Preliminary Results of Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-504]

Preliminary Results of Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking

Ware From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Sunset Review: porcelain-on-

steel cooking ware from Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from Mexico 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 filed on behalf of domestic interested

parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic

and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full

sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily

finds that revocation of the antidumping order would be likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the

Preliminary Results 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, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3207

or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752

of

[[Page 46652]]

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 merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is

porcelain-on-steel (``POS'') cooking ware from Mexico, which includes

tea kettles, that do not have self-contained electric heating elements.

All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or

glazed with vitreous glasses. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(``HTSUS'') subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware currently entering under

HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject to the order. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the scope remains dispositive.

History of the Order

On October 10, 1986, the Department issued a final determination of

sales at less than fair value on POS cooking ware from

Mexico.1 On December 2, 1986, the Department's antidumping

duty order on the subject merchandise was published in the Federal

Register (51 FR 43415).

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

\1\ See Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final

Determination of Sales at less than Fair Value, 51 FR 36435 (October

10, 1986).

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

Since the issuance of the order, Department has conducted several

administrative reviews of the order on POS cooking ware from

Mexico.2 The order remains in effect for all producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise. In the amended final results of

the eleventh administrative review of this antidumping duty order, the

Department found that antidumping duties were being absorbed by Cinsa

and by ENASA. 3

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

\2\ See Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 21061(May

22, 1990); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 39186

(September 25, 1990); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 32095

(June 8, 1993); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 4332 (Aug.

16, 1993), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 23694

(May 6, 1994), and Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico;

Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in

Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 53643 (October 6, 1998);

Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 2378 (January 9,

1995), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico;

Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 7521 (February 8, 1995), as amended, Porcelain-On-

Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand,

61 FR 53350 (October 11, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61

FR 54616 (October 21, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62

FR 25908 (May 12, 1997), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware

from Mexico; Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 35153 (June 30, 1997); Porcelain-On-

Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496 (August 7, 1997), as amended,

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Notice of Panel Decision

and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 64 FR 42916 (August 6,

1999); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 61 FR 15463

(April 8, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 38373 (July

16, 1998), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico;

Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 43594 (August 13, 1998); and Porcelain-On-Steel

Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999), as amended,

Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Amended Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1,

1999).

\3\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico; Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June

1, 1999).

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

Background

On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of

the antidumping order on POS cooking ware from Mexico, pursuant to

section 751(c). On February 16, 1999 we received a Notice of Intent to

Participate on behalf of Columbian Home Products, LLC (``CHP''), within

the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. CHP claimed interested party status under section

771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of POS cooking ware. CHP

asserts that it is the only domestic producer of POS cooking ware.

We received complete substantive responses to the notice of

initiation on March 3, 1999, on behalf of CHP, and Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.

(``Cinsa'') and Emaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (``ENASA'')

(collectively ``respondents''). Cinsa and ENASA claimed interested

party status within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(A) as foreign

manufacturers and exporters of POS cooking ware from Mexico. Cinsa

contends that it manufactures light-gauge POS cooking ware, while ENASA

contends that it manufactures heavy-gauge POS cooking ware. Cinsa

asserts that it was a respondent in the original investigation and

participant in all completed administrative reviews conducted by the

Department. ENASA asserts that it has been a participant in reviews of

this order since it began exporting to the United States (8th and 10th

administrative review). Cinsa and ENASA further note that they are

respondents in the 11th review and 12th review being conducted by the

Department at the time of their submission.

In their substantive response, respondents provided information on

the value of their exports of the subject merchandise for the calendar

years 1994 to 1997, as well as the total value of exports of the

subject merchandise to the U.S. Respondents represent significantly

more than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the subject

merchandise over the past five calendar years preceding the

investigation of the sunset reviews. Because domestic and respondent

interested parties provided adequate responses to the notice of

initiation, the Department is conducting a full sunset review in

accordance with section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.

On May 28, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from Mexico 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). As a

result of this determination, the Department extended the time limit

for completion of the preliminary results of this review until not

later than August 20, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.\4\

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

\4\ See POS Cooking Ware from Mexico: Extension of Time Limit

for Preliminary Results of Five-Year Reviews et. al., 64 FR 28983

(May 28, 1999).

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

Adequacy

In its rebuttal comments, CHP argues that the Department should

determine that the foreign producers' response to

[[Page 46653]]

the notice of initiation was inadequate and, therefore, the Department

should conduct an expedited review. CHP asserts that the regulations

require respondent interested parties to submit export data for

calendar years 1994 through 1998. CHP then argues that since

respondents did not submit export data for calendar year 1998 and the

data submitted for 1994 through 1997 was not submitted on a calendar

year basis, respondents' submission must be viewed as incomplete. In

conclusion, CHP asserts that because no other Mexican producers

submitted a response to the Notice of Initiation, the Department has

not received a complete substantive response from any respondent

interested party. As a result, CHP argues that the Department should

issue an expedited determination based on facts available and apply an

adverse inference against respondents.

In the preamble to the Sunset Regulations the Department explained

that it may consider a substantive response that does not contain all

of the information required to be complete where a party is unable to

report certain required information and provides a reasonable

explanation as to why it is unable to provide such information. In

their substantive response, respondents explained that they were

providing annual (December-November) export statistics corresponding to

the administrative reviews conducted by the Department. Further,

because the data on sales of subject merchandise during the 12th

administrative review had not yet been calculated, respondents

explained that data for the most recent year was not yet available.

Cinsa explained that its accounting records are maintained on the basis

of all light gauge POS products, which includes subject and non-subject

merchandise. Therefore, the computerized sales tapes prepared for the

Department's administrative reviews enable it to distinguish between

subject and non-subject merchandise.

We determine that the respondents provided a reasonable explanation

as to why information was not yet available and was reported based on a

different time period. We note that our adequacy determinations are

intended to determine whether there is sufficient participation of

interested parties to warrant a full review. Where, as in this review,

respondents have provided information sufficient to enable us to make

that determination along with a reasonable explanation for any

discrepancies, we do not intend to require respondents to recalculate

information which is otherwise available in a slightly altered form.

Therefore, we continue to conclude that we received adequate response

from respondent interested parties to warrant a full review.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is

conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping. Section 752(c)(1) 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.

Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide

to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the

magnitude of the margin of dumping 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, 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

Parties' Comments

In its substantive response CHP refers to the Department's Sunset

Policy Bulletin and argues that the Department should find that dumping

is likely to continue at significant margins if the order is revoked.

In support of its assertion that dumping has continued over the life of

the order, CHP cites to the final results of administrative reviews

that have been completed. CHP asserts that Cinsa's company-specific

margin has increased since the order was imposed from 1.63 percent in

the first administrative review to 16.91 percent in the tenth review,

and most recently to 64.02 percent in the preliminary results of the

eleventh review.

With respect to import levels, CHP refers to official import

statistics from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census to support

its assertion that imports from Mexico have declined. Specifically, CHP

asserts a 50 percent decrease in imports from 1994 (3.3 million units)

to 1998 (1.7 million units).

CHP argues that this evidence is highly probative that dumping

would be likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked. In

conclusion, CHP argues that the combination of declining import volumes

and simultaneously increasing dumping margins demonstrates that Mexican

producers are unable to sell significant volumes of POS cooking ware in

the United States without dumping.

The respondents argue revocation of the order would have minimal or

de minimis effects on the POS cookware market in the United States.

Respondents assert that the 17.47 percent margin assigned to Cinsa

(from the investigation) and the 2.74 percent margin assigned to ENASA

(from the 9th review) are substantially lower than the 29.52 percent

weighted-average margin assigned to all others in the original

investigation. Further, respondents assert that their dumping margins

have generally declined from such initiation levels while their exports

to the United States and market share of Mexican exports of POS cooking

ware have increased significantly. On these bases, respondents argue

that they are able to market and sell their merchandise in the United

States without high dumping margins.

Additionally, respondents argue that revocation of the order would

not result in a sudden increase in their exports because the Mexican

domestic market is their primary market. Citing to official United

States import statistics, respondents assert that in 1998, the Mexican

share of total U.S. imports of POS cooking ware was only 6.66 percent

and that imports from Mexico declined by approximately 57 percent from

1994 to 1998. Finally, respondents assert that even though Mexican

imports of subject merchandise have declined since 1994, the imports in

1998 are still approximately 85 percent higher than they were in 1985,

the year prior to the issuance of the order.

In its rebuttal comments CHP argues that contrary to respondents'

assertion, dumping margins have increased during the history of this

proceeding. CHP asserts that Cinsa's margin has steadily increased

since the third administrative review and, as of the tenth review, is

16.91 percent. Further, CHP argues that ENASA's margin in the tenth

review is 61.66 percent. CHP also argues that, if as respondents argue,

dumping is not likely to continue or recur, respondents should argue

that any margin likely to prevail is zero, not the 12.85 to 23.72

percent range respondents have suggested is the margin likely to

prevail if the order were revoked. On the basis of above de minimis

margins in every

[[Page 46654]]

review, margins which have increased to historically high levels in the

most recently completed administrative review, CHP argues that the

Department should determine that revocation of this order would be

likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.

The respondents did not address likelihood in their rebuttal

comments.

Department's Preliminary Determination

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. The Department clarified that determinations

of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2

of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally

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 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, the existence of dumping

margins after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of the

continuation or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump

with the discipline of an order in place, it is reasonable to assume

that dumping would continue if the discipline were revoked.

We agree with CHP that dumping margins above de minimis have

continued over the life of the order. Further, deposit rates above de

minimis remain in effect for all exports of POS cooking ware from

Mexico. Using statistics provided by CHP and respondents, we find that

imports have fluctuated over the order; steadily increasing in both

volume and value from 1985 through 1994 and then steadily decreasing

through 1998. Imports in 1998, however, remain slightly higher in value

than in 1985 and are slightly lower in volume. Therefore, we do not

agree with CHP's arguments that we should find likelihood on the basis

of import volumes. However, since dumping margins have continued over

the life of the order, the Department preliminarily determines that

dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

Parties' Comments

CHP asserts that, in this case, the Department should follow the

guidance of the SAA and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, and provide to the

Commission the margins from the original investigation. CHP suggests

the Department apply 17.47 percent for Cinsa and 29.52, the ``all

others'' rate from the original investigation should apply to all

respondents that did not begin shipping until after the order was

issued. Additionally, CHP notes that, in the eleventh review, the

Department made a preliminary finding of duty absorption.

Respondents note that, according to the Sunset Policy Bulletin the

Department normally determines that the weighted-average dumping

margins from the original investigation are the margins likely to

prevail if the antidumping duty order is revoked. Respondents assert,

however, that in this case, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

the Department should apply a more recently calculated margin because

declining dumping margins have been accompanied by steady or increasing

imports which indicates that foreign companies do not have to dump to

maintain market share in the United States and that dumping is less

likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.

Respondents argue that Cinsa's company-specific margins have always

been lower than the weighted-average margin calculated in the original

investigation. Further, ENASA's first margin was significantly lower

than the weighted-average margin from the original investigation. In

addition, respondents argue that overall imports from Mexico and from

respondents have increased significantly since the imposition of the

order, although having declined since their 1994 peak.

Respondents argue that the weighted-average margin from the

original investigation (i.e., the all others rate of 29.52 percent) was

calculated on the basis of the margin calculated for Cinsa (17.47

percent) and the substantially higher margin calculated for Troqueles Y

Esmaltes, S.A. de C.V. (``TRES''), later known as Aceros

Porcelanizados, S.A. de C.V. (``APSA''). Because TRES/APSA no longer

exists, respondents argue that use of a weighted-average margin

incorporating the TRES/APSA margin does not provide a reasonable

indication of the margin likely to prevail for existing manufacturers

and exporters. Respondents suggest alternatives for determining the

appropriate margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked, all of

which include weight averaging margins using the 1997 exports. On this

basis, respondents calculate margins ranging from 12.85 percent to

23.72 percent. Finally, respondents acknowledge a preliminary

determination of duty absorption in the eleventh administrative review.

In its rebuttal comments CHP argues that respondents' version of

the facts is incorrect. In fact, according to CHP, imports have

decreased while dumping margins have increased. Under these

circumstances, CHP argues that there is no basis in this review to use

any margins other than those determined in the original investigation.

In their rebuttal comments, respondents argue that the facts in

this case require application of more recently calculated margins.

Specifically, respondents assert that official U.S. import statistics

demonstrate that imports of POS cooking ware from Mexico increased from

$2,853,000 in calendar year 1985, peaking at $10,712,000 in 1994, and

then settling to $4,442,000 in 1998. Further, respondents refer to

company-specific proprietary data and argue that their exports have

increased even more significantly from 1985 to 1997. In conclusion

respondents argue that alternatives to the margins from the original

investigation would be the simple average of company-specific margins

calculated by the Department over the life of the order or the margins

from the last completed administrative review.

Department's Preliminary Determination

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,

consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide

to the Commission the company-specific margins from the investigation

because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of

exporters without the discipline of an order. 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

[[Page 46655]]

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.)

Our review of import statistics covering total imports of POS

cooking ware from Mexico and company-specific imports demonstrates that

import volumes and values have fluctuated over the life of the order.

While we agree with respondents that the Department may select a more

recently calculated margin when declining (or no) margins are

accompanied by steady or increasing imports, we do not agree that the

facts of this case support such a determination. Imports from both

Cinsa and ENASA have fluctuated over the 1994 through 1997 period. This

fluctuation occurred at a time when company-specific calculated margins

have been increasing. Therefore, the record does not reflect declining

margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports. Because of this,

the Department preliminarily finds that the use of a more recently

calculated margin in its report to the Commission would be

inappropriate.

Additionally, we do not agree with respondents that the all others

margin from the original investigation is inappropriate because it

includes the margin calculated for a company that is no longer in

existence. We would normally determine that the margins calculated in

the original investigation best reflect the behavior of producers/

exporters without the discipline of the order.

In the final results of the 1996-1997 administrative review of this

order, the Department found that antidumping duties have been absorbed

by Cinsa on 68.03 percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise and

by ENASA on 98.52 percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999).

Consistent with the statute and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department will notify the Commission of its findings regarding such

duty absorption for the Commission to consider in conducting a sunset

review.

Additionally, the Sunset Policy Bulletin refers to the SAA at 885,

and the House report at 60, and provides that where the Department has

found duty absorption, the Department normally will provide to the

Commission the higher of the margin that the Department otherwise would

have reported to the Commission or the most recent margin for that

company adjusted to account for the Department's findings on duty

absorption. The Department explained that it normally will adjust a

company's most recent margin to take into account its findings on duty

absorption by increasing the margin by the amount of duty absorption on

those sales for which the Department found duty absorption. In the

administrative review covering the period December 1, 1996 through

November 30, 1997, the Department found dumping margins of 25.42

percent for Cinsa and 65.28 percent for ENASA. The all others rate

remained at 29.54 percent. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR

26934 (May 18, 1999), as amended, Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999)). Further, as noted above, the

Department found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by both

Cinsa and ENASA. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

we are adjusting the most recent margin to account for duty absorption.

Because the adjusted margins for Cinsa and ENASA are higher than the

rates from the original investigation, we will report to the Commission

the adjusted rates as indicated below.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Cinsa, S.A.................................................. 42.71

Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V................. 129.40

All Others.................................................. 29.52

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

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held on October 20, 1999. Interested

parties may submit case briefs no later than October 11, 1999, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be

limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than October 18, 1999. The Department will issue a notice of final

results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than December

28, 1999.

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: August 20, 1999.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-22200 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P