Am placing here, as a new post, part of a comment that otherwise would have been stuck under the wrong heading (antidumping). At issue was a piece in The Economist about the Tires 421 result.
What I found interesting in the Economist piece is that it stopped short of what seems an obvious punch line: that Section 421 apparently is not a “safeguard” remedy at all. If it were, there would be no presumption (see the legislative history) in favor of providing relief whenever the ITC finds market disruption, and there would be a baked-in requirement for adjustment plans. A basic premise of traditional safeguards is that the "problem" resides in the importing market whose producers simply need time to adjust. Import relief is a temporary umbrella, but the key thing is getting ready to live exposed to permanently heavy rain. That premise is seemingly reversed in Section 421, which embodies a presumption -- applicable throughout the transition period -- that the "problem" underlying any observed import-related market disruption resides in China.