[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73013-73015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-804]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: New Steel Rail from 
Canada

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: New Steel 
Rail from Canada.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on new steel rail from Canada (64 FR 29261) 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 and substantive comments filed on 
behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in this 
case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of this review, 
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 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: 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was 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 Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and 19 CFR part 351 (1998) 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 
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 order is new steel 
rail, whether of carbon, high carbon, alloy or other quality steel from 
Canada. Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, standard 
rails, all main line sections (at least 30 kilograms per meter or 60 
pounds per yard), heat-treated or head-hardened (premium) rails, 
transit rails, contact rails (or ``third rail'') and crane rails. Rails 
are used by the railroad industry, by rapid transit lines, by subways, 
in mines, and in industrial applications.
    Specifically excluded from the order are light rails (less than 30 
kilograms per meter or 60 pounds per yard). Also excluded from the 
order are relay rails, which are used rails taken up from primary 
railroad track and relaid in a railroad yard or on a secondary track. 
As a result of a changed circumstances review in 1996, the antidumping 
duty order on new steel rail was partially revoked with regard to 
100ARA-A new steel rail, except light rail, from Canada.\1\ Also, 
nominal 60 pounds per yard steel rail is outside the scope of this 
order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See New Rail, Except Light Rail, From Canada; Final Results 
of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 61 FR 11607 (March 21, 1996).
    \2\ See New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, From Canada, Notice 
of Termination of Changed Circumstances Administrative Reviews and 
Clarification of Scope Language, 63 FR 43137 (August 12, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) items 7302.10.1010, 7302.10.1015, 7302.1035, 
7302.10.1045, 7302.10.5020, 8548.90.0000.\3\ The HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Per conversation with April Avalone at U.S. Customs on 
September 7, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Order

    The Department issued its final determination of sales at less than 
fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of new steel rail from 
Canada on August 3, 1989 (54 FR 31984). In this determination, the 
Department published one company-specific dumping margin as well as an 
``all others'' rate. On September 15, 1989, the Department issued the 
antidumping duty order on new steel rail from Canada, again publishing 
one company-specific dumping margin as well as an ``all others'' rate 
(54 FR 38263).
    Since the imposition of the order, the Department has conducted one 
changed circumstances administrative review.\4\ There have been no 
administrative reviews of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty 
absorption findings in this case. The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise from Canada.

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on new steel rail from Canada (64 FR 29261), pursuant 
to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of Pennsylvania Steel Technologies, 
Inc. (``PST''), a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and Rocky 
Mountain Steel Mills (``RMSM'') (collectively, the ``domestic 
interested parties'') on June 16, 1999, within the deadline specified 
in Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. We received a 
complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties on 
July 1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). Both PST and RMSM claimed 
interested party status under 19 USC 1677(9)(C) as U.S. manufacturers 
of the subject merchandise. In addition, PST stated that it is 
subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a petitioner in the original 
investigation. We did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party in this case. As a result, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day, review of the order.
    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 12, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on new steel rail from Canada is 
extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than

[[Page 73014]]

December 28, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the 
Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 55233 (October 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. Section 752(c) 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, and 
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 the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, domestic interested parties' comments with respect 
to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the 
margin 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 normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumpung 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 addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In this instant 
review, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of 
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of the order on new steel rail from Canada would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. They 
maintain that were the order revoked, imports of new steel rail from 
Canada would likely reenter the U.S. market at less than fair value. 
They point out that although Algoma Steel Corporation, Limited, has 
ceased producing new steel rail, another Canadian producer, the Sydney 
Steel Corporation (``Sysco''), does produce the subject merchandise. 
The domestic interested parties argue that new steel rail currently 
accounts for approximately 40 percent of Sysco's total steel production 
(see July 1, 1999, substantive response of the domestic interested 
parties at 9-10 and Exhibit 2). Moreover, they argue that Sysco's five 
year business plan calls for an increase in rail production and an 
increase in exports to account for some of the production increase. The 
domestic interested parties assert that several factors indicate that, 
if the antidumping duty order were revoked, the primary target of 
Sysco's increased production of new steel rail would be the United 
States market. Specifically, the domestic parties argue that, because 
Sysco maintains a location in Eastern Canada, its most economical and 
logical export market would be the United States. Additionally, the 
domestic interested parties stress that statements made by Sysco 
executives indicate a willingness to regain market share in the U.S. 
(see id. at 10 and Exhibits 3 and 5).
    The domestic interested parties also base their likelihood argument 
on the decline in import volumes following the imposition of the order. 
The domestic interested parties, citing U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 
state that subject imports dropped off significantly in 1990, the year 
following the imposition of the order. They argue that prior to the 
issuance of the order, sales of Canadian new steel rail had increased 
by 162 percent between the time period 1986 to 1988. The domestic 
interested parties further assert that subsequent to the antidumping 
order, sales volumes dropped by over 99.9 percent in 1990, as compared 
to 1988 figures. Moreover, in 1998, imports were 99.7 percent lower 
than in 1988. They conclude that Canadian imports, while not zero, are 
currently insignificant in the U.S. market (see id. at 8-9). Therefore, 
the domestic interested parties argue that were the order revoked, 
dumping would be likely to recur since the evidence indicates that 
Canadian exporters of the subject merchandise need to dump in order to 
sell at pre-order levels.
    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the 
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping 
would continue or recur were the order revoked because the imposition 
of the order resulted in the near termination of imports of new steel 
rail from Canada.
    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 the order in place, the Department may 
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were 
removed. As discussed above, no administrative reviews have been 
conducted since the original investigation, and therefore dumping 
margins above de minimis continue to exist for all shipments of the 
subject merchandise from Canada. While the domestic interested parties 
note that Algoma no longer produces the subject merchandise, other 
Canadian producers/exporters, such as Sysco, continue to produce and 
export the subject merchandise.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the 
order. As stated above, the domestic interested parties argue that a 
significant decline in the volume of imports of the subject merchandise 
from Canada since the imposition of the order provides further evidence 
that dumping would continue if the order were revoked. In their 
substantive responses, the domestic interested parties provide 
statistics demonstrating the decline in import volumes of new steel 
rail since the imposition of the order (see July 1, 1999, Substantive 
Response of the domestic interested parties at 8 and Exhibit 1). 
Utilizing the Department's statistics, including IM146 reports, on 
imports of the subject merchandise from Canada, we agree with the 
domestic interested parties' assertions that imports of the subject 
merchandise declined sharply following the imposition of the order and 
have not regained pre-order volumes. However, it

[[Page 73015]]

is not possible to determine whether this decline is due to the fact 
that Algoma has ceased producing new steel rail or to the response of 
Sysco and other producers/exporters to the order. Therefore, the 
decline in imports in this case is not probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    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 is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation 
or recurrence of dumping. Therefore, given that dumping has continued 
over the life of the order, respondent parties waived participation in 
this review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if 
the order 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.)
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
recommend that the Department adhere to its general practice of 
selecting dumping margins from the original investigation. Regarding 
companies not reviewed in the original investigation, the domestic 
interested parties suggest that the Department report to the Commission 
the all others rate published in the original investigation. Since the 
Algoma Steel Corporation, the company that received a company-specific 
rate in the original investigation, has, according to the domestic 
interested parties, ceased production of new steel rail, the domestic 
parties maintain that providing a rate for Algoma is not necessary. 
However, because at least one other producer/exporter remains, the 
domestic interested parties recommend that the Department provide to 
the Commission the all others rate determined in the original 
investigation.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties that the 
margins calculated in the original investigation are the only rates 
that reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the 
order. Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department 
finds the margins calculated in the original investigation are 
probative of the behavior of Canadian producers/exporters of new steel 
rail if the order were revoked. As such, the Department will report to 
the Commission the ``all others'' rates from the original investigation 
as contained in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algoma.......................................................      38.79
All Others...................................................      38.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 21, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33664 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M