This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

735

Vol. 65, No. 4

Thursday, January 6, 2000

1See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands, 53 FR 30455 (August 12, 1988).

2 In the original investigation, Outokumpu Copper

Strip, B.V. (‘‘OBV’’) was doing business under the

name, Metallverken Nederland B.V. (See March 4,

1999, Substantive Response of OBV at 5 (footnote

4); see also March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of

the domestic interested parties at 24.)

3See Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews (Corrections), 57 FR 11352 (April 2, 1992);

Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 57

FR 9534 (March 19, 1992) (this review consolidated

first and second reviews); Brass Sheet and Strip

From the Netherlands; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

1324 (January 19, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From

the Netherlands; Amendment to Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

33395 (June 19, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip From

the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1324 (January

19, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 51449 (October 1,

1997); and Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 49544 (September

16, 1998). See also the final results of the latest

administrative review, covering the period 1997–

1998, which should be published concurrently with

this publication.

4See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review:

Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 64 FR

46637 (August 26, 1999).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Final Results of Full Sunset Review:

Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands

[A–421–701]

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of full

sunset review: Brass sheet and strip

from the Netherlands.

SUMMARY: On August 26, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published a notice of

preliminary results of the full sunset

review of the antidumping duty order

on brass sheet and strip from the

Netherlands (64 FR 46637) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We provided

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received comments from both domestic

and respondent interested parties. As a

result of this review, the Department

finds that revocation of this order would

be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the levels

indicated in the Final Results of Review

section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho 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, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–1698 or (202) 482–1560,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

to sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Act.

The Department’s procedures for the

conduct of sunset reviews are set forth

in Procedures for Conducting Five-Year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’) 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

Imports covered by this order are

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded

and tin brass sheet and strip, from the

Netherlands. The chemical composition

of the products under order is currently

defined in the Copper Development

Association (‘‘CDA’’) 200 Series or the

Unified Numbering System (‘‘UNS’’)

C20000 series. This order does not cover

products the chemical composition of

which are defined by other CDA or UNS

series. The physical dimensions of the

products covered by this order are brass

sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross

section over 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter)

through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in

gauge, regardless of width. Coiled,

wound-on-reels (traverse-wound), and

cut-to-length products are included. The

merchandise subject to this order is

currently classifiable under items

numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20 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 merchandise

subject to this order is dispositive.

History of the Order

The antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip (‘‘BSS’’) from the

Netherlands was published in the

Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53

FR 30455).1 In that order, the

Department determined that weightedaverage dumping margins for the

Metallverken Nederland B.V. and all

others were 16.99 percent.2

The Department has conducted

several administrative reviews since

that time.3 The order remains in effect

for all producers and exporters of BSS

from the Netherlands. We note that the

Department has not conducted any

investigation with respect to duty

absorption regarding the exports of the

subject merchandise.

Background

On August 26, 1999, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

sunset review on BSS from the

Netherlands.4 Notwithstanding a finding

of a significant decline in the import

volumes of the subject merchandise

after the issuance of the order, the

Department preliminarily determined

that revocation of the order would not

be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping. The Department

stated that although import volumes of

the subject merchandise declined

significantly after the issuance of the

order, since the two most recent

administrative reviews indicate that

dumping of the subject merchandise has

been eliminated, and since Outokumpu

Copper Strip, B.V. (‘‘OBV’’) presents

effective other relevant information and

arguments explaining why it is unlikely

that OBV would resume dumping in the

United States, the Department

preliminarily determines that

736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

5Following the Department’s publication of its

preliminary results of the instant sunset review, on

October 5, 1999, counsel to the domestic interested

parties, submitted a letter requesting the

Department to allow the domestic interested parties

to augment the existing record with additional

information. The Department allowed both

domestic and respondent interested parties to

submit relevant information until October 13, 1999.

(See the Department’s memorandum to Mr. Jeffrey

S. Beckington.) The domestic interested parties

submitted Mr. Baker’s affidavit and three different

portions of the Department’s Sales Verification

Report (‘‘Verification Report’’) which was

completed in the concurrent administrative review

of the order. Also, OVB submitted two portions of

the Verification Report. Consequently, Mr. Baker’s

affidavit and the portions of the Verification Report

submitted by interested parties are now on the

record in this review.

6On September 27, 1999, while requesting a

public hearing, the domestic interested parties

requested extensions of the deadlines for the case

and rebuttal briefs and a postponement of the

hearing. The Department extended the deadlines for

case brief and rebuttal brief until and not later than

October 25, 1999, and November 1, 1999,

respectively. Also, at the same time, the Department

postponed the hearing to November 3, 1999.

7See footnote 6, supra.

8See footnote 3.

9 Id.

10See Sales Verification Report at 39.

11See Comment 1 below.

recurrence of dumping is not likely if

the order were revoked.

On October 13, 1999, both the

domestic and respondent interested

parties submitted additional

information.5 Also, on October 25, 1999,

we received case briefs from the

domestic interested parties and OBV.6

On November 1, 1999, within the

deadline specified in the Department’s

memorandum,7 both domestic and

respondent parties submitted reply

briefs. The Department held a public

hearing on November 3, 1999. As a

result of the aforementioned additional

documents and comments, we have

changed our determination.

Department’s Determination

Based upon arguments raised by

interested parties in case and rebuttal

briefs, we have re-examined the facts

and statements on the record in this

case and determined that revocation of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip from the Netherlands

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act

would be likely to lead to recurrence of

sales of subject merchandise at less than

fair value.

In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department established that it will

normally determine that revocation of

an antidumping duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of sales of the subject

merchandise at less than fair value

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 this case, consistent with section

752(c) of the Act, the Department

considered whether dumping continued

at any level above de minimis after the

issuance of the antidumping duty order;

whether the imports ceased after the

issuance of the order; and whether

dumping was eliminated and import

volumes declined significantly after the

issuance of the order. We found that

dumping of the subject merchandise

continued after the issuance of the

order, through the first, second and

third administrative reviews.8 We also

found that OBV’s imports of subject

merchandise ceased after the issuance of

the order for four administrative review

periods,9 but resumed in 1995. Further,

we found that OBV did not dump

subject merchandise, at a level above de

minimis, during the periods 1995–1996

and 1996–1997 (last two administrative

review periods).

With respect to import volumes of the

subject merchandise, the data reported

by both OBV and the domestic

interested parties in this case indicate

that, since the imposition of the order,

import volumes of subject merchandise

have declined significantly. In addition,

data in the United States Customs

Census Bureau IM–146s and import data

from the U.S. International Trade

Commission indicate that imports of

subject merchandise have declined over

the life of the order. No party in this

case disputes that import volumes of

subject merchandise declined

significantly since the issuance of the

order. Rather, the parties have argued

over the significance of the acquisition

of the U.S. producer, American Brass,

by OBV’s parent company, and the

corporate decision to have American

Brass play the primary role in supplying

subject merchandise to the U.S. market.

In the preliminary results, we agreed

with OBV that the acquisition of

American Brass makes OBV’s position

in the U.S. market rather unique

because it appeared that OBV no longer

had to dump subject merchandise in

order to supply the U.S. market, and

because American Brass had more than

adequate capacity to meet the demand

in the U.S. market for BSS. Given these

apparent facts, we preliminarily found

persuasive OBV’s argument that it

would not make sense for OBV to

jeopardize the economic well being of

American Brass by undercutting the

prices of its U.S.-produced BSS by

resumption of dumping. Because we

preliminarily found that American Brass

was to bear the primary responsibility of

satisfying U.S. customers’ needs for

BSS, we preliminarily determined that,

despite the significant decline in import

volumes of subject merchandise after

the issuance of the order, the two most

recent reviews were probative of the

behavior of the company absent the

discipline of the order.

As noted in the SAA, at 883, the

determination called for in this type of

review is inherently predictive and

speculative. Therefore, we have

established a policy of relying on past

behavior as a predictor of future

behavior. In light of OBV’s announced

resumption of import volumes at preorder levels, we now find that the

company’s behavior during the most

recent administrative reviews can no

longer be considered probative of OBV’s

behavior absent the discipline of the

order.10 In the two most recent

administrative reviews, OBV’s import

volumes were abnormally small by any

measure.11 If the transfer of production

and sales of subject radiator strip to

American Brass were permanent, then

these small import volumes could be

considered normal for the company and

the margins for the two recent reviews

could be reflective of the company’s

future behavior. By contrast, where, as

here, a company will resume imports of

the subject merchandise at levels

expected to exceed nearly 65 times the

import volumes in the two most recent

reviews, the Department is compelled to

conclude that the company’s pricing

behavior during these previous periods

in which import volumes were small

has little or no probative value. Due to

the transfer of production and sales of

subject radiator strip back to OBV, the

company will import subject

merchandise in volumes that equal or

exceed the volume of imports during the

pre-order period. Accordingly, we

determine that, consistent with

established policy, the margin likely to

prevail must be measured based on the

company’s behavior at the time of the

original investigation. Therefore, we

determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip from the Netherlands under

section 751(c) would be likely to lead to

recurrence of sales of subject

merchandise at less than fair value. We

have addressed the comments received

below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 737

12See footnote 3, supra. 13See footnote 4, 64 FR at 46641, supra.

Likelihood of Continuation or

Recurrence of Dumping

Comment 1: The domestic interested

parties contend that the factual premises

underlying the Department’s

preliminary results are in error; namely,

OBV was dumping during the most

recent administrative review. The

domestic interested parties claim that

had the Department not allowed OBV

the start-up adjustment and quarterly

(instead of yearly) calculation of its cost,

OBV would have been found to be

dumping during 1997–1998 review

period. Assuming, arguendo, OBV was

not dumping, the domestic interested

parties further argue that because such

a finding was based on a small,

unrepresentative volume of sales when

compared to: (1) OBV’s pre-order

exports of the subject merchandise; (2)

the current size of the U.S. market for

the subject merchandise; (3) OBV’s

shipments of non-subject merchandise;

(4) OBV’s shipments in its home market;

(5) OBV’s shipments to other countries;

or (6) OBV’s projected volume of

shipments to the United States, those

few sales should not serve as the basis

for a finding that dumping is not likely

to occur in the future. (See the domestic

interested parties’ brief at 2 and 8–27,

and the hearing transcript at 10–49 and

97–108.)

OBV argues that the start-up cost

adjustment is a relatively new concept

and, as a result, there have not been

many applications of the adjustment.

However, OBV contends that the rarity

alone should not be considered as a

determining factor in finding whether

the adjustment is warranted. OBV

further argues that a potential distortive

effect of metal prices on margin

calculation was recognized by the

Department from the beginning (in the

original investigation) and, therefore,

allowing a cost calculation based on

quarterly data is not unusual at all. (See

OBV’s reply brief at 24–26, and brief

transcript at 56–97.)

OBV contends that its export volumes

of the subject merchandise were low

during the last three administrative

review periods due to the acquisition of

American Brass. OBV asserts that it

never stated that the order was even a

reason for stopping shipments. In other

words, OBV claims that it could have

sold a substantial amount of subject

merchandise with the discipline of the

order in place had OYJ not purchased

American Brass. OBV further argues

that, at any rate, the Department

determined, in its most recent

preliminary results of administrative

review, that the import volumes in the

recent administrative reviews constitute

commercial quantities. In addition, OBV

asserts that the comparison between

pre-order and post-order volumes is

meaningless because OBV will never

return to pre-order levels on account of

American Brass’s presence in the U.S.

market. OBV basically dismisses the

domestic interested parties’ various

comparisons of OBV’s post-order export

volumes of the subject merchandise as

meaningless by resorting to the fact that

the much larger American Brass’s

production replaced OBV’s exports of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. Furthermore, OBV argues that its

recent shipment levels are not

aberrational or abnormally small in the

first place, and to the extent they are

deemed small, they are due to OYJ’s

purchase of American Brass. (See OBV’s

reply brief at 2 and 24–40.)

Department’s Position: With respect

to arguments raised regarding the results

of the administrative review, we refer

interested parties to the final results of

the administrative review.12

Further, in light of the arguments

raised in this sunset review, we do not

agree with OBV that the comparison

between OBV’s pre-and post-order

import volumes of the subject

merchandise to the United States is

meaningless. The Act, the SAA, the

House Report, the Senate Report, the

Department’s Regulations, and the

Sunset Policy Bulletin provide that, in

making its determinations of likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of

dumping, the Department compare the

import volumes of the subject

merchandise for the period before and

the period after the issuance of the

order. In our preliminary results we

compared the import volumes for the

period before and the period after the

issuance of the order and found, on the

basis of uncontroverted evidence, that

there was a significant decline in the

volume of imports of the subject

merchandise after the issuance of the

order. However, as noted above, on the

basis of additional information and

argument provided by OBV, we

preliminarily determined that the

elimination of dumping in recent

administrative reviews was,

nonetheless, probative of the behavior of

OBV without the discipline of the order.

For the purposes of these final results

we have reconsidered the weight to be

accorded the more recently calculated

margins and have determined, in light

of OBV’s stated intent to begin

importing subject merchandise into the

United States at pre-order levels once

the order is revoked, that the more

recently calculated margins are not

probative of the behavior of OBV were

the order revoked.

Comment 2: The domestic interested

parties insist that OYJ’s ownership of

American Brass is by no means unique;

rather, such acquisition is a standard

practice for foreign respondents to avoid

the dumping laws. Essentially, the

domestic interested parties claim that

OYJ’s acquisition of American Brass

does not mean that OBV is not likely to

dump. The domestic interested parties

further note that the purchase of

American Brass never demonstrated that

OBV stopped dumping. (See the

domestic interested parties brief at 3

and 29–30, and the hearing transcript at

10–49 and 97–108.)

OBV contends that the domestic

interested parties misunderstood the

rationale with respect to OBV’s

uniqueness argument. Specifically, OBV

contends that its unique position is

derived from the fact that: (1) OBV is the

sole producer of the subject

merchandise in the Netherlands; (2) the

ownership of American Brass by OBV’s

parent company; (3) the size of

American Brass vis-a ́-vis OBV; and (4)

the relative roles of OBV and American

Brass in the OYJ Group. In any case,

OBV argues that the cases cited by the

domestic interested parties were based

on sparse, limited facts available and

that the Department never addressed a

uniqueness issue in these cases. (See

OBV’s reply brief at 3 and 40–50, and

the hearing transcript at 56–97.)

Department’s Position: The

Department’s preliminary results that

the recently calculated margins were,

despite the significant decrease between

pre- and post-order import volumes,

nonetheless probative of OBV’s behavior

without the discipline of the order was

based on OBV’s representation that the

acquisition of American Brass enabled

American Brass to meet the U.S.

demand for BSS, thereby replacing

OBV’s exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States. In

part on this basis, we stated in our

preliminary results that the cessation of

imports from OBV after the purchase

‘‘buttresses the notion that American

Brass basically took over OBV’s exports

of the subject merchandise.’’ 13

Once it became evident that OBV will

take over the entire production of

radiator strip from American Brass and

export that subject merchandise to the

United States from the Netherlands,

OBV undermined its uniqueness

contention. With the proposed

production shift from American Brass to

OBV, OBV’s contention that the

purchase of American Brass and

738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

14As it proposed to do with radiator strip, OYJ

can shift production of any other type of BSS from

American Brass to OBV and start dumping that

subject merchandise without necessarily competing

with American Brass.

15As noted in the previous paragraphs, however,

we agree with the domestic interested parties for

different reasons. The domestic interested parties

cite five cases in their case brief (at 21–29). In Brass

Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 61 FR 49727

(September 23, 1996), the Department rejected

Wieland’s attempt to make a relevant issue out of

its purchase of a U.S. production facility because

the U.S. facility used imports of the subject

merchandise as a feed product. The Department

determined that had the order not been in place,

Wieland would have used its dumped subject

merchandise rather than U.S. produced domestic

like product as its raw material; hence, Wieland’s

purchase of a U.S. production facility can be

distinguished from the instant case. In the other

four cited cases, also, the ownership of U.S.

production facilities by foreign respondent

interested parties was never an issue. In other

words, the domestic interested parties reliance on

the above-referenced cases to discredit OBV’s

uniqueness argument is misplaced. 16See footnote 3, supra.

subsequent presence of American Brass

in the U.S. market eliminated any

likelihood of future dumping is

diminished (i.e., the existence of

American Brass no longer has any

bearing on whether the more recently

calculated margins are probative of the

behavior of OBV without the disciple of

the order OBV and whether OBV would

be likely to resume dumping subject

merchandise, in general,14 and radiator

strip, in particular).

Therefore, for purposes of these final

results, we agree 15 with the domestic

interested parties that OYJ’s purchase of

American Brass after the imposition of

the order, no longer provides sufficient

reason and/or evidence to negate the

presumption expressed in the Sunset

Policy Bulletin and the SAA that the

elimination of dumping coupled with a

significant decrease in the volume of

imports may be probative of the fact that

producers/exporters may need to dump

in order to maintain market share in the

United States. Therefore, for the final

results of this sunset review we have

considered OBV’s past histories

pertaining to import volumes and

weighted-average dumping margins.

With respect to import volumes of the

subject merchandise, the data supplied

by both OBV and the domestic

interested parties indicate that, since the

imposition of the order, import volumes

of the subject merchandise have

declined significantly. Moreover, data in

United States Census Bureau IM146s

and import data from the United States

Commission clearly indicate that

imports of the subject merchandise have

declined over the life of the order. In

1986 (a year prior to the initiation of the

original investigation), import volumes

of brass sheet and strip exceeded 15

million pounds; whereas, in 1998

import volumes have been well under 1

million pounds. In addition, OBV does

not negate the statistics which show that

OBV’s import volumes of the subject

merchandise decreased significantly

after the issuance of the order.

Consequently, we determine that the

import volumes of the subject

merchandise declined substantially after

the issuance of the order.

In conclusion, although the three

most recent reviews indicate that

dumping of the subject merchandise has

been eliminated,16 since import volumes

of the subject merchandise declined

significantly, we determine that

recurrence of dumping of subject

merchandise from the Netherlands is

likely if the order were revoked.

Comment 3: The domestic interested

parties assert that the Department’s

preliminary results reflect a marked

departure from the standards

established in the statute, the SAA, and

the Sunset Policy Bulletin, based on

which the Department determines

whether continuation or recurrence of

dumping is likely should the order be

revoked. Specifically, the domestic

interested parties contend that, in its

preliminary results, the Department

ignored the facts that dumping

continued at levels above de minimis

after the issuance of the order and that

the import volumes of the subject

merchandise ceased and declined

substantially when dumping was

eliminated. The domestic interested

parties further argue that the

Department should rely upon what OBV

did in conjunction with the order and

not upon what OBV says it will do in

the future if the order were revoked.

(See October 26, 1999, the domestic

interested parties’ case brief at 1 and 4–

7, and the hearing transcript at 10–49

and 97–108.)

OBV claims that the Department’s

preliminary decision is fully consistent

with and supported by a plain reading

of the statute, the Department’s

Regulations, and the Sunset Policy

Bulletin. OBV contends that the

Department’s ultimate mandate in a

sunset review is to determine whether

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to a continuation or recurrence of

dumping, and as such, the Department

is free to consider all record evidence in

carrying out its ultimate mandate in a

sunset review. OBV claims that the

Department stated that it makes no

sense to conclude that Outokumpu is

going to permit OBV to dump the

subject merchandise in the United

States. (See November 1, 1999, OBV’s

reply brief at 1 and 4–17, and the

hearing transcript at 56–97.)

Department’s Position: We do not

agree with the domestic interested

parties’ characterization that the

Department ignored the facts that

dumping continued at levels above de

minimis and that the import volumes of

the subject merchandise declined

substantially after the issuance of the

order. In the preliminary results, the

Department noted that dumping

continued for a period after the issuance

of the order and further, that the import

volumes of the subject merchandise

decreased significantly after the

issuance of the order.

As noted by OBV, in a sunset review,

consistent with our regulations,

interested parties are invited to submit

any other relevant information or

arguments that the party would like the

Department to consider. (See section

351.218(d)(3)(iv)(B) of the Sunset

Regulation.) In this review, OBV

submitted additional information and

argument to support its assertion that

the significant decrease in the postorder volume of imports was not

dispositive of the likelihood issue. We

agree with OBV that the Department has

the discretion to consider these

arguments in the course of determining

whether to deviate from the general

policy. Specifically, our Sunset Policy

Bulletin enunciates that, with a given set

of facts, the Department normally will

determine whether revocation of the

order is likely to lead to continuation.

(See section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.) Nowhere do we state that the

Department will always find that

dumping is likely to continue or recur

when dumping has been eliminated and

there has been a significant decline in

the volume of imports.

Comment 4: The domestic interested

parties state that the Department erred

in basing its preliminary results,

without invoking good cause, on OBV’s

unsolicited, unilateral, uninvestigated,

and self-serving representations

regarding matters which would more

properly fall within the purview of the

sunset analysis of the International

Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

The domestic interested parties argue

that OBV’s claims pertaining to the role

it will play in the U.S. market (in terms

of volumes and nature of the products

it will supply, and the price it will

charge) and pertaining to the

competitive conditions of the U.S.

market of the subject merchandise, were

unsolicited, not subject to follow-up

questioning, and not subject to

verification by the Department. Since

the Department did not have an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 739

affirmative showing of good cause, as

required by the statute, the domestic

interested parties conclude that the

Department should exclude the

aforementioned other factors and make

its final determination based solely on

the three-pronged test set forth in its

Sunset Policy Bulletin. (See the

domestic interested parties brief at 1

and 8–12, and the hearing transcript at

10–49 and 97–108.)

OBV notes that since OBV filed its

substantive response on March 3, 1999,

the domestic interested parties have had

an ample opportunity to request followup questions, but did not do so. OBV

claims that its substantive response is

basically a questionnaire response; that

there is nothing improper about the

Department revoking an order prior to

the Commission’s decision; and that the

factors considered are identical to the

factors typically considered by the

Commission in making its injury

determination. (See OBV’s reply brief at

13–17 and the hearing transcript at 56–

97.)

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the domestic interested parties’

argument that the Department erred in

basing our preliminary results on

unsolicited, unilateral, un-investigated,

and self-serving representations made

by OBV pertaining to the competitive

conditions of the U.S. market.

Consistent with the Sunset Regulations

(section 351.218(d)(3)(iv)(B)), a party

may submit in its substantive response

other information or argument the party

would like the Secretary to consider.

Other parties (that filed substantive

responses) may then rebut those

arguments and information. Nothing

precludes the Department from

considering the type of information

OBV submitted in its substantive

response and the Department properly

considered this information and the

domestic interested parties’ rebuttals

thereto in its preliminary results.

Comment 5: The domestic interested

parties note that the Department’s

finding that American Brass would bear

the primary responsibility of satisfying

the U.S. customers of radiator strip is

contrary to OBV’s acknowledgment that

OBV will eventually assume the

primary responsibility of satisfying its

U.S.-based customers by exporting more

than 15.8 million pounds of subject

radiator strip in the future. Specifically,

the domestic interested parties point out

inconsistent claims by OBV: on one

hand, OBV states that it never will

rreturn to pre-order export level while,

on the other hand, OBV stipulates that

it will eventually take over American

Brass’ entire production of radiator

strip, which will result in OBV

exporting the subject merchandise to the

United States at levels greater than preorder export volumes of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

The domestic interested parties assert

that since OBV readily changed its

position (production shift from OBV to

American Brass and then back to OBV),

nothing precludes the parent company

of OBV, OYJ, from changing its mind

again in the near future. Namely, the

domestic interested parties claim that it

is possible for OBV to start shipping

other subject merchandise to the United

States—and this production shift can

rather easily be accomplished with only

minor adjustment in OBV’s current

production process. According to the

domestic interested parties, this

possibility is looming especially large in

light of shrinking radiator strip market.

Domestic interested parties point out

that OBV may start shipping electrostrip

products, and that OBV can do this

without competing with American Brass

by utilizing a creative product mix.

Inasmuch as the instant review covers

all subject merchandise (not just

radiator strip), the domestic interested

parties further contend that should the

order be revoked, OYJ can easily have

OBV export other subject merchandise,

besides radiator strip, to the United

States. (See the domestic interested

parties brief at 2 and 27–30, and the

hearing transcript at 10–49 and 97–108.)

OBV argues that it informed the

Department of OBV’s plans to gradually

increase shipments of subject radiator

strip in its March 3, 1999, response to

the notice of initiation in the instant

review. OBV claims that the Department

clearly contemplated that OBV will

continue to ship the subject radiator

strip and that the fact that the tonnage

is not mentioned is by no means

evidence that the Department was

unaware of, or did not consider, this fact

in reaching its preliminary results. OBV

notes that the proposed shift of

production of the radiator strip is only

a minor portion of American Brass’ 1998

production capacity and of American

Brass’ 1998 shipments within the

United States. (See OBV’s reply brief at

3, 45–50, and 52, and the hearing

transcript at 96–97.)

Department’s Position: We agree with

the domestic interested parties that

there is conflicting information on the

record regarding OBV’s intent to export

subject merchandise to the United

States. Although OBV states that

American Brass permanently replaced

OBV’s exports of BSS to the United

States, OBV also expresses its intention

of resuming significant exports to the

United States when and if the order

were revoked (see OBV’s substantive

response, Exhibit 1 (LECG Report at 41–

42). Therefore, for the purposes of the

final results of this review, as noted

above, we consider the planned

resumption of imports at pre-order

volumes to be probative of the behavior

of OBV without the discipline of the

order.

Comment 6: The domestic interested

parties further note that when OBV was

selling substantial volumes of the

subject merchandise to the United

States, the Department found margins at

levels above de minimis. In other words,

the domestic interested parties claim,

according to facts of record, that OBV

always dumped when shipping

commercial quantities of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

Knowing that OBV has been an

aggressive and a significant supplier of

connector products in the European

market and that the U.S. radiator-strip

market is highly competitive, the

domestic interested parties assert that

OBV’s self-imposed moratorium of not

exporting other subject merchandise to

the United States will not continue in

the future. While arguing that OBV is

likely to dump in the United States

where it imports a large volume and a

wide range of products to the United

States if the order were revoked, the

domestic interested parties try to

illustrate its contention with the fact

that OBV did not provide to the

Department American Brass’s price data

regarding the domestic like product.

The domestic interested parties also

claim that in certain instances, the

prices of some non-subject merchandise,

which are more costly to produce than

subject merchandise, were lower than

the prices of the subject merchandise.

The domestic interested parties also

suggest that the Department postpone

revocation until a later administrative

review because revocation would result

in serious prejudice to the domestic

industry; whereas, the postponement

would not prejudice OBV because its

current cash deposit rate is zero, and if

such is the finding in the instant review,

OBV will not only be absolved from any

duty liability, but will remain eligible

for revocation; i.e., OBV’s ability to

obtain revocation would in no way be

prejudiced by delaying revocation. (See

the domestic interested parties case

brief at 3 and 30–36 and, the hearing

transcript at 10–49 and 97–108.)

OBV indicates that in the last three

administrative reviews, the Department

found that OBV has shipped in

commercial quantities without

dumping. OBV claims that its sponsored

LECG Report indicated that OBV would

not resume dumping if the order were

revoked. OBV contends that its future

740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

17The lowest weighted-average dumping margin

associated with a significant import volume (2,284

metric tons) was 2.03 percent for August 1990–July

1991. When OBV was assessed with zero (0) percent

or de minimis dumping margin for the last three

administrative reviews, its imports of subject

merchandise were significantly lower. Thus, we

agree with the domestic interested parties that

when OBV was exporting substantial volumes of

the subject merchandise to the United States, it was

dumping. This is especially true in light of the final

results of the most recent administrative review, in

which the Department found that the import

volumes of the subject merchandise associated with

OBV’s zero or de minimis weighted-average

dumping margins did not constitute commercial

quantities. (See footnote 4, supra.)

exports of the subject merchandise will

be limited to brass radiator strip. OBV

claims that, as a matter of law, the

Department cannot delay revocation in

this sunset review just to determine

whether OBV would dump in the next

five years. OBV states that the

Department did not request OBV to

provide American Brass pricing data in

this review, and thus it cannot be

accused of not supplying something

when not asked to do so. Further, OBV

argues that unlike a small, ‘‘stand

alone’’ company, OBV is not forced into

dumping the subject merchandise for its

own survival. OBV indicates that, even

with antidumping duty orders in effect

on the subject merchandise from

numerous countries, the domestic

interested parties, so far, do not find it

profitable to manufacture radiator strip.

Stated differently, based on the fact that

OBV will not have any domestic

competition in the radiator strip market,

OBV forecasts that there will be no

downward pricing pressure exerted on

OBV by the domestic industries. Thus,

OBV concludes that it is unlikely to

resume dumping in the near future. (See

OBV’s reply brief at 4, 50–61, and 64–

83, and the hearing transcript at 56–97.)

Department’s Comment: We agree

with the domestic interested parties that

OBV has never attained a zero or de

minimis margin when ever it exported

more than a small amount of subject

merchandise to the United States.17

However, we disagree with the domestic

interested parties’ contention that a

postponement of revocation, where

revocation is appropriate, would not

prejudice OBV. We agree with OBV that

the Department is required to revoke the

order if, based on the record of the

proceeding, the Department determines

that dumping is not likely to recur.

As to the pricing data from American

Brass, because we have determined that

revocation of the order would be likely

to result in the continuation or

recurrence of dumping, this issue is

moot. Further, because the scope of the

order includes merchandise other than

radiator strip and our determination is

based on OBV’s historical behavior at a

time when it exported significant

volumes of subject merchandise to the

United States, OBV’s assertions with

respect to the lack of domestic

competition and downward pricing

pressure are also moot.

Finally, with respect to OBV’s

contention that in three administrative

reviews, the Department has found that

OBV has shipped in commercial

quantities without dumping, we refer

interested parties to the notice of final

results of the most recent administrative

review, issued concurrently with this

notice, in which the Department

determined that OBV did not sell in

commercial quantities for any of the

three consecutive reviews that formed

the basis of OBV’s revocation request in

that proceeding.

Comment 7: The domestic interested

parties urge the Department not to

revoke the order without first

performing a verification because the

Department made its preliminary

findings based on other relevant

information and arguments OBV has

submitted. They further argue that a

verification is mandated by statute and

the Department’s Regulation; thus, the

phrase, ‘‘only where needed,’’ in the

Sunset Policy Bulletin is questionable

since it is contrary to statue and

regulations (782(i) of the Act and

section 351.307(b) of the Department’s

Regulations). The domestic interested

parties insist that the Department

cannot rely on the verification report

that was issued in the concurrent

administrative review of the order

because the verification report did not

involve the relevant facts upon which

the agency is relying in this case. The

domestic interested parties list factors,

based on which the Department

purportedly made its preliminary

determination yet to which the

verification did not address: the

historical nature of OBV’s and American

Brass’s sales of the subject merchandise

in the United States and the reasons

therefor; the prices at which OBV is

likely to sell radiator strip as compared

to the prices charged by American

Brass; the capacity of American Brass;

the size of and competition in the U.S.

radiator strip market; and the corporate

relationship between OBV and

American Brass and the effects thereof

upon their future business and sales

operations. The domestic interested

parties further claim that OBV itself

discredited the findings of the

verification report in the concurrent

administrative review. In conclusion,

the domestic interested parties argue

that the Department should not rely on

the voluntary and self-serving

representations made by the OBV.

Instead, domestic interested parties

insist, the Department should issue a

questionnaire and a supplemental

questionnaire to elicit relevant

information, and verify the information

thereof so long as the Department

continues to rely upon any of the factual

representations proffered by OBV. (See

the domestic interested parties brief at

3 and 12–18, and the hearing transcript

at 10–49 and 97–108.)

OBV asserts that a verification is

unnecessary in the instant review. OBV

claims that, first, the Department based

its preliminary results upon, inter alia,

the dumping margins in the most

recently completed administrative

reviews. OBV argues that, second,

where the Department recently verified

OBV’s data, which included information

supporting revocation of the dumping

order and which was placed on the

record of this review, the current

situation would fall under the ‘‘other

situations’’ in which the Department

need not conduct a verification (see

Sunset Regulations, 63 FR at 13519)

because standards for two reviews are

basically the same. OBV claims that

many items which the domestic

interested parties request the

Department verify were either verified

by the Department during the 1997–

1998 administrative review or were not

relied upon by the Department in

making its preliminary results in this

sunset review. OBV denies that it

alleged the verification report issued in

the administrative review is

meaningless or challenged the accuracy

of the numbers. OBV indicates,

nonetheless, that it opposes unjustified

extrapolation of numbers or leaps of

logic based upon those numbers. Given

the vast amounts of verified information

already on the record in this review, an

additional verification would be

unnecessary and of little value to the

Department in this review. (See OBV’s

reply brief at 17–24, the hearing

transcript at 69–97.)

Department’s Position: Because we

have determined that dumping is likely

to continue or recur were the order

revoked, the issue of verification is

moot.

Magnitude of the Margin

Because the magnitude of likely-toprevail margin was not discussed in the

preliminary results of this review, we

incorporate interested parties’

arguments in our determination as

follows.

Comment 1: The domestic interested

parties, in their substantive response

and in the hearing transcript, simply

state that the Department should select

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 741

18OBV infers this discretion from the word

‘‘normally.’’ (See Substantive Response of OBV at

39.)

19The original investigation was based on the

U.S. sale price compared to a weighted-average

foreign market value. In investigations, the

Department now employs an average-to-average

method—a comparison of the weighted-average of

the normal values with the weighted-average of the

export prices (and constructed export prices) for

comparable merchandise. (See 19 CFR 351.414(b)

and (c).)

20 During the original investigation, OBV had an

affiliated U.S. company, Outokumpu Metallverken

(‘‘MINC’’), which bought the subject merchandise at

a bargain price and further processed it according

to U.S. customers’ specification. OBV implies that,

in the process of calculating dumping margins, the

cost associated with the process done by MINC was

inflated, consequently further lowing OBV’s export

price to MINC.

21OBV is indicating that it no longer has an

affiliated U.S. company which further processes the

subject merchandise on behalf of OBV, see footnote

30, supra. Also, due to the OYJ’s purchase of

American Brass, OBV feels that further processing

of the subject merchandise in the United States is

no long necessary. (See OBV’s reply brief at 55–59.)

22 See OBV Substantive Response at Exhibits 1

(at 41–42), 8, and 15.

a margin from the investigation

according to the principle set forth in

the SAA at 890 and the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, 63 FR at 18873. (See the

domestic interested parties’ March 3,

1999 substantive response of at 45–46,

March 12, 1999, rebuttal response at 25–

26, and the hearing transcript at 10.)

The domestic interested parties note

that the margin from the original

investigation is the only calculated rate

that reflects the behavior of OBV

without the discipline of the order.

Therefore, the domestic interested

parties argue that the Department

should abide by its stated policy and

provide to the Commission the rate set

forth in the original investigation, which

is 16.99 percent. Id.

Citing the same policy, but with a

different emphasis, OBV argues that the

Department can, and should, exercise its

discretion, as allowed by the SAA.18

(See OBV’s substantive response at 39.)

OBV urges that the Department

determine the margin likely to prevail if

the order were revoked to be zero

percent, which is the margin

determined for sales by OBV in the last

two administrative reviews, or, in the

alternative, 2.03 percent, which is the

margin from the third administrative

review that is associated with a sales

volume that is larger than the sales

volume examined by the Department

during the original investigation.

OBV further states that it came forth

with data which support the selection of

a margin other than the margin in the

original investigation. OBV argues that

the weighted-average dumping margin

assigned to OBV in the original

investigation is the least probative of the

magnitude of the dumping margin likely

to prevail were the order revoked. OBV

bases its argument on the assertions that

the margin from the original

investigation is inherently unreliable

and does not reflect the current

circumstances surrounding the order.

Specifically, the margin from the

original investigation as well as those

from the first two administrative

reviews are skewed in OBV’s view

because the Department employed an

old, and since-discarded, method in

deriving such margins.19 OBV argues

that the Exporter’s Sales Price (now

called Constructed Export Price, CEP)

used in the original investigation was

deflated because some sales of the

subject merchandise were made to an

OBV affiliated U.S. company at a lower

price. Id. at 41–45.20 Therefore, OBV

contends, the Department should reject

the margins from original investigation

and from the final results of the first two

reviews because weighted-average

margins therefrom are unreliable

indicators of the magnitude of the

margin that would be likely to prevail

if the order were revoked. Instead, OBV

argues that the Department should

report to the Commission a zero or, at

the most, a 2.03 percent as the likely-toprevail margin were the order revoked.

In its rebuttal, OBV reiterates its

arguments that there is no justification

for the Department to use the margin

from the original investigation because

that margin is the least probative and

inherently unreliable. Also, OBV states

that it no longer has the capacity to and,

in any case, will not further process the

subject merchandise in the United

States, thereby eliminating the

adjustment for further-manufacturing,

which OBV perceives resulted in an

upward distortion of dumping margin.21

Department’s Position: In the Sunset

Policy Bulletin, the Department stated

that it will normally provide to the

Commission the margin that was

determined in the final determination in

the original investigation because that is

the only margin that reflects the

behavior of producers/exporters without

the discipline of the order in place.

Further, for companies not specifically

investigated or for companies that did

not begin shipping until after the order

was issued, the Department normally

will provide a margin based on the allothers 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 this case.

The SAA at 890–891 and House

Report at 63, provide that declining (or

no) dumping margins accompanied by

steady or increasing import volumes of

the subject merchandise may be

indicative of a situation in which

respondent interested parties do not

have to dump in order to maintain

market share in the United States and

that dumping is less likely to recur. To

appropriately reflect such situation, the

Department may, in response to

argument from an interested party,

provide to the Commission a more

recently calculated margin in cases

where: (1) The dumping margin was

reduced or eliminated after the issuance

of the order and (2) import volumes

remained steady or increased. (See

section II.B.2 of Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

However, in the instant review, as

discussed above, immediately after the

imposition of the order, import volumes

of the subject merchandise fell

substantially and ceased altogether for a

period. Furthermore, for the last five

years (1994–1998), the import volumes

of the subject merchandise have

remained at levels that can be

characterized as negligible vis a vis preorder volumes. These facts coupled with

OBV’s statement that it plans to resume

exports from the Netherlands at preorder volumes 22 leads us to determine

that the use of a more recently

calculated margin is inappropriate.

Therefore, we disagree with OBV’s

argument that we should report to the

Commission a more recently calculated

margin. Instead, because it is the only

rate which reflects the behavior of

producers/exporters without the

discipline of the order, the Department

determines that the margin from the

original investigation is probative of the

behavior of OBV without the discipline

of the order and will provide to the

Commission the weighted-average

margin from the original investigation.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the margins listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

OBV ............................................ 16.99

All Others .................................... 16.99

742 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holy Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–285 Filed 1–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–421–701)

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Determination Not To Revoke the

Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet

and Strip From the Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip from the Netherlands

and its notice of intent to revoke the

antidumping duty order. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results. We

have analyzed the comments received

and have made certain changes for the

final results.

This review covers shipments by one

respondent during the period August 1,

1997, through July 31, 1998. For our

final results, we have found that sales of

the subject merchandise have not been

made below normal value. We will

instruct the Customs Service not to

assess antidumping duties on the

subject merchandise exported by this

company. Furthermore, we are not

revoking the antidumping duty order

given that shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States by

Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V. (OBV),

the sole producer and exporter of

subject merchandise from the

Netherlands, have not been made in

commercial quantities for each of the

three consecutive review periods that

formed the basis of the revocation

request. See Determination Not To

Revoke Order section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Brinkmann or Jarrod Goldfeder, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4126 or (202) 482–2305,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Case History

This review covers OBV, the sole

manufacturer/exporter of merchandise

subject to the antidumping duty order

on brass sheet and strip from the

Netherlands.

On September 8, 1999, the

Department published the preliminary

results of this review. See Notice of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Intent

To Revoke Order: Brass Sheet and Strip

from the Netherlands, 64 FR 48760

(Preliminary Results). On October 20,

1999, we received case briefs from OBV

and the petitioners. We received

rebuttal briefs from OBV and the

petitioners on October 29, 1999. A

public hearing was held on November 2,

1999.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded

and tin brass sheet and strip, from the

Netherlands. The chemical composition

of the products under review is

currently defined in the Copper

Development Association (CDA) 200

Series or the Unified Numbering System

(UNS) C2000 series. This review does

not cover products the chemical

compositions of which are defined by

other CDA or UNS series. The physical

dimensions of the products covered by

this review are brass sheet and strip of

solid rectangular cross section over

0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through

0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in gauge,

regardless of width. Included in the

scope are coiled, wound-on-reels

(traverse wound), and cut-to-length

products. The merchandise under

investigation is currently classifiable

under item 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS). Although

the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Determination Not To Revoke Order

The Department ‘‘may revoke, in

whole or in part’’ an antidumping duty

order upon completion of a review

under section 751 of the Act. While

Congress has not specified the

procedures that the Department must

follow in revoking an order, the

Department has developed a procedure

for revocation that is described in 19

CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,

inter alia, that a company requesting

revocation must submit the following:

(1) A certification that the company has

sold the subject merchandise at not less

than normal value (NV) in the current

review period and that the company

will not sell at less than NV in the

future; and (2) a certification that the

company sold the subject merchandise

in each of the three years forming the

basis of the request in commercial

quantities. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).

Upon receipt of such a request, the

Department may revoke an order if it

concludes that each exporter and

producer covered at the time of

revocation: (1) sold subject merchandise

at not less than NV for a period of at

least three consecutive years; and (2) is

not likely in the future to sell the subject

merchandise at less than NV; see 19

CFR 351.222(b)(1)); 19 CFR

351.222(b)(2); see, e.g., Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not To

Revoke Order in Part: Pure Magnesium

from Canada (Pure Magnesium from

Canada), 64 FR 12977, 12982 (March

16, 1999).

In our Preliminary Results, we

preliminarily determined that OBV sold

in commercial quantities during the

period of review (POR) and that it is not

likely that OBV will sell at less than NV

in the future (see Preliminary Results,

64 FR at 48765–48766). However, upon

review of the criteria outlined at section

351.222(b) of the Department’s

regulations, the comments of the parties,

and the evidence on the record, we have

determined that the Department’s

requirements for revocation have not