[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11979-11980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-817]


Electroluminescent Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass Therefor 
From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Sunset Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty sunset review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the notice of initiation of sunset review of 
the antidumping duty order on electroluminescent (``EL'') high 
information content flat panel displays (``FPD'') and display glass 
therefor from Japan. The merchandise covered by this order is EL FPDs. 
On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate 
substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party, 
and inadequate response (in this case no response) from respondent 
interested parties, we determined to conduct an expedited sunset 
review. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we find that 
revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the 
section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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 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).

Background

    On August 2, 1999, the Department published the notice of 
initiation of sunset review of the antidumping duty order on EL FPDs 
(64 FR 41915). We invited parties to comment. On the basis of a notice 
of intent to participate and adequate substantive response filed on 
behalf of a domestic interested party, and inadequate response (in this 
case no response) from respondent interested parties, we determined to 
conduct an expedited sunset review. The Department has conducted this 
sunset review in accordance with sections 751 and 752 of the Act.
    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). This review covers a transition order within the meaning of 
section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, on December 3, 1999, 
the Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on EL FPDs from Japan is extraordinarily complicated and 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this 
review until not later than February 28, 2000, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 67847 (December 3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this order is EL FPDs. EL FPDs are large 
area, matrix addressed displays, no greater than four inches in depth, 
with a pixel count of 120,000 or greater, whether complete or 
incomplete, assembled or unassembled. EL FPDs

[[Page 11980]]

incorporate a matrix of electrodes that, when activated, apply an 
electrical current to a solid compound of electroluminescent material 
(e.g., zinc sulfide) causing it to emit light. Included are 
monochromatic, limited color, and full color displays used to display 
text, graphics, and video. EL FPD glass, whether or not integrated with 
additional components, exclusively dedicated to and designed for use in 
EL FPDs, is defined as processed glass substrates that incorporate 
patterned row, column, or both types of electrodes, and also typically 
incorporate a material that reacts to a change in voltage (e.g., 
phosphor) and contact pads for interconnecting drive electronics. All 
types of FPDs described above are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 8543, 8803, 9013, 9014, 9017.90.00, 9018, 9022, 9026, 9027, 
9030, 9031, 8471.92.30, 8471.92.40, 8473.10.00, 8473.21.00, 8473.30.40, 
8442,40.00, 8466, 8517.90.00, 8528.10.80, 8529.90.00, 8531.20.00, 
8531.90.00, and 8541 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although 
the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
    Since the issuance of the order on EL FPDs from Japan, the 
Department clarified that certain that certain EL FPDs used in Graphic 
Control Panels models GP-410 and GP-430 are within the scope of the 
order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 59 FR 8910 (February 24, 1994)).
    Although domestic interested parties suggested that other scope 
rulings on FPDs, particularly those involving Sharp, may be related to 
this order, our review of those scope rulings reveal they were not.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the substantive response by parties to this 
sunset review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
(``Decision Memo'') from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, 
Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated February 28, 2000 which is hereby adopted 
and incorporated by reference into this notice. The issues discussed in 
the attached Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail 
were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum which is on file in B-099.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/
frn/, under the heading ``Japan''. The paper copy and electronic 
version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
following percentage weighted-average margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharp Corporation............................................       7.02
All Others...................................................       7.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-5508 Filed 3-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P