3658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

1See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR

49251 (September 22, 1995); Heavy Forged Hand

Tools, Finished and Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, from the People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61FR 15028 (April 4, 1996); as amended,

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Amendment of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 61 FR 24285 (May 14, 1996); Heavy Forged

Hand Tools, Finished and Unfinished, With or

Without Handles, from the People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51269 (October 1,

1996); as amended, Heavy Forged Hand Tools from

the People’s Republic of China; Notice of

Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 24416 (May 5, 1997);

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 11813 (March

13, 1997); Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR

16758 (April 6, 1998); as amended, Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews Pursuant to Remand from the Court of

International Trade: Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished and Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 55577

(October 16, 1998) and Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

Pursuant to Remand from the Court of International

Trade: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China: Correction, 64 FR 851

(January 6, 1999); Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished and Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 43659 (August 11,

1999).

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Name)

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Date)

[FR Doc. 00–1654 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–803, A–570–803]

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset

Reviews: Bars and Wedges and

Hammers and Sledges From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Full Sunset Reviews: Bars and Wedges

and Hammers and Sledges from the

People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on bars

and wedges and on hammers and

sledges from the People’s Republic of

China (‘‘PRC’’) (64 FR 35588) pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the

basis of notices 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 determined to conduct full

reviews. As a result of these reviews, the

Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping orders

would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the levels

indicated in the Preliminary Results of

Reviews section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

These reviews are being 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 Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)

(‘‘Sunset Regulations’’) and 19 CFR Part

351 (1999) in general. 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 Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

Although we provide the full scope

language for the order on heavy forged

hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’) below, this

determination applies only to the types

of HFHTs which fall under the orders

(A–570–803) on bars/wedges and

hammers/sledges from the PRC. HFHTs

include heads for drilling, hammers,

sledges, axes, mauls, picks, and

mattocks, which may or may not be

painted, which may or may not be

finished, or which may or may not be

imported with handles; assorted bar

products and track tools including

wrecking bars, digging bars and

tampers; and steel wool splitting

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured

through a hot forge operation in which

steel is sheared to the required length,

heated to forging temperature, and

formed to final shape on forging

equipment using dies specific to the

desired product shape and size.

Depending on the product, finishing

operations may include shot-blasting,

grinding, polishing, and painting, and

the insertion of handles for handled

products. HFHTs are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’)

item numbers 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30,

8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically

excluded are hammers and sledges with

heads 1.5 kilograms (3.33 pounds) in

weight and under, and hoes and rakes,

and bars 18 inches in length and under.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes

only. The written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

There has been one scope ruling with

respect to the orders on HFHTs from the

PRC in which the Forrest Tool

Company’s Max Multipurpose Tool was

determined to be within the scope of the

order (58 FR 59991; November 12,

1993).

These reviews cover imports from all

manufacturers and exporters of bars and

wedges and hammers and sledges from

the PRC.

History of the Orders

The Department published its final

affirmative determination of sales at less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) with respect to

imports of HFHTs from the PRC on

January 3, 1991 (56 FR 241). In this

determination, the Department

published four country-wide weightedaverage dumping margins, one each for

hammers/sledges, bars/wedges, picks/

mattocks and axes/adzes. These margins

were all subsequently affirmed when

the Department issued the antidumping

duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC on

February 19, 1991 (56 FR 6622). Since

the imposition of the orders, the

Department has conducted several

administrative reviews. 1 The orders

remain in effect for all manufacturers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise from the PRC.

To date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

these cases.

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on bars and

wedges and on hammers and sledges

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3659

2See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 57628 (October 26, 1999).

from the PRC (64 FR 35588), pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Act. For both of

the reviews, the Department received

notices of intent to participate on behalf

of O. Ames Co. and its division,

Woodings-Verona (collectively,

‘‘domestic interested parties’’) on July

16, 1999, within the deadline specified

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

Regulations. Pursuant to section

771(9)(C) of the Act, the domestic

interested parties claimed interested

party status as domestic manufacturers

of the subject merchandise. The

Department received complete

substantive responses from the domestic

interested parties on August 2, 1999,

within the 30-day deadline specified in

the Sunset Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i). In addition, we

received substantive responses on

behalf of Fujian Machinery and

Equipment Import and Export Corp.,

Shandong Huarong General Group

Corp., Shandong Machinery Import and

Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery

Import and Export Corp. (collectively,

‘‘respondents’’). The respondents

claimed interested party status under

section 771(9)(A) of the Act as exporters

of the subject merchandise. The

Department determined that the

respondent’s response constituted an

adequate response to the notice of

initiation. As a result, the Department

determined, in accordance with section

351.218(e)(2) of the Sunset Regulations,

to conduct a full (240 day) review.

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). On

October 26, 1999, the Department

determined that the sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty order on HFHTs

are extraordinarily complicated and

extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of these reviews until

not later than January 18, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act. 2

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department is conducting

these reviews to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.

Section 752(c) of the Act provides that,

in making these determinations, the

Department shall consider the weightedaverage 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 shall

provide to the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) the

magnitude of the margins of dumping

likely to prevail if the order were

revoked.

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of the

margins are discussed below. In

addition, domestic interested parties’

and respondents’ comments with

respect to continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margins 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 bases 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 it normally

will determine that revocation of an

antidumping duty 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 their substantive responses, the

domestic interested parties argue that

revocation of the orders would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping. They base their conclusion on

the combined facts that dumping has

continued over the life of the orders at

levels well above de minimis and that

import volumes declined significantly

after the issuance of the orders. The

domestic interested parties maintain

that imports of hammers/sledges from

the PRC declined dramatically since the

imposition of the order. They argue that

Chinese exporters shipped

approximately 8,735 units of striking

tools (e.g., hammers and sledges) in

1990, and this number fell to

approximately 3,810 units in 1997 and

3,835 units in 1998. Moreover, the

domestic interested parties argue that

since the imposition of the order, import

volumes of bars/wedges have declined

from approximately 2,429 tons in 1989

to 2,233 tons in 1997. Therefore, they

conclude that it is reasonable to assume

that the PRC exporters could not sell in

the United States without dumping, and

in order to reenter to U.S. market, they

would have to resume dumping (see

August 2, 1999, substantive response of

the domestic interested parties at 3–4).

The respondents argue that if the

order were revoked, shipments would

likely continue at average levels as seen

in 1996 through 1998. They maintain

that there is greater competition from

other supplying countries and that

demand in the U.S. is fairly inelastic,

indicating that even with lower prices

(without dumping duties), demand for

imports of the subject merchandise from

the PRC is not likely to change much

(see July 30, 1999, substantive response

of the respondents at 2).

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890,

and the House Report at 63–64, 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 were removed. As pointed

out above, dumping margins above de

minimis continue to exist for shipments

of the subject merchandise from the PRC

for at least one producer/exporter.

Consistent with section 752(c) of the

Act, the Department also considers the

volume of imports before and after

issuance of the order. As mentioned

above, the domestic interested parties

maintain that imports of bars/wedges

and hammers/sledges from the PRC

declined significantly following the

imposition of the order.

Using the Department’s statistics,

including IM146 reports, on imports of

the subject merchandise from the PRC,

the Department concludes that imports

of bars/wedges and hammers/sledges

from the PRC have fluctuated over the

life of the order, showing no overall

trend.

As noted above, in conducting its

sunset reviews, the Department

considers the weighted-average

dumping margins and volume of

imports when determining whether

revocation of an antidumping duty

order would lead to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Based on this

analysis, the Department finds that the

existence of dumping margins above de

minimis levels is highly probative of the

3660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of dumping. A deposit rate above a de

minimis level continues in effect for

exports of the subject merchandise by at

least one Chinese manufacturer/

exporter. Therefore, given that dumping

has continued over the life of the order,

the Department preliminarily

determines that dumping is likely to

continue if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that it normally will

provide to the Commission the margin

that was determined in the final

determination in the original

investigation. 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.) We note

that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

either of these cases.

In their substantive responses, the

domestic interested parties recommend

that the Department deviate from its

normal practice of forwarding margins

from the original investigation and

instead recommend using margins from

more recent administrative reviews. In

the case of bars/wedges, the domestic

interested parties recommend

forwarding to the Commission a margin

of 36.76 percent for Fujian Machinery &

Equipment Import & Export Corp. and

38.30 percent for Shandong Machinery

Import & Export Corp., as calculated in

the second administrative review; 31.76

percent for Tianjin Machinery Import &

Export Corp. and Liaoning Machinery

Import & Export Corp., as calculated in

the original investigation; and 34

percent for Shandong Huarong General

Group Corp., as calculated in the sixth

administrative review. The domestic

interested parties argue that since the

imposition of the order, the dumping

margins have increased for three

companies as well as for the PRC as a

whole. They argue further that because

import volumes of bars/wedges have

declined since the imposition of the

order, the Department should use a

more recently calculated rate for several

PRC companies.

For hammers/sledges, the domestic

interested parties recommend

forwarding to the Commission the

margin of 45.42 percent calculated in

the original investigation.

The respondents argue that the

dumping margin likely to prevail if the

order were revoked would be zero, but

no higher than the average margin for

the latest reviews. They base this

argument on the fact that recent reviews

conducted by the Department confirm

that different surrogate steel values than

were used in the original investigation

significantly reduce the dumping

margin ( see July 30, 1999, substantive

response of respondents at 3).

As noted in the Sunset Regulations

and Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department may provide to the

Commission a more recently calculated

margin for a particular company where

dumping margins increased after the

issuance of the order where that

particular company increased dumping

to maintain or increase market share. In

this case, the domestic interested parties

did not provide any company-specific

argument or evidence that any Chinese

companies have increased dumping in

order to gain or maintain market share

or increase import volumes. Moreover,

while it is true that the dumping

margins have increased for some

Chinese companies, we have no

company-specific information

demonstrating that imports of the

subject merchandise have not increased

substantially over the life of the order.

Since we have no company-specific

information correlating an increase in

exports for one company with an

increase in the dumping margin for that

particular company, we cannot

conclude that use of more recently

calculated margins is warranted in this

case.

Additionally, the Department

disagrees with the respondents’

argument that a dumping margin of zero

percent is likely to prevail were the

order to be revoked. Specifically, as

noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department will consider forwarding to

the Commission more recently

calculated margins where dumping

margins have declined over the life of

the order and imports have remained

steady or increased or where a company

increases dumping in order to maintain

or increase market share. The

respondent’s argument concerning

changes in methodology (e.g., different

surrogate steel values) does not fit either

criteria. Therefore, consistent with the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department

preliminarily finds that the margins

calculated in the original investigation

are probative of the behavior of Chinese

producers/exporters if the order were to

be revoked as they are the only margins

which reflect their behavior absent the

discipline of the order. As such, the

Department will report to the

Commission the PRC-wide rates from

the original investigation as contained

in the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the

Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping order

would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins

listed below:

PRC-wide Margin

(percent)

Bars/Wedges ............................ 31.76

Hammers/Sledges .................... 45.42

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on March 15, 2000.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

no later than March 7, 2000, 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

March 13, 2000. 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 June

26, 2000.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notices are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1660 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–820]

Final Results of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks

Fittings and Glands From the People’s

Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the