Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Large Residential Washers from Mexico, 76288-76291 [2012-31077]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76288-76291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31077]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 76288]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-842]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Large Residential Washers from Mexico

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

SUMMARY: We determine that imports of large residential washers 
(washers) from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final determination 
differs from the preliminary determination. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the investigated companies are listed below in the 
section entitled ``Final Determination Margins.''

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty 
investigation of washers from Mexico.\1\ Since the preliminary 
determination, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Large 
Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 46401 (August 
3, 2012) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 24, 2012, Whirlpool Corporation (hereafter, the 
petitioner) requested a hearing. On September 4, 2012, the respondent, 
Electrolux Home Products, Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, 
S.A. de C.V. (hereafter, Electrolux), also requested a hearing.
    On August 31, 2012, the petitioner formally filed a request to 
amend the petition to exclude smaller top-load washers from the scope 
of this investigation.
    In August and September 2012, we verified the questionnaire 
responses of Electrolux, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.
    In response to the Department's October 15, 2012, request, 
Electrolux submitted revised sales databases incorporating the 
Department's sales verification report findings on October 22 and 24, 
2012.
    On October 17, 2012, Electrolux submitted its case brief, and on 
October 24, 2012, the petitioner submitted its rebuttal brief. Also, on 
October 24, 2012, the petitioner withdrew its request for a hearing in 
this case. Similarly, on October 26, 2012, Electrolux withdrew its 
request for a hearing.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2010, through 
September 30, 2011.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are all large 
residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico.
    For purposes of this investigation, the term ``large residential 
washers'' denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of 
the orientation of the rotational axis, except as noted below, with a 
cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches 
(62.23 cm) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 cm).
    Also covered are certain subassemblies used in large residential 
washers, namely: (1) All assembled cabinets designed for use in large 
residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) At least three 
of the six cabinet surfaces; and (b) a bracket; (2) all assembled tubs 
\2\ designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at 
a minimum: (a) A tub; and (b) a seal; (3) all assembled baskets \3\ 
designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a 
minimum: (a) A side wrapper; \4\ (b) a base; and (c) a drive hub; \5\ 
and (4) any combination of the foregoing subassemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``tub'' is the part of the washer designed to hold water.
    \3\ A ``basket'' (sometimes referred to as a ``drum'') is the 
part of the washer designed to hold clothing or other fabrics.
    \4\ A ``side wrapper'' is the cylindrical part of the basket 
that actually holds the clothing or other fabrics.
    \5\ A ``drive hub'' is the hub at the center of the base that 
bears the load from the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial 
washers. The term ``stacked washer-dryers'' denotes distinct washing 
and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a 
common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term 
``commercial washer'' denotes an automatic clothes washing machine 
designed for the ``pay per use'' market meeting either of the following 
two definitions:

    (1)(a) It contains payment system electronics; \6\ (b) it is 
configured with an externally mounted steel frame at least six 
inches high that is designed to house a coin/token operated payment 
system (whether or not the actual coin/token operated payment system 
is installed at the time of importation); (c) it contains a push 
button user interface with a maximum of six manually selectable wash 
cycle settings, with no ability of the end user to otherwise modify 
water temperature, water level, or spin speed for a selected wash 
cycle setting; and (d) the console containing the user interface is 
made of steel and is assembled with security fasteners;\7\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Payment system electronics'' denotes a circuit board 
designed to receive signals from a payment acceptance device and to 
display payment amount, selected settings, and cycle status. Such 
electronics also capture cycles and payment history and provide for 
transmission to a reader.
    \7\ A ``security fastener'' is a screw with a non-standard head 
that requires a non-standard driver. Examples include those with a 
pin in the center of the head as a ``center pin reject'' feature to 
prevent standard Allen wrenches or Torx drivers from working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2)(a) It contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment 
system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment 
acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) 
such

[[Page 76289]]

that, in normal operation,\8\ the unit cannot begin a wash cycle 
without first receiving a signal from a bona fide payment acceptance 
device such as an electronic credit card reader; (c) it contains a 
push button user interface with a maximum of six manually selectable 
wash cycle settings, with no ability of the end user to otherwise 
modify water temperature, water level, or spin speed for a selected 
wash cycle setting; and (d) the console containing the user 
interface is made of steel and is assembled with security fasteners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Normal operation'' refers to the operating mode(s) 
available to end users (i.e., not a mode designed for testing or 
repair by a technician).

    Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines 
with a vertical rotational axis and a rated capacity of less than 3.70 
cubic feet, as certified to the U.S. Department of Energy pursuant to 
10 CFR 429.12 and 10 CFR 429.20, and in accordance with the test 
procedures established in 10 CFR Part 430.
    The products subject to this investigation are currently 
classifiable under subheading 8450.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff 
System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this 
investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 
8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    On May 17, 2012, the petitioner requested that the Department 
exclude smaller top-load washers (i.e., automatic washing machines with 
a vertical rotational axis and a rated capacity of less than 3.70 cubic 
feet) from the scope of this investigation and the concurrent 
antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of 
washers from Korea. Subsequently, we received comments from Samsung 
Electronics Co., Ltd and LG Electronics Inc. (LG), respondents in the 
AD and CVD investigations of washers from Korea, objecting to the 
petitioner's scope exclusion request, and comments from other 
interested parties supporting the request.
    Based on our evaluation of these comments, the briefs which were 
subsequently filed by LG and the petitioner, and the information 
provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we have amended 
the scope to exclude smaller top-load washers. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's scope determination, see Memorandum from 
the Team to Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, ``Exclusion of Top-Load Washing 
Machines with a Rated Capacity Less than 3.70 Cubic Feet from the Scope 
of the Investigations,'' dated July 27, 2012, and ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Large Residential 
Washers from Mexico'' from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Issues and Decision 
Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and incorporated 
herein by reference.
    LG requested on July 27, 2012, that larger-width washers (i.e., 
washers with widths of 29 inches or greater) be excluded from the scope 
of the investigations. The petitioner objected to this request on 
August 27, 2012. Based on our evaluation of the parties' comments, as 
discussed in their briefs, we find that larger-width washers should not 
be excluded from the scope. See Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
further discussion.

Application of Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, we determined that due to Samsung 
and Whirlpool's complete lack of cooperation in this investigation, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the use of facts 
available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margin for both 
Samsung and Whirlpool. See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46403. 
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on 
the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) 
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided in section 
782(i) of the Act.
    In this case, neither Samsung nor Whirlpool responded to the 
Department's questionnaire by the established deadline nor did either 
company request an extension of time to submit its response. By failing 
to participate in this investigation, Samsung and Whirlpool withheld 
requested information, failed to provide information with the deadlines 
established, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act, because Samsung and 
Whirlpool did not participate in this investigation, the Department 
continues to find that the use of total facts available is warranted.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we also determined that the 
application of an adverse inference to Samsung and Whirlpool was 
warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. See Preliminary 
Determination, 77 FR at 46403. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that 
the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts 
otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. 
Such an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or other information placed on the record. Adverse inferences 
are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' \9\ Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an 
adverse inference.'' \10\ For purposes of this final determination, we 
continue to find that Samsung and Whirlpool did not act to the best of 
their ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) 
of the Act, because each failed to participate in this investigation. 
Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the 
facts otherwise available with respect to Samsung and Whirlpool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 
(1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99.
    \10\ See Antidumping Duties: Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice, when selecting an adverse facts 
available (AFA) rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to select the highest rate on the record of the proceeding and 
to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate 
the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have assigned to Samsung and Whirlpool a rate of 
72.41 percent, which is the highest rate

[[Page 76290]]

alleged in the petition (as adjusted at initiation).\12\ The Department 
believes that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the 
purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate is 
high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this 
proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). As discussed 
below, we have also corroborated this rate, and determined that it is 
both reliable and relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea 
and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 
4007 (January 26, 2012) (Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, where the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than information obtained in the course 
of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information used.\13\ The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published prices lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this investigation and to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and 
accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation 
analysis and for purposes of this final determination.\14\ We examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the 
probative value of the margins alleged in the petition for use as AFA 
for purposes of this final determination. During our pre-initiation 
analysis we examined the key elements of the U.S. price and normal 
value calculations used in the petition to derive margins. During our 
pre-initiation analysis we also examined information from various 
independent sources provided either in the petition or in supplements 
to the petition that corroborates key elements of the U.S. price and 
normal value calculations used in the petition to derive estimated 
margins.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist dated 
January 19, 2012 (Initiation Checklist), at 6 through 11. See also 
Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 4010-4011.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our examination of the information, as discussed in detail 
in the Initiation Checklist, Initiation Notice, and Preliminary 
Determination, we consider the petitioner's calculation of the U.S. 
price and normal value underlying the 72.41 percent rate to be 
reliable. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of 
the information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition 
by examining source documents as well as publicly available 
information, we determine that the 72.41 percent margin in the petition 
is reliable for purposes of this investigation.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, as in the 
Preliminary Determination, we also considered information reasonably at 
our disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. 
We found that the 72.41 percent rate in the petition reflects the 
commercial practices of the large residential washer industry and, as 
such, is relevant to Samsung and Whirlpool. In making this 
determination, we compared the model-specific margins we calculated for 
Electrolux for the POI to the petition rate of 72.41 percent. We found 
that the highest model-specific margins we calculated for Electrolux in 
this investigation were higher than or within the range of the 72.41 
percent margin alleged in the petition.
    Specifically, after calculating the margin for Electrolux as 
discussed below, we examined individual model comparisons and the 
margins we calculated based on those model comparisons in order to 
determine whether the rate of 72.41 percent is probative. We found a 
number of model comparisons with dumping margins above the rate of 
72.41 percent, and a number of model comparisons with dumping margins 
within the range of 72.41 percent. Accordingly, we determine that the 
AFA rate is relevant as applied to Samsung and Whirlpool for this 
investigation because it falls within the range of model-specific 
margins we calculated for Electrolux in this investigation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This corroboration methodology is consistent with our past 
practice. (See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808, 41811 (July 19, 2010)). A similar 
corroboration methodology has been upheld by the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit. (See PAM S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 
1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing analysis, we have determined that the AFA 
rate of 72.41 percent has probative value and is corroborated ``to the 
extent practicable'' as provided in section 776(c) of the Act. See also 
19 CFR 351.308(d).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is 
attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verification, we have made certain changes to Electrolux's margin 
calculation. For a discussion of these changes, see the ``Margin 
Calculations'' section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information submitted by Electrolux for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by Electrolux.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Verification of the 
Cost Response of Electrolux Home Products, Corp. N.V. and Electrolux 
Home Products, Inc. (collectively ``Electrolux'') in the Antidumping 
Investigation of Large Residential Washers from Mexico,'' dated 
September 10, 2012; and Memorandum to the File entitled 
``Verification of the Sales Response of Electrolux Home Products, 
Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (collectively 
``Electrolux'') in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Large 
Residential Washers from Mexico, dated October 9, 2012 (sales 
verification report).

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

[[Page 76291]]

Targeted Dumping

    The Act allows the Department to employ the average-to-transaction 
comparison methodology under the following circumstances: (1) There is 
a pattern of export prices that differ significantly among purchasers, 
regions, or periods of time; and (2) the Department explains why such 
differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average 
or transaction-to-transaction methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    For purposes of the final determination, we performed our targeted 
dumping analysis following the methodology employed in the Preliminary 
Determination, after making certain revisions to Electrolux's reported 
U.S. sales data based on verification findings, as enumerated in the 
``Margin Calculations'' section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 
In so doing, we found that the results of our final targeted dumping 
analysis were generally consistent with those of our preliminary 
targeted dumping analysis. Therefore, we continued to apply the 
average-to-average method to all of Electrolux's U.S. sales in the 
final determination. See the Memorandum to the File entitled ``Final 
Determination Margin Calculation for Electrolux Home Products Corp., 
N.V./Electrolux Home Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (collectively 
``Electrolux''),'' dated concurrently with this notice for further 
discussion.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to 
continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise 
from Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after August 3, 2012, the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register. CBP shall require a cash deposit 
equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the 
U.S. price as shown below. These instructions suspending liquidation 
will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                  Exporter/Manufacturer                       margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrolux Home Products Corp. NV/Electrolux Home                  36.52
 Products De Mexico, S.A. de C.V........................
Samsung Electronics Mexico S.A. de C.V..................           72.41
Whirlpool International S. de R.L. de C.V...............           72.41
All Others..............................................           36.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the ``All 
Others'' rate is derived exclusive of all de minimis or zero margins 
and margins based entirely on adverse facts available. Specifically, 
this rate is based on the margin calculated for Electrolux in this 
case.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of 
the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of 
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(c).

    Dated: December 18, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Scope Exclusion of Smaller Top-Load Washers
2. Request To Exclude Larger-Width Washers From the Scope

Company-Specific Issue

3. Electrolux's Affiliated Party Transactions

[FR Doc. 2012-31077 Filed 12-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P