASTM 403/403M fittings below 14 inches in 
diameter.
    On January 21, 2000, the Department issued proposed product 
concordance criteria to all interested parties. On February 4, 2000, 
the following interested parties submitted comments on our proposed 
product concordance criteria: Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd. (``Kanzen''); 
Coprosider; and Alloy Piping Products, Inc.; Flowline Division of 
Markovitz Enterprises, Inc.; Gerlin, Inc.; and Taylor Forge Stainless, 
Inc. (``petitioners''). On February 8, 2000 and February 18, 2000, we 
received comments on our proposed product concordance criteria from 
Schulz.
    On February 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination on imports of subject merchandise from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. On February 24, 2000, the 
ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from Germany, Italy, 
Malaysia and the Philippines (65 FR 9298).
    On January 27, 2000, the Department issued Section A of its 
antidumping questionnaire to Schulz, Butting Edelstahlrohre GmbH 
(``Butting''), Hage Fittings GmbH (``Hage Fittings GmbH''), Kremo-Werke 
Hermanns GmbH (``Kremo-Werke''), Uhlig-Rohrbogen GmbH (``Uhlig-
Rohrbogen''), and Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs GmbH (``Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitungs''). On February 7, 2000, the Department received a 
letter from Kremo-Werke stating that it has not sold, directly or 
indirectly, subject merchandise to the United States. Also, on February 
7, 2000, the Department received a letter from Uhlig-Rohrbogen stating 
that it has at no time delivered, directly or indirectly, subject 
merchandise to the United States. On February 18, 2000, Schulz 
submitted its

[[Page 47385]]

response to Section A of the questionnaire. On February 19, 2000, 
Butting submitted a letter to the Department stating that it does not 
produce the subject merchandise and did not supply the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation 
(``POI''). On March 9, 2000, we issued Sections B, C, D, and E of the 
antidumping questionnaire to Schulz. On March 27, 2000, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire on Section A. On April 10, 1999, Schulz 
submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for Section A. On May 
8 and May 19, 2000, Schulz submitted its response to Sections B, C, and 
D of the antidumping questionnaire. On June 2, 2000 we issued a 
supplemental cost questionnaire and on June 6, 2000, we issued a 
supplemental sales questionnaire. Schulz submitted its response to the 
supplemental cost and sales questionnaires on June 20, 2000. On June 
30, 2000, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Schulz, and 
on July 10, 2000, we received Schulz's response. On June 30, 2000, 
petitioners made a timely allegation that there is a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
imports of subject merchandise from Germany. On July 5, 2000, the 
Department sent a letter to Schulz requesting shipment data. On July 
13, 2000, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to 
Schulz. Petitioners submitted comments on Schulz's questionnaire 
responses in May, June, and July 2000. On July 21, 2000, Schulz 
submitted a letter withdrawing its participation in the investigation. 
Additionally, it requested that the Department return all business 
proprietary data submitted by Schulz during the course of the 
investigation.
    On April 13, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice postponing the preliminary determination until July 26, 2000 
(see Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 65 FR 19876 (April 13, 2000)).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings. Certain stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on 
nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The product 
encompasses all grades of stainless steel and ``commodity'' and 
``specialty'' fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are 
threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any 
material other than stainless steel.
    The fittings subject to this investigation is generally designated 
under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard specification for 
Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, or its foreign 
equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This specification 
covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of wrought 
austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded construction 
covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI 
B16.28. Pipe fittings manufactured to specification ASTM A774, or its 
foreign equivalents, are also covered by these investigations.
    This investigation does not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic 
stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, 
A743/743M, and A744/A744M.
    The stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to this 
investigation are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title. In accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C), because Hage Fittings and Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitungs failed to respond to our questionnaire and thus 
significantly impeded the investigation, and because subsection 782(d) 
of the Act therefore does not apply, we must use facts otherwise 
available to determine the dumping margin for Hage Fittings and Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitungs. Also, although Schulz initially responded to the 
Department's questionnaires, upon notification that it was withdrawing 
its participation from the investigation, Schulz requested that the 
Department return all business proprietary data that had been provided 
by Schulz during the course of the proceeding. Therefore, the 
Department has no data on the record for Schulz upon which to base its 
margin calculation, nor would the Department be able to verify the 
information received in any event. Accordingly, we have determined that 
use of facts available is also appropriate for Schulz in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences when 
an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) . Based on Hage Fittings' and Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitungs' failure to respond to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire and Schulz's subsequent withdrawal of its business 
proprietary data, we have determined that Hage Fittings, Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitung, and Schulz have not acted to the best of their 
ability to comply with the Department's information requests. 
Therefore, pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, we used an adverse inference 
in selecting a margin from the facts available. As adverse facts 
available, the Department has applied a margin of 76.24 percent, the 
highest margin alleged in the petition.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information, such as the petition, as facts 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 may include, for example, published price lists, official 
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from 
interested parties during the particular investigation Id.; see also 19 
CFR Sec 351.308(d).
    We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the 
petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the 
extent appropriate information was available for this purpose (e.g., 
data from U.S. producers, foreign market research

[[Page 47386]]

reports, and import statistics). See Initiation Checklist: Stainless 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and the 
Philippines (January 18, 2000), which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU'') of the Main Commerce Department Building. In order to 
determine the probative value of the petition margin for use as adverse 
facts available in this preliminary determination, we have re-examined 
evidence supporting the petition calculation. In accordance with 
section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the 
key elements of the U.S. price and normal value calculations on which 
the petition margin was based and found that the information has 
probative value (see the July 26, 2000 memorandum to the file regarding 
Facts Available Corroboration, which is on file in the CRU of the Main 
Commerce Department building). Moreover, we note that, because no 
information is available for any respondent in this investigation, the 
issues of relevance addressed by the Court of Appeals in DeCecco v. 
United States, App. No. 99-1318 (Fed. Cir. June 20, 2000) are not 
present in this case.

Critical Circumstances

    On June 30, 2000, petitioners made a timely allegation that there 
is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Germany. 
According to section 733(e)(1) of the Act, if critical circumstances 
are alleged under section 733(e) of the Act, the Department must 
examine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: 
(A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of 
dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject 
merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and 
there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) 
there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a 
relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's 
regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the 
subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the Department normally will 
examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; 
and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the 
imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's 
regulations provides that an increase in imports during the 
``relatively short period'' described in section 351.206(i) of over 15 
percent may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the 
Department's regulations defines ``relatively short period'' normally 
as the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the 
date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. 
Because we are not aware of and there is no record evidence of any 
antidumping order in any country on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Germany, we find that there is no reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that there is a history of dumping and material 
injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of 
the subject merchandise. Therefore, we must look to whether there was 
importer knowledge under section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii).
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings at less than 
fair value, the Department's normal practice is to consider for EP 
sales margins of 25 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge of 
dumping. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). As discussed 
above, we have applied, as adverse facts available for Hage Fittings, 
Nirobo Metalverarbetiungs, and Schulz the highest of the dumping 
margins presented in the petition and corroborated by the Department. 
These margins are in excess of 25 percent. Therefore, we impute 
knowledge of dumping in regard to exports by these companies.
    Moreover, in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department may look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. 
If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to 
the relevant U.S. industry, the Department normally determines that a 
reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports. Id. The ITC 
has found that a reasonable indication of present material injury 
exists in regard to Germany. See ITC Preliminary Determination. As a 
result, the Department has determined that there is a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect that importers knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports in 
this case.
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' the Department ordinarily bases its 
analysis on import data for at least the three months preceding (the 
base period) and following (the comparison period) the filing of the 
petition. See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Imports normally will be considered 
massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 
percent or more compared to imports during the base period. See  19 CFR 
351.206(h). Since there is no verifiable information on the record with 
respect to Hage Fittings', Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs', and Schulz's 
import volumes, we must use the facts available in accordance with 
section 776(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we examined U.S. Customs data 
on imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany in 
order to determine whether these data reasonably preclude an increase 
in shipments of 15 percent or more within a relatively short period for 
any of these companies. However, these statistics, in the case of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany, cover an HTS 
category (HTS no. 730723000 ``Stainless Steel Tube or Pipe Butt Welding 
Fittings'') that includes merchandise other than subject merchandise. 
Therefore, we cannot rely on this data in determining if massive 
shipments of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany 
occurred over a relatively short time. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Japan (``Stainless Steel from Japan''), 64 FR 
30574, 30586 (June 8, 1999). Moreover, these data do not permit the 
Department to ascertain the import volumes for any individual company 
that failed to provide verifiable information. Nevertheless, in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may used an 
adverse inference in applying facts available for non-responsive 
companies; thus we determine, as adverse facts available, that there 
were massive imports from Hage Fittings, Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs, and 
Schulz during a relatively short period. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails 
from Taiwan (``Roofing Nails from Taiwan''), 62 FR 51427 (October 1, 
1997) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Final Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances: Elastic 
Rubber Tape from India (``Elastic Rubber Tape from India''), 64 FR 
19123 (April 19, 1999). Because all of the necessary criteria

[[Page 47387]]

have been met, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, the 
Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings imported from Hage 
Fittings, Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs, and Schulz.
    It is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical 
circumstances analysis of companies in the ``all others'' group based 
on the experience of investigated companies. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey (``Rebars from Turkey''), 62 FR 9737, 9741 
(March 4, 1997) (the Department found that critical circumstances 
existed for the majority of the companies investigated, and therefore 
concluded that critical circumstances also existed for companies 
covered by the ``all others'' rate). However, the Department does not 
automatically extend an affirmative critical circumstances 
determination to companies covered by the ``all others'' rate. See 
Stainless Steel from Japan 64 FR at 30585. Instead, the Department 
considers the traditional critical circumstances criteria with respect 
to the companies covered by the ``all others''' rate. Consistent with 
Stainless Steel from Japan, the Department has, in this case, applied 
the traditional critical circumstances criteria to the ``all others'' 
category for the antidumping investigation of stainless steel butt-weld 
pipe fittings from Germany. First, the dumping margin for the ``all 
others'' category, 51.34 percent, exceeds the 25 percent threshold 
necessary to impute knowledge of dumping. Second, based on the ITC's 
preliminary material injury determination, we also find that importers 
knew or should have known that there would be material injury from 
sales of the dumped merchandise by respondents other than Hage 
Fittings, Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs, and Schulz. See Critical 
Circumstances Determination: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 
60 FR 29824, (June 6, 1995). However, the Department has not found that 
there are massive imports for the ``all others'' companies in this 
investigation. First, we have not used adverse facts available 
concerning massive imports. Unlike the companies that refused to 
provide information upon request at the outset of the case or withdrew 
their information from the record, the ``all others'' companies have 
not failed to act to the best of their ability. The Department does not 
use adverse inferences with respect to firms whose individual data have 
not been analyzed (as far as the Department has been able to determine, 
there were only the three producers/exporters of subject merchandise 
from Germany during the POI). Second, there is no evidence of massive 
imports from ``all others'' companies in this investigation. While we 
normally rely on our findings for the selected mandatory respondents, 
in this case our determinations with respect to all of the mandatory 
respondents were based on adverse facts available. Therefore, we have 
not used these findings as a basis for our determination with respect 
to all other companies. Further, in accordance with Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329, 24338 (May 6, 
1999), the Department considered whether U.S. Customs data on imports 
of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany could be used 
to make a determination regarding the ``all others'' category. In this 
case, however, these statistics cover an HTS category that includes 
merchandise other than subject merchandise. Therefore, we cannot rely 
on these data in determining if there were massive imports for the 
``all others'' category. See Stainless Steel from Japan. The Department 
does not have any other data indicating massive imports from the any 
other exporter/producer of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
Germany. Therefore, the Department does not find massive imports with 
regard to the ``all others'' category in this case. Because the massive 
imports criterion necessary to find critical circumstances has not been 
met with respect to firms other than Hage Fittings, Nirobo 
Metalverarbeitungs, and Schulz, the Department preliminarily finds that 
critical circumstances do not exist for the ``all others'' category in 
this case.

The All-Others Rate

    All known foreign manufacturers/exporters in this investigation are 
being assigned dumping margins on the basis of facts otherwise 
available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the 
dumping margins established for all exporters and producers 
individually investigated are determined entirely under section 776 of 
the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the 
estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually 
investigated, including averaging the estimated dumping margins 
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated. 
In this case, the margins assigned to the only companies investigated 
are based on adverse facts available. Therefore, consistent with the 
statute and the SAA at 873, we are using an alternative method. As our 
alternative, we are basing the all-others rate on a weighted-average of 
all the margins alleged in the petition. As a result, the all-others 
rate is 51.34 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, for Hage Fittings, 
Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs, and Schulz we are directing the Customs 
Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise 
from Germany that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date 90 days prior date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. For all other companies, we are 
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of entries of 
subject merchandise from Germany that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 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 constructed export price, as 
indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Exporter/manufacturer                   average margin
                                                            (In percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hage Fittings...........................................           76.24
Nirobo Metalverarbeitungs...............................           76.24
Schulz..................................................           76.24
All-Others..............................................           51.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

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. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.309(d). 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

[[Page 47388]]

should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. 19 CFR Sec. 
351.309(c) and (d). 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 
scheduled to 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 several 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings cases, the Department may 
schedule a single hearing to encompass all those 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 participate if one is requested, must submit a written 
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 19 Sec. CFR 
351.310(c). 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. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination no later than 
75 days after the date of this preliminary determination. 19 CFR Sec. 
351.210(b)(1).
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 26, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-19548 Filed 8-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P