[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46651-46655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
