Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Notices 64589

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Public Input on Improving Agency 

Procedures

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of changes in agency 

procedures. 

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2002, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission invited the public to 

provide input on specific ways in which 

it could improve its conduct of 

antidumping duty (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) 

investigations (67 FR 72221, December 

4, 2002). After consideration of the 

comments that were received, the 

Commission has made some changes to 

its internal procedures not requiring 

amendment to its rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal at (202) 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

preamble below is designed to give 

notice of certain non-regulatory changes 

in Commission procedures. The 

preamble begins with a discussion of 

the background leading up to these 

changes in procedures and includes a 

description of the changes in procedure 

(most of which are already being 

implemented) that do not require 

amendments to the Commission’s Rules. 

In addition to these non-regulatory 

changes, the Commission has also 

decided to propose certain amendments 

to its Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

which are contained in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that has been 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. 

Background 

On December 4, 2002, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (67 FR 72221) inviting the 

public to provide input on specific ways 

in which it could improve its conduct 

of AD and CVD investigations under 19 

U.S.C. 1671 et seq. The notice requested 

that such comments be filed within 90 

days of publication of that notice in the 

Federal Register. Nine sets of comments 

were received, which suggested a 

number of changes to Commission rules, 

questionnaires, opinions, hearings and 

other practices. 

The Commission appreciates the time 

and effort those who provided 

comments took to present their views, 

and believes that the comments have 

contributed to improving Commission 

procedures. The comments stimulated 

an internal review of the Commission’s 

non-regulatory practices in AD and CVD 

proceedings. That internal review has in 

turn resulted in certain changes in 

practices. Some of the changes were not 

specifically suggested by any comment. 

As is its normal practice, the 

Commission will continue to evaluate 

its procedures on an ongoing basis and 

will consider modifying them as is 

appropriate. Although the December 4, 

2002 Notice noted that a hearing on 

these proposals might be held, after 

reviewing the comments, the 

Commission decided that such a hearing 

would not be necessary.

Overview of the Changes in Commission 

Procedures in Antidumping Duty and 

CVD Investigations Not Requiring 

Amendment of the Rules 

Preliminary Phase Investigations 

The Commission has decided to 

adjust its procedures specific to 

preliminary phase investigations by 

providing for opening statements by 

petitioners and respondents at the 

outset of preliminary conferences to 

improve the focus of the conference and 

the questions posed by the staff to the 

parties. Because preliminary phase 

investigations do not involve the filing 

of written submissions or briefs prior to 

the conference, a brief opening 

statement by each side at the outset will 

enable those in attendance to know the 

principal contentions of each side. 

Further, in order to improve the ability 

of the parties to prepare for the 

conference, the Commission will 

endeavor to make the first release of 

business proprietary data obtained by 

the Commission under Administrative 

Protective Order (APO) at least two days 

prior to the conference when this is 

feasible. 

Final Phase Investigations 

For final phase investigations, there 

were several suggestions regarding time 

lines for issuance of the Commission’s 

prehearing report and for the filing of 

prehearing briefs. Current Commission 

practice has been to issue the business 

proprietary version of the report five 

business days before prehearing briefs 

are due, with the public version issued 

soon thereafter. After due consideration 

of all proposals, the Commission will 

now seek to issue the business 

proprietary version of the prehearing 

report about ten business days prior to 

the hearing. As noted in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, which has been 

published in today’s Federal Register, 

in light of the earlier release of the 

prehearing report, the Commission is 

also proposing to amend its rule to 

require prehearing briefs to be filed five 

business days before the hearing, rather 

than the four business days that is now 

the deadline. This will provide 

somewhat more time for the 

Commission, its staff, and all parties to 

consider the arguments and information 

presented in the prehearing report and 

briefs. 

One comment requested that the 

Commission allow a party to file new 

factual information to rebut information 

presented for the first time by a party in 

its posthearing brief. Currently, 

pursuant to rule 207.30 and 19 U.S.C. 

1677m(g), parties have an opportunity, 

at a date specified by the Commission 

(which is after the date for the 

submission of posthearing briefs), to 

submit final comments on factual 

information. Pursuant to the rule and 

the statute, new factual information 

contained in those final comments must 

be disregarded by the Commission. The 

suggestion that has been made would 

effectively require the Commission to 

allow an additional submission, 

between the time of the posthearing 

briefs and the submission of these final 

comments, for parties to provide factual 

information to rebut new information 

contained in other parties’ posthearing 

briefs. This would in turn require that 

this time come at the expense of other 

activities in the already crowded period 

late in the investigation. 

After careful consideration, it was 

decided that adding this additional 

opportunity to submit factual 

information this late in the investigation 

would not add a sufficient benefit to the 

Commission’s investigation to justify 

shortening the time allotted to other 

events late in the investigation process. 

Throughout the course of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

investigation that proceeds to a final 

determination, parties to the 

Commission investigation(s) have at 

least nine opportunities to provide 

factual information or argument, or 

both, to the Commission: (1) Responses 

to the Commission’s questionnaire in 

the preliminary phase of the 

investigation, (2) testimony and 

argument at the preliminary staff 

conference, (3) argument and 

information in postconference briefs, (4) 

written comments on draft 

questionnaires in the final phase of the 

64590 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Notices 

1 It is well-recognized that agencies need to 

provide some cut-off for submissions so ‘‘the debate 

does not go on indefinitely.’’ Avesta AB v. United 

States, 689 F. Supp. 1173, 1188 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

1988). See also Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 

F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1308, n. 5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002); 

General Motors Corp. v. United States, 827 F. Supp. 

774, 781–783 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (upholding the 

Commission’s reliance on data submitted late in the 

proceeding when other parties were not allowed to 

respond, noting ‘‘material injury investigations are 

not adversarial in a formal sense, and it is 

ultimately ITC’s responsibility to evaluate the data 

it gathers.’’).

investigation, (5) responses to the 

Commission’s questionnaire, (6) 

argument and information in prehearing 

briefs, (7) testimony and argument at the 

hearing, (8) argument and information 

in posthearing briefs, and information in 

response to Commissioner or staff 

questions and (9) final comments, 

though without submission of new 

factual data, after posthearing briefs 

have been submitted. (Petitioners have 

an initial additional opportunity to 

provide factual information in the form 

of the petition filed at the beginning of 

the investigation.) 

The Commission understands the 

desire for parties to have ‘‘one more 

opportunity’’ to make their case, and 

particularly the desire to rebut factually 

the latest iteration of other parties’

arguments or the latest data submissions 

by other parties or other persons. 

However, in light of the statutory 

deadlines in these investigatory 

proceedings, which the Commission 

cannot extend, adding another brief or 

opportunity for more factual 

submissions late in the investigative 

process would create problems in light 

of the need for the Commission and staff 

to evaluate, summarize, and consider 

the information and argument provided. 

The Commission also needs to allot 

sufficient time before the impending 

statutory deadline to write an opinion 

that explains its determination(s).

In light of this concern, the 

Commission wishes to restate its current 

practice and to clarify that normally no 

new factual information volunteered by 

a party after the filing of its posthearing 

brief will be considered by the 

Commission unless the information is in 

response to a specific request for that 

information by a Commissioner or 

member of the Commission staff. If a 

party comes into possession of some 

highly relevant fact that was not 

available for submission to the 

Commission earlier, it must seek leave 

to file such new factual information, 

justifying both why the ‘‘new’’ factual 

information could not have been 

submitted at an earlier date (normally, 

because it would represent such a recent 

occurrence that it could not have been 

provided earlier), and why the new 

information is sufficiently significant to 

warrant adding to the factual record of 

the case this late. 

Such requests for leave will not be 

routinely granted. Simply wishing to 

rebut or respond to a factual assertion 

made in another party’s posthearing 

brief is not a sufficient justification, nor 

is, for example, the proffered 

submission of a ‘‘new’’ affidavit that 

could have been provided at an earlier 

stage of the proceeding (unless the 

affidavit was specifically requested by a 

Commissioner or Commission staff).1 In 

the past, the Commission has only on 

rare instances ‘‘reopened’’ the factual 

record on its own initiative to allow 

consideration of (and party comment 

on) late developments. For example, it 

did so in response to a significant 

correction by the Commerce Department 

of its final determination that resulted 

in the exclusion from its affirmative 

determination of a major subject 

exporter, and in response to a 

modification by the President of import 

relief measures under section 201 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 that potentially had 

a major effect on conditions of 

competition for the domestic industry.

Questionnaires 

While questionnaires for specific 

investigations reflect the unique issues 

pertinent to individual investigations, 

the following are among the changes the 

Commission has made to its ‘‘generic’’

questionnaires:

—A checklist will be provided with U.S. 

producer and importer questionnaires 

to assist recipients in providing 

complete responses. 

—When requesting capacity figures, 

questionnaires will request that 

capacity be allocated between 

products produced on the same 

equipment. 

—Foreign producers will be requested 

to supply the basis for any projections 

of capacity, production, shipments, 

and inventories. 

—In five-year review questionnaires to 

foreign producers, a question will be 

added seeking a comparison of prices 

in the U.S. with prices for the same 

product in foreign markets. 

—Purchaser questionnaires will be 

mailed to purchasers listed in lost 

sale/revenue allegations by domestic 

producers. Also, purchasers listed in 

lost sales/revenue allegations by 

domestic producers will be asked 

whether the purchaser switched from 

a domestic supplier to a subject 

import supplier, or obtained a price 

reduction from a domestic supplier 

based on subject import competition 

during the period of investigation, 

even if the specific lost sale/revenue 

allegation could not be confirmed.

The Commission has also completed 

an internal review of its questionnaires, 

which resulted in the elimination of 

redundant or marginally relevant 

questions, and the revision of some 

ambiguous questions to clarify the data 

being sought. The Commission is also 

including a question in all 

questionnaires seeking comment on any 

changes that the recipient believes may 

improve the clarity, ease of response, or 

usefulness of the questionnaire. 

Staff Reports 

Reports will now include (in Chapter 

1) a description of the major firms 

supplying the market for the product(s) 

at issue. In investigations involving 

multiple countries, it was suggested that 

the Commission report import pricing 

data on a weight-averaged cumulated 

basis in assessing the degree of 

underselling by subject imports. The 

Commission has decided to add this 

aggregated data, but will continue to 

provide country-specific pricing data as 

well in its reports. 

Staff reports will also include more 

detailed information concerning lost 

sale/revenue allegations.

By Order of the Commission.

Issued: November 1, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24703 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Coordinating Council on Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1410] 

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Coordinating Council on 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (Council) is announcing the 

December 3, 2004, meeting of the 

Council.

DATES: Friday, December 3, 2004, 9 

a.m.–12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Frances Perkins Department of 

Labor Building, Room N–4437, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. (Enter at 3rd and C Streets, NW.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy Wight, Designated Federal