U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4240 June 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy

Investigation No. 731-TA-385 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Stefania Pozzi Porter, Investigator 

 Keysha Martinez, Investigator 

 Ray Cantrell, Commodity Industry Analyst 

 David Goldfine, Attorney 

 Fred Ruggles, Acting Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4240 June 2011

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy

Investigation No. 731-TA-385 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

Views ......................................................................... 3

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producer’s trade and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

The industry in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data from the second review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***. Final identification of confidential

information is in the public version of the staff report.

i
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Investigation No. 731-TA-385 (Third Review) 

GRANULAR POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE RESIN FROM ITALY 

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States 

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on November 1, 2010, (75 F.R. 67105) and determined on 

May 2, 2011, that it would conduct an expedited review (76 F.R. 28455, May 17, 2011). 

 

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR ' 207.2(f)). 

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (“PTFE resin”) from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

In August 1988, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of imports of PTFE resin from Italy and Japan that were being sold at less

than fair value.1

 That same month, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of PTFE resin

from Italy and Japan.2

On August 5, 1999, the Commission voted to conduct expedited reviews in the first five-year

reviews of the orders on PTFE resin from Italy and Japan,3

 and on December 14, 1999, the Commission

determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

The Commission instituted the second reviews of the antidumping duty orders on December 1,

2004.5

 On March 7, 2005, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews,6 and on

December 8, 2005, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.7

 1 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-385-386 (Final), USITC Pub.

2112 (August 1988) (“Original Determination”) at 2.

 2

 53 FR 33163 (Aug. 30, 1988) (Italy) and 53 FR 32267 (Aug. 24, 1988) (Japan).

 3

 64 FR 44537 (Aug. 16, 1999).

 4

 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-385-386 (Review), USITC Pub.

3260 (Dec. 1999) at 2.

 5

 69 FR 69954 (Dec. 1, 2004).

 6

 70 FR 14713 (Mar. 23, 2005).

 7

 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-385-386 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3823 (Dec. 2005) at 2. 

3
The Commission instituted third reviews of both orders on November 21, 2010.8

 On January 20,

2011, Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order on PTFE resin from Japan effective

December 22, 2010, because “the domestic parties did not participate in this review.”9

 The Commission

subsequently terminated its five-year review concerning PTFE resin from Japan.10 Thus, the order on

PTFE resin from Italy is the only remaining order under review.

DuPont, the only known domestic producer of PTFE resin, responded to the Commission’s notice

of institution and filed comments on adequacy. No respondent interested party, however, provided any

information or argument to the Commission. On May 2, 2011, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate, but that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate.11 In the absence of an adequate respondent interested

party group response or other factors warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an

expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.12

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”13 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to

an investigation under this subtitle.”14 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the

 8 Although Commerce’s initiation notice of November 1, 2010, 75 FR 67082, correctly identified the review on

PTFE resin from Japan, it did not correctly identify the review of the order on PTFE resin from Italy. Instead, the

notice described the review as pertaining to an order concerning certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate. On

November 22, 2010, Commerce notified the Commission in a letter that it did not receive a notice of intent to

participate in the reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE from Italy and Japan and that it intended to

revoke those antidumping duty orders not later than 90 days after the November 1, 2010 notice of initiation. In that

letter, Commerce noted that the initiation of the review for PTFE resin from Italy was incorrectly published in the

Federal Register. The Federal Register published a correction of Commerce’s initiation notice on January 12, 2011. 

On January 13, 2011, Commerce notified the Commission that, contrary to what was stated in its November 22,

2010 notification to the Commission, it did not intend to issue a final determination revoking the antidumping duty

order on PTFE resin from Italy because of the error concerning the initiation of that review. Commerce also notified

the Commission that the initiation date of the subject review concerning Italy remained November 1, 2010.

On January 27, 2011, the Commission chose to extend the deadlines in the adequacy phase of the review

concerning Italy by up to 90 days under its authority for “extraordinarily complicated” reviews, which applies to this

review because it is a review of a “transition order,” i.e., one in effect on January 1, 1995. 76 FR 4936 (Jan. 27,

2011). By extending the deadlines in the adequacy phase, the Commission afforded interested parties the

opportunity to respond to the institution notice and afforded Commission staff the standard amount of time to gather

information for the Commission’s vote on adequacy. 

 9

 76 FR 3614 (Jan. 20, 2011).

 10 76 FR 8774 (Feb. 15, 2011).

 11 See Confidential Staff Report/Public Staff Report (“CR/PR”) at Appendix B.

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

(continued...)

4
like product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.15

In this third five-year review, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “granular PTFE

resin, filled or unfilled.”16 Also included in the scope is PTFE wet raw polymer imported from Italy.17

Commerce has indicated that PTFE dispersions in water and PTFE fine powders are excluded from the

scope.18

In the original investigations, its expedited first five-year review determinations, and its full

second five-year review determinations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

consisting of all PTFE resin, which was coextensive with Commerce’s scope.19

In this third five-year review, DuPont supports the definition of the domestic like product used in

the prior five-year reviews of the orders,20 and no new information suggests that it should be revisited. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the original determinations and the first and second five-year reviews,

we continue to define the domestic like product as all PTFE resin, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”21 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances

exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of

subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers. 

In the original investigations on Italy and Japan, the Commission defined the domestic industry to

include all domestic producers of granular PTFE resin and determined that, although DuPont and

Ausimont U.S.A. qualified as related parties, appropriate circumstances did not warrant their exclusion

from the domestic industry.22 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission defined the domestic

industry to include all domestic producers of granular PTFE resin and determined that, although DuPont

qualified as a related party, appropriate circumstances did not warrant its exclusion from the domestic

industry.23 In the second five-year reviews, the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all

domestic producers of PTFE resin and determined that, although DuPont and AGC Chemicals America,

 14 (...continued)

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 15 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 16 CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 17 CR at I-7; PR at I-6. 

 18 CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 19 See e.g., Original Determination at 1-2.

 20 CR at I-11 n.32; PR at I-8 n.32.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 22 Original Determination at 9-11. 

 23 First Review Determination at 5-6. 

5
Inc., qualified as related parties, circumstances did not warrant their exclusion from the domestic

industry.24

In this third review, DuPont urges the Commission to define the domestic industry as consisting

only of DuPont because it is the only known domestic producer of PTFE resin.25 Unlike in the original

investigations and first and second reviews (which covered both Italy and Japan), where DuPont qualified

as a related party (by virtue of its joint venture with a Japanese producer and its imports of PTFE resin

from Japan), DuPont reports that it is not a related party in this third five-year review because it does not

import any subject merchandise and does not have a corporate affiliation with any producers of subject

merchandise.26 Accordingly, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of PTFE resin,

i.e., DuPont.

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”27 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”28 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.29 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

 24 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 8-9.

 25 DuPont’s Comments at 3-4.

 26 CR at I-13 & n. 45; PR at I-10 & n. 45.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 28 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 29 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

6
“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.30 31 32

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”33 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in an original investigation.”34

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”35 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).36 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.37

No respondent interested parties participated in this expedited review. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information with respect to the PTFE resin industry in Italy, as well as limited

information on the U.S. PTFE resin market during the period of review. Accordingly, for our

 30 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 31 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 32 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 34 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings on the subject merchandise. 

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

7
determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigations and prior

reviews and the limited new information on the record in this review.38 39

We also note that the summary of findings below from the original investigations and first and

second five-year reviews reflects a cumulated analysis because the Commission cumulated subject

imports from Italy and Japan in those prior determinations. In this third five-year review, however,

cumulation is not applicable because the order on PTFE resin from Japan was revoked by Commerce and

only the order on PTFE resin from Italy remains subject to review.

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”40 

1. The Original Investigations and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission did not discuss conditions of competition. In the

first five-year reviews, which were expedited, the Commission identified several conditions of

competition relevant to its analysis. First, the Commission found that domestic PTFE resin and imported

PTFE resin were generally substitutable within the same grades.41 Second, it found that the PTFE resin

market is considered to be mature, with relatively small growth anticipated in the future.42 Third, it noted

that the industry had consolidated from five to three domestic producers.43 Finally, it found that PTFE

resin production was technologically complex and capital intensive and that the high fixed costs

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 39 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 41 First Review Determination at 12.

 42 First Review Determination at 13.

 43 First Review Determination at 13.

8
associated with operating and maintaining a PTFE resin plant required manufacturers to sustain high

capacity utilization rates to remain profitable.44

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission identified several conditions of competition

relevant to its analysis. It found that U.S. demand for PTFE resin was largely derived from demand for

the products that it is used to make and that U.S. demand for PTFE resin had grown substantially since

the original investigations.45 It noted that the domestic industry had changed composition and

consolidated since the original investigations.46 It again emphasized that PTFE resin production was

technologically complex and capital intensive and that the high costs associated with operating and

maintaining a granular PTFE resin plant required manufacturers to sustain high capacity utilization rates

in order to remain profitable.47 It also found that domestic PTFE resin and imported PTFE resin were

considered to be generally interchangeable, that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions,

that prices for PTFE resin were influenced by processing, raw materials, and transportation costs, and that

most PTFE resin in United States was sold via long-term or short-term contracts.48

2. The Current Review

The conditions of competition relied upon by the Commission in the second five-year review

generally continued to exist during the current period. The U.S. market for PTFE resin is considered to

be relatively mature, with demand derived from the products that it is used to make, including gaskets,

seals, and rings for the automotive industry; gaskets, linings, and packings for chemical applications; and

insulators and tape for electrical applications.49 Overall, apparent U.S. consumption of PTFE resin in

2009 was *** pounds, which was slightly below the level in the original investigations.50

The domestic industry has undergone significant consolidation since the original investigations. 

The number of U.S. producers has fallen from five in the original investigations in 1987 and the first fiveyear reviews in 1999 to three in the second five-year reviews in 2004 and just one known domestic

producer (DuPont) in this third five-year review.51 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption has continued to decline and was at its lowest point during the period covered by this

review. It was 71.5 percent in 1987, 73.0 percent in 1998, 71.4 percent in 2004, and 28.3 percent in

2009.52 

Subject import market share has increased since the original investigations and reached its highest

level in this review, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009.53 Nonsubject

import market share also reached its highest level, *** percent, in 2009.54 

 44 First Review Determination at 13-14.

 45 Second Review Determination at 17.

 46 Second Review Determination at 17.

 47 Second Review Determination at 17.

 48 Second Review Determination at 18.

 49 CR at I-8 to I-9; PR at I-7.

 50 Apparent U.S. consumption of PTFE resin was *** pounds in 1987, *** pounds in 1999, *** pounds in 2004,

and *** pounds in 2009. CR at I-17; PR at I-12.

 51 CR at I-13; PR at I-9.

 52 CR at I-17; PR at I-10; Second Review CR/PR at Table I-1.

 53 CR at I-17; PR at I-10. Subject import market share was *** percent in 1987, *** percent in 1998, and ***

percent in 2004. Second Review CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 54 Derived from CR at I-17. Nonsubject import market share was *** percent in 1987, *** percent in 1998, and

*** percent in 2004. Second Review CR/PR at Table I-1.

9
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary on the record of this review, we adopt our findings

from the second five-year reviews that the domestic like product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports

are generally substitutable and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions for PTFE resin.55

We also adopt our finding from the prior five-year reviews that the high costs associated with operating

and maintaining a granular PTFE resin plant require manufacturers to sustain high capacity utilization

rates to stay profitable.56 We note that the domestic industry’s capacity utilization was higher in this third

review than in the original investigations and prior five-year reviews. It was *** percent in 1987, ***

percent in 1998, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2009.57

Based on the record of this review, we find that the conditions of competition in the PTFE resin

market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, in this

review, we find that the current conditions of competition provide us with a reasonable basis on which to

assess the likely effects of revocation of the order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.58 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.59

1. The Original Investigations and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject

imports was significant. In so doing, it noted that the subject imports increased sharply during the period

of investigation. Specifically, it found that from 1985 to 1987, shipments of cumulated subject imports

increased by *** percent.60 At the same time, it noted that the market share of cumulated subject imports

increased from *** percent in 1985 to *** percent in 1987.61

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that cumulated subject import volume would

likely be significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United

States, if the orders were revoked. The Commission found that the Italian and Japanese producers were

likely to commence significant exports to the United States upon revocation based on: their past ability to

 55 Second Review Determination at 19-20.

 56 Second Review Determination at 19-20.

 57 CR/PR at Table I-1; CR at I-14; PR at I-10. 

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 59 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 60 Original Determination at 26.

 61 Original Determination at 26.

10
easily divert PTFE resin shipments from their home markets to the United States, their export orientation,

their substantial apparent capacity, and their incentive to maintain high capacity utilization rates.62

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that the cumulated subject import volume

was likely to be significant if the orders were revoked. It noted that there was substantial production

capacity in the subject countries and that the combined production capacity of the Italian and Japanese

subject producers was equal to nearly *** percent of U.S. production and *** percent of U.S.

consumption in 2004.63 It also noted that the Italian producer’s substantial presence in the U.S. market

demonstrated that it relied extensively on the U.S. market to maintain capacity utilization levels and that,

because the U.S. market was attractive because of its higher prices relative to most other markets and

relatively large size, the Italian producer had additional incentive to increase its exports to the United

States if the orders were revoked.64

3. The Current Review

Notwithstanding the restraining effects of the order, imports from Italy accounted for *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009, compared with *** percent in 1987, *** percent in 1998, and ***

percent in 2004.65 66 Thus, it is evident that, even with the order in place, subject imports have been able

to increase their presence in the U.S. market.67

 Two additional factors support the conclusion that the subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation of the order. First, the Italian PTFE resin industry has substantial

production capacity. At the time of the first reviews, Italian capacity to produce granular PTFE resin was

estimated to be *** pounds, a *** percent increase over its reported capacity in 1987 during

 the original investigations.68 In this third five-year review, the sole producer of PTFE resin in Italy,

Solvay Solexis S.p.A. (“Solvay Solexis”), did not respond to the Commission’s notice of institution or

requests for information. DuPont, however, estimates that Solvay Solexis increased its production

capacity to 14.3 million pounds in 2007 by expanding its production facility in Spinetta Marengo, Italy.69

Although it is uncertain whether Solvay Solexis’s increased capacity pertains only to PTFE resin or

includes other PTFE products, the record indicates that Solvay Solexis has significant production capacity

for the subject product.

Second, the U.S. market is an attractive market because of its higher prices relative to most other

markets and its relatively large size.70 Thus, Solvay Solexis has an incentive to increase its exports of

PTFE resin to the United States if the order were revoked.

Based on the large and increasing presence of subject imports in the U.S. market, the size of the

PTFE resin industry in Italy, and the size and attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that the Italian

producer would likely increase its exports to the United States above their already significant level if the

antidumping duty order were revoked. Thus, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in

absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the order were revoked.

 62 First Review Determination at 14-15.

 63 Second Review Determination at 22-23.

 64 Second Review Determination at 19. 

 65 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 66 Subject import volume declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, increased to *** pounds in

2008, decreased to *** pounds in 2009, and then dropped to *** pounds in 2010. CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 67 First Review CR/PR at Table I-6.

 68 First Review CR/PR at Table I-4.

 69 DuPont Response to Notice of Institution at 6; CR at I-18; PR at I-13. 

 70 DuPont Response to Notice of Institution at 7.

11
D. Likely Price Effects

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if an antidumping duty order is revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise

would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.71

1. The Original Investigations and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like

product were relatively substitutable, that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions, that

subject imports consistently undersold the domestic like product by significant margins, and that domestic

prices declined as a result.72

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission determined that revocation of the orders would

likely lead to significant underselling and significant price depression and suppression within a

reasonably foreseeable time.73 It noted that, although the evidence in the record as to then-current pricing

was limited, it appeared that cumulated subject imports continued to undersell the domestic like product.74

The Commission found that, in light of the continued underselling despite the existence of the orders, the

importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the incentive of producers to maximize capacity

utilization, cumulated subject imports would likely enter the United States at prices that would

significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices.75

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that, if the orders were revoked,

significant volumes of cumulated subject imports likely would significantly undersell the domestic like

product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the

prices of the domestic like product within a reasonably foreseeable time. In support of its findings, the

Commission noted that in the original period of investigation, subject imports from both Italy and Japan

consistently undersold the domestic like product.76 The Commission found that prices for domestic PTFE

resin had declined, although not steadily, over the second period of review. 77 The Commission

underscored that there was an incentive for subject producers from both countries to ship to the U.S.

market because subject producers would be able to receive a higher price in the United States relative to

third-country markets, even if they undersold the U.S. product to increase sales.78 In light of the

importance of price in the market, the substitutability of the domestic and subject imported products, the

negative price effects of low-priced imports in the original investigations, the underselling by subject

imports during the original investigations, and the incentive to obtain market share in the relatively high-

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 72 Original Determination at 26.

 73 First Review Determination at 15.

 74 First Review Determination at 15.

 75 First Review Determination at 15.

 76 Second Review Determination at 21. 

 77 Second Review Determination at 21. 

 78 Second Review Determination at 22. 

12
priced, large, and stable U.S. market, the Commission found it likely that cumulated subject imports from

Italy and Japan would have adverse price effects on domestic prices.79

2. The Current Review

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of this third five-year review. 

According to information provided by DuPont, the average unit value (“AUV”) of subject imports from

Italy in 2009 ($2.55 per pound) was significantly lower than the AUV of U.S shipments reported by the

domestic industry ($5.46 per pound) in that same year.80 In 2009, the AUV of subject imports from Italy

also was lower than the AUV of imports from nonsubject countries, including Russia ($2.81 per pound),

India ($2.88 per pound), China ($3.86 per pound), the Netherlands ($4.36 per pound), Germany

($5.32 per pound), the United Kingdom ($6.70 per pound), and Japan ($7.13 per pound).81 Accordingly,

the AUV data collected by the Commission in this review indicate that subject imports continue to

compete aggressively on price in the U.S. market, even with the order in place.82

As discussed above, in light of the maturity of the U.S. PTFE resin market, the general

substitutability between the domestic like product and imports from all sources, and the importance of

price in purchasing decisions, we find that the U.S. market for PTFE resin is price competitive. We also

find it likely that subject imports would undersell domestic PTFE resin, as occurred in the original period

of investigation, in order to increase market share. In response, domestic producers would have to either

reduce their prices or relinquish market share. Accordingly, we find that, if the order were revoked, the

likely significant increase in subject import volume at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like

product would be likely to have significant adverse price effects on the domestic industry.

E. Likely Impact83

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orders

under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.84 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

 79 Second Review Determination at 22. 

 80 CR/PR at Table I-4; CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 81 CR/PR at Table I-4; CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 82 CR/PR at Table I-4; CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 83 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty

order, Commerce published a likely dumping margin of 46.46 percent for Montefluos S.p.A./Ausimont U.S.A. and

all others. CR/PR at I-5; 76 FR 12939 (March 9, 2011). 

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

13
industry.85 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the order were revoked.

1. The Original Investigations and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the increasing volume of the low-priced

cumulated subject imports depressed prices and caused the U.S. industry to suffer growing financial

losses despite increasing apparent U.S. consumption.86 It noted that U.S. consumption of granular PTFE

resin increased substantially, from *** pounds in 1985 to *** pounds in 1987.87 It further noted that U.S.

domestic shipments increased from *** pounds in 1985 to *** pounds in 1987.88 The Commission also

found that domestic capacity utilization for PTFE resin production fell, income-and-loss data for PTFE

resin operations showed declines, and the industry suffered growing operating losses during the period of

investigation, with net income following a similar trend.89

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that material injury would likely continue or

recur should the antidumping duty orders be revoked.90 It found that revocation likely would lead to

significant increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports at prices that would undersell the

domestic product and significantly depress U.S. prices.91 It found that the volume and price effects of the

cumulated subject imports likely would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry and

would likely cause the domestic industry to lose market share.92 Moreover, it concluded that the loss in

market share and subsequent decrease in capacity utilization would be particularly harmful in this capitalintensive industry. The Commission observed that price and volume declines would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, shipments, sales, revenue, employment,

profitability, and ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments.93

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission again found that revocation would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. The Commission noted that the domestic industry’s

condition began to deteriorate after 2001 and that the domestic industry generally experienced declines in

shipments from 2000 to 2003, although shipments improved somewhat in 2004.94 Given the overall

financial deterioration of the domestic industry, the Commission found that the domestic industry was

vulnerable.95 It concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would lead to significant

increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports at prices that would undersell the domestic product

and significantly depress U.S. prices and that the volume and price effects of the cumulated subject

imports would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry and would likely cause the

 85 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 86 Original Determination at 29.

 87 Original Determination at 18.

 88 Original Determination at 18.

 89 Original Determination at 21-22.

 90 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission did not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. First Review

Determination at 17-18. 

 91 First Review Determination at 18.

 92 First Review Determination at 18.

 93 First Review Determination at 18.

 94 Second Review Determination at 23-24. 

 95 Second Review Determination at 24. 

14
domestic industry to lose market share.96 Moreover, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s

loss in market share and subsequent decrease in capacity utilization would be particularly harmful in this

capital-intensive industry.97

2. The Current Review

In this review, the record information on the domestic industry’s condition is limited. We

collected 2009 data for several performance indicators, but no new data for other periods. The limited

record is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.98

The data show that, compared to the last five-year reviews, the domestic industry has become

smaller, and virtually all its performance indicators are significantly lower. In 2009, the domestic

industry’s capacity and production were *** pounds, and its rate of capacity utilization was *** percent.99

The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were *** pounds, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption; its net sales value was ***; its gross profits were ***; and its operating income was ***,

equivalent to *** percent of net sales.100 101

Based on the record of this review, we find that, should the order be revoked, the likely volume

and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these indicators of

industry performance would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and

employment, as well as its ability to raise capital, make and maintain capital investments, and fund

research and development. As discussed above, because the PTFE resin industry has high fixed costs and

must operate at high capacity utilization rates in order to remain profitable, significant declines in the

domestic industry’s sales volume would likely result in a rapid decline in the industry’s profitability.

We also have considered the role of factors other than the subject imports so as not to attribute

injury from such factors to subject imports. The share of the U.S. market held by nonsubject imports has

continued to increase since the last reviews; it was *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in 2009.102 We

nevertheless find that a significant portion of the expected increase in subject imports would continue to

be at the expense of the domestic industry given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverse

price effects. Also, as discussed above, in 2009, the AUV of subject imports was significantly lower than

 96 Second Review Determination at 24. 

 97 Second Review Determination at 24. 

 98 Commissioner Pinkert finds that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to material injury if the antidumping

order is revoked. Although the industry’s reported production, capacity, shipments, and net sales were lower in 2009

than in 2004 (the most recent year covered by the second five-year review), the industry nevertheless maintained a

capacity utilization in 2009 of *** percent and had an operating income margin of *** percent. Moreover, operating

income in 2009 was, at ***, up substantially from the 2004 level, when the domestic industry had operating losses

totaling ***. CR at I-14; PR at I-10; Second Review CR/PR at Table I-1.

 99 CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 100 CR at I-14; PR at I-10. 

 101 In 2004, the domestic industry’s production was *** million pounds; its production capacity was *** pounds;

its capacity utilization was *** percent; its U.S. shipments were *** pounds; and its gross profits were ***. Second

Review CR/PR at Table I-1. However, the domestic industry’s operating income in 2009 (***) was higher than in

2004, when the domestic industry had operating losses totaling $2.4 million. CR at I-14; PR at I-10; Second Review

CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 102 Nonsubject import market share was *** percent in 1987 and *** percent in 1998. CR at I-14; PR at I-10;

Second Review CR/PR at Table I-1. 

15
the AUV of U.S shipments reported by the domestic industry and the AUV of imports from nonsubject

countries.103

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject imports from

Italy would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on PTFE

resin from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 103 CR/PR at Table I-4; CR at I-14; PR at I-10. 

16
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-1
 
INTRODUCTION

On November 1, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”),1

as amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice that it had instituted

five-year reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”) resin from Italy and Japan would be likely to lead to a continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On January 20, 2011, the

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published notice that it was revoking the order on Japan

effective December 22, 2010, because “the domestic parties did not participate in this review.” The

Commission subsequently terminated its five-year review concerning granular PTFE resin from Japan.4

Hence, granular PTFE resin from Italy is the only remaining order subject to this review.

On May 2, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to

its notice of institution was adequate.5

 The Commission also determined that the respondent interested

party group response was inadequate.6

 The Commission found no other circumstances that would warrant

conducting a full review.7

 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.8

 The Commission is tentatively scheduled to vote on

these reviews on June 21, 2011, and to notify Commerce of its determinations on June 29, 2011. 

Information relating to the background of the reviews is presented in the tabulation below.

Effective date Action

November 1, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year review (75 FR 67105)

November 1, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review (76 FR 2083, January 12, 2011; 75 FR 67082)

March 9, 2011 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review (76 FR 12939)

May 2, 2011

Commission’s decision to conduct an expedited five-year review (76 FR 28455,

May 17, 2011)

June 21, 2011 Scheduled date for the Commission’s vote

June 29, 2011 Commission’s determination due to Commerce

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 1 19 U.S.C. §1675(c).

 2

 All interested parties were requested to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the

Commission. 75 FR 67105, November 1, 2010. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented

in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of the five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 75 FR 67082, November 1, 2010. 

 4

 76 FR 3614, January, 20, 2011; and 76 FR 8774, February 15, 2011.

 5

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”) (referred to herein as “domestic interested party”), a

domestic producer of granular PTFE resin. The domestic interested party reported that it accounted for all U.S.

production of granular PTFE resin in 2009. Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 9.

 6

 The Commission received no responses to its notice of institution from respondent interested parties.

 7

 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. B. 

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). See the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov) for Commissioner votes on

whether to conduct expedited or full reviews. 

I-3
The Original Investigations and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

On November 6, 1987, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of granular PTFE resin

from Italy and Japan.9

 In July 1988, Commerce made final affirmative dumping determinations, with

margins as follows: Italy - Montefluos S.p.A./Ausimont U.S.A.,10 46.46 percent, and all others,

46.46 percent; Japan - Daikin Industries, Inc., 103.00 percent, Asahi Fluoropolymers Co., Ltd.,

51.45 percent; and all others, 91.74 percent.11 The Commission made its final affirmative injury

determinations in August 1988, and Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on August 24, 1988

(Japan) and August 30, 1988 (Italy).12

The Commission instituted the first five-year reviews of the subject orders on May 3, 1999, and

gave notice on August 16, 1999 that it would conduct expedited reviews.13 On December 3, 1999,

Commerce published its determination that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on granular PTFE

resin from Italy and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates

determined in the original investigations.14 The Commission determined that material injury would be

likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time, and published its determination on

December 27, 1999. Commerce published notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on

February 8, 2000.15

The Commission instituted the second five-year reviews of the subject orders on

December 1, 2004, and gave notice on March 23, 2005 that it would conduct full reviews.16 On

July 6, 2005, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on granular PTFE resin

from Italy and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates

determined in the original investigations and first reviews.17 The Commission determined that material

injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time, and published its

determination on December 8, 2005. Commerce published notice of the continuation of the antidumping

duty orders on December 22, 2005.18

 9 The petition was filed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (“DuPont”).

 10 Solvay Solexis S.p.A. and Solvay Solexis, Inc. are successors-in-interest to Ausimont S.p.A. and Ausimont

U.S.A. Inc. See 68 FR 25327, May 12, 2003.

 11 53 FR 26096, July 11, 1988 (Italy); and 53 FR 25191, July 5, 1988 (Japan).

 12 53 FR 32478, Aug. 25, 1988; 53 FR 32267, August 24, 1988 (Japan); and 53 FR 33163, August 30, 1988

(Italy).

 13 64 FR 23677, May 3, 1999; and 64 FR 44537, Aug. 16, 1999.

 14 64 FR 67865, Dec. 3, 1999.

 15 64 FR 72362, Dec. 27, 1999; and 65 FR 6147, Feb. 8, 2000.

 16 69 FR 69954, Dec. 1, 2004; and 70 FR 14713, Mar. 23, 2005.

 17 70 FR 38872, July 1, 2005.

 18 70 FR 73026, Dec. 8, 2005; and 70 FR 76026, Dec. 22, 2005.

I-4
Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the result of its review based on the facts available on March 9, 2011. 

Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average

margins: Montefluos S.p.A./Ausimont U.S.A. (46.46 percent) and All Others (46.46 percent).19

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Commerce has completed 11 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on granular

PTFE resin from Italy. Although there have been one circumvention finding20 and one changed

circumstances determination,21 there have been no duty absorption findings. Information on Commerce’s

administrative reviews is presented in the following tabulation.

Period of review Date results published Margin (percent) 

04/20/1988 - 07/31/1989 December 11, 1990 (55 FR 50854)

Montefluous 20.79

All others 20.79

08/01/1989 - 07/31/1990 November 15, 1991 (56 FR 58031)

Montefluous 23.57

All others 23.57

08/01/1991 - 07/31/1992 April 21, 1995 (60 FR 19884)

Ausimont 13.31

All others 46.46

08/01/1992 - 07/31/1993 October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53737)

Ausimont 2.26

All others 46.46

08/01/1993 - 07/31/1994 May 20, 1996 (61 FR 25195)

Ausimont 6.64

All others 46.46

08/01/1994 - 07/31/1995

February 6, 1997 (62 FR 5590) and

April 29, 1997 (62 FR 23219)

Ausimont 15.21

All others 46.46

08/01/1995 - 07/31/1996 September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48592)

Ausimont 5.95

All others 46.46

08/01/1996 - 07/31/1997 September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49080)

Ausimont 45.72

All others 46.46

08/01/1998 - 07/31/1999 September 12, 2000 (65 FR 54993)

Ausimont 0.72

All others 46.46

08/01/1999 - 07/31/2000 January 15, 2002 (67 FR 1960)

Ausimont 2.15

All others 46.46

08/01/2000 - 07/31/2001 January 15, 2003 (68 FR 2007)

Ausimont 12.08

All others 46.46

 19 76 FR 12939, March 9, 2011.

 20 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings and

circumvention findings.

 21 In March 2003, Commerce published notice of the final results of its changed circumstances review,

determining that Solvay Solexis S.p.A. and Solvay Solexis, Inc. are successors-in-interest to Ausimont S.p.A. and

Ausimont U.S.A. Inc. See 68 FR 25327, May 12, 2003.

I-5
Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other investigations or reviews concerning granular PTFE

resin.

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

In the result of its expedited five-year review, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as:

The product covered by the order is PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. The order also

covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. See

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Final Affirmative

Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 26100

(April 30, 1993). The order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine

powders.22 23

Tariff Treatment

During the period covered by this review, subject merchandise was classified in Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) subheading 3904.61.00. This HTS subheading covers

goods not included in the scope of this order, as it also includes PTFE dispersions in water, as well as fine

powders. Subject granular PTFE resin was separately provided for so that import data would be reported

under a new statistical category, HTS statistical reporting number 3904.61.0010, that first appeared in the

2005 HTS, Supplement 1, effective July 1, 2005.

Physical Characteristics24

Granular PTFE resin is a high molecular weight crystalline polymer produced by the aqueous

suspension polymerization of tetrafluoroethylene monomer. PTFE resin polymers are commonly known

as Teflon®, a product of DuPont, although every producer of PTFE resin has its own specific trade

name.25 The subject product is a specialty white, waxy crystalline fluoropolymer material known for its

chemical inertness, excellent heat and chemical resistance, electrical insulation properties, mechanical

strength and toughness, low coefficient of friction (lubricity), and functionality over a wide temperature

range. The product may be produced as a fully fluorinated homopolymer or contain certain copolymer

additives that aid in the fabrication of end use products by significantly reducing the melt viscosity. The

product typically ranges in particle size from 20 microns (μ) and a bulk density of 250 grams per liter

 22 76 FR 12939, March 9, 2011.

 23 Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of

the scope is dispositive.

 24 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3823, December 2005, p. I-7.

 25 Teflon® is DuPont’s registered trademark for a wide variety of fluorinated polymers. Daikin’s PTFE products

are sold under the PolyflonTM name, while Dyneon’s PTFE products are sold under various DyneonTM designations. 

I-6
(g/l), to 650μ and 705g/l depending upon the end-use application.26 It is commonly sold in several

different grades, including various sizes of powder (including presintered powder), as pellets, and as

compounded molding powders containing fillers like fiberglass and carbon. Filled compounds, known as

compounded molding powders in the industry, are easily produced from PTFE granular powders by

mixing 5 percent to 60 percent by weight of inorganic fillers that selectively enhance properties.

Uses27 28

Because of its high molecular weight and concomitant high melting point and melt viscosity,

subject PTFE resin cannot be processed by conventional thermoplastic methods such as injection molding

or extrusion. Thus, the product is typically processed by the more physically demanding processes of

compression molding or ram extrusion, followed by fusing the individual PTFE particles together

(sintering) at temperatures just below the melting point. Compression molded products are typically

fabricated into basic stock shapes of cylinders and cubes to be machined into seals, bearings, bushings,

piston rings, and diaphragms. Additionally, sheet is skived (mechanically shaved) for chemical vessel

linings and gaskets. Ram extrusion products29 are typically fabricated into solid rods, tubing, and

extruded profiles to be machined into seals, bushings, piston rings, and linings for chemical pipe. 

Finely divided granular PTFE powders known as “fine cut” in the industry are used for a variety

of applications including high-performance mechanical and electrical applications, skived film and sheet,

gaskets, bridge or pipeline bearing pads, piston rings, diaphragms, seal rings, valve seats, and linings. 

Pelletized resins are preferred for the fabrication of ball valve seats, seals, discs, labware, and smaller

parts. These resins are also used to produce tank and pipe linings, ducting and expansion joints and

bellows, piston rings, and other large complex moldings. Parts fabricated from pelletized resins have

superior physical and electrical properties. Other selected properties of various pelletized grades are high

tensile strength and surface smoothness, and free flowing characteristics excellent for high-speed

automatic molding applications. Presintered resins are hard, free-flowing materials with excellent tensile

strength properties. These resins are typically used to produce rods, tubing, and profiles formed by ram

extrusion. During the second review, presintered forms were roughly ***.30

Manufacturing Processes31

Granular PTFE resin is synthesized by the aqueous suspension polymerization of

tetrafluoroethylene monomer alone or in combination with relatively smaller amounts of copolymer

additives. The resulting white polymer is characterized by long, stringy, irregular particles roughly threeeighths inch in length and flexible in nature. Following the cessation of vigorous agitation, the stringy

particles settle to the bottom of the reactor where they are discharged as wet raw polymer. Wet raw

 26 A micron is one millionth of a meter.

 27 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3823, December 2005, p. I-7 and I-8.

 28 Domestically produced granular PTFE resin is typically compounded by downstream processors in the United

States, while most imports of granular PTFE resin are thought to be in compound form.

 29 Ram extrusion is a continuous molding process.

 30 Staff Report on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386

(Second Review), Inv. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), November 10, 2005, INV-CC-192, p. I-15.

 31 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3823, December 2005, p. I-8.

I-7
polymer flows in two different directions: (1) for pelleting; and (2) for the production of fine to ultra-fine

granular powder and presintered granular powder. Pelleted product is formed by passing wet raw

polymer through a *** and then pelletized, dried and discharged to a pack-out facility. Granular powders

are formed by *** where it is dried and then *** to produce finished fine cut resin products of varying

sizes. ***.32

In the second five-year review, producers were asked whether, since 1988, they produced other

products on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of granular PTFE resin or used the

same production and related workers employed to produce granular PTFE resin, or anticipated doing so in

the future. *** answered “No.”33

Domestic Like Product Issues

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the

subject imported products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price.34

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the like product consisted of all granular

PTFE resin, both filled and unfilled, coextensive with the scope of the investigations and with the like

product argued for by petitioner DuPont and supported by the second-largest U.S. producer (at that time),

ICI Americas, Inc.35 Respondent Ausimont U.S.A. had argued that there were two domestic like products

consisting of (1) unfilled granular PTFE resin of all grades and (2) all filled granular PTFE resin,

regardless of the type or amount of filler.

The Commission found that unfilled PTFE resin is the basic component of all filled resin,

although the nature, volume, and value of the fillers differ. The “need” for further processing, i.e., filling,

depended on the intended use of the manufactured product. Filled PTFE resin retained the desirable

qualities of the unfilled product to various degrees, while meeting the additional requirements of various

applications (different fillers in varying proportions impart qualities to, or enhance certain qualities of, the

unfilled PTFE). The Commission found that compared to the costs of manufacturing the unfilled PTFE

resin, the costs of compounding (filling), exclusive of material costs, were low, and the equipment for

filling operations was significantly less expensive than the equipment for the manufacture of unfilled

resin. With regard to interchangeability, the choice of unfilled or a specific filled PTFE resin for

production of a specific product depended largely on the intended use of the product and the qualities

necessary for that end use, and for at least some end uses, filled and unfilled PTFE resins were

interchangeable. Both filled and unfilled PTFE resins were processed into various articles of trade on the

same types of processing equipment, and many of these articles were produced from either unfilled or

 32 Staff Report on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386

(Second Review), Inv. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), November 10, 2005, INV-CC-192, p. I-15.

 33 Ibid.

 34 If the subject product is an intermediate product, the Commission may employ its five-factor

“semifinished/finished products” test consisting of (1) uses (whether the upstream product is dedicated to the

production of the downstream product); (2) markets (whether there are separate markets for the upstream and

downstream products); (3) characteristics and functions (whether there are differences in the physical characteristics

and functions of the upstream and downstream products); (4) value (whether there are differences in the production

costs and/or sales values (transfer values or market prices as appropriate) of the upstream and downstream products);

and (5) transformation processes (the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream product

into the downstream product).

 35 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, USITC Publication 2112, August 1988,

pp. 3-13.

I-8
filled PTFE resin. Filled and unfilled resin were manufactured by different processes: production of the

unfilled product was initially a chemical process, followed by drying, grinding, and baking, whereas the

production of the filled product was a mechanical operation devoted to evenly compounding an unfilled

resin with filler materials of differing types and quantities. The two operations were carried out on

different equipment.36

In the first and second reviews, the Commission found that the like product consisted of granular

PTFE resin, coextensive with the scope of the investigations, for the reasons stated in the Commission’s

views in the original investigations.37 38

The information regarding the nature of granular PTFE resin is unchanged since the

Commission’s second five-year review. Domestic producer DuPont indicated in its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution in this third five-year review that it does not object to the

Commission’s domestic like product and domestic industry definitions.39 Also, DuPont continues to

emphasize the interchangeability of domestic and imported products as a key condition of competition

and the price sensitivity of the U.S. market.40 Purchasers *** and *** reported that there have been no

changes (and do not anticipate any changes) in technology; production methods; or development efforts

to produce granular PTFE resin that would affect the availability of PTFE in the U.S. market or in the

market for granular PTFE resin in Italy within a reasonably foreseeable time. They also reported no

change in the end uses for granular PTFE resin, and no change in the existence or availability of substitute

products.41

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

During the second reviews, there were three known U.S. producers of unfilled granular PTFE

resin: (1) DuPont (2) AGC Chemicals America, Inc. (“AGC”); and (3) Daikin America, Inc. (“Daikin”). 

AGC and Dyneon LLC (“Dyneon”) also produced filled granular PTFE resin during the period of the last

review. In addition, PTFE Compounds produced (only) filled granular PTFE, from unfilled product that

was ***. *** produced the unfilled product directly from raw materials, or from “scratch,” meaning that

they produced only granular PTFE resin from PTFE wet raw polymer. ***.42

 36 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, USITC Publication 2112, August 1988, pp. 3-

13.

 37 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, USITC Publication 3260, December 1999, pp. 4-

5; and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3823, December 2005, pp. 4-5. 

 38 The Commission noted that the scope of the first review concerning Italy was slightly broader than the scope

in the original investigation on Italy, as a result of Commerce’s amending of the scope on Italy in 1993 to cover wet

raw polymer, an intermediate product exported from Italy to the United States. The amendment of the scope raised

the possibility of two domestic like products (granular PTFE resin and wet raw polymer). However, no party argued

for two domestic like products. The Commission stated that it appeared that the two products shared fundamental

characteristics and that there was no domestic production of wet raw polymer for sale. Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, USITC Publication 3260, December 1999, p. 4, n. 18.

 39 Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 10.

 40 Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 4.

 41 Purchaser survey responses of *** and ***.

 42 Staff Report on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386

(Second Review), Inv. Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review), November 10, 2005, INV-CC-192, p. I-18-I-19.

I-9
DuPont is the largest known producer of PTFE (which consists not only of granular PTFE resin

but also of PTFE fine powder and PTFE aqueous dispersions) in the United States and globally. The firm

has a total annual PTFE capacity of approximately *** pounds globally, and *** pounds in the United

States. Its other plants are in the Netherlands (*** pounds) and Japan (*** pounds).43

During this third expedited review, one firm (DuPont) provided the Commission with a response

to its notice of institution. DuPont claims to be the only current producer of subject PTFE granular virgin

resin in the United States.44 45

U.S. Producer’s Trade and Financial Data

Domestic interested parties were requested by the Commission to present certain data in their

response to the notice of institution.46 The following tabulation presents DuPont’s data (the only U.S.

producer to respond to the Commission’s request for information) on its operations in 2009 ( in 1,000

pounds, $1,000, and dollars per pound). Reported production and capacity for 2009 is lower than the

data reported for the most recent full year for the period during the second full review (2004). In 2004,

U.S. granular PTFE industry’s capacity was *** pounds, *** current reported capacity. Production

(*** pounds), U.S. shipments (*** pounds valued at $***),and net sales (*** pounds valued at $***)

followed this same trend.47

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

The Commission noted in the original investigation that there was at least one firm that imported

granular PTFE resin from Italy. The interested parties in the full second five-year review stated in their

responses that since 1987, the affiliates of Solvay Solexis and its predecessor, Ausimont, have been the

main importers of subject merchandise from Italy. DuPont indicated in its response to the Commission's

notice of institution in this current third five-year review that the following four firms are currently

operating U.S. importers of the subject merchandise: Solvay Solexis, Inc.; Dyneon; Daikin America, Inc.;

and AGC.48

The quantity and value of granular PTFE resin that entered the United States from Italy under

HTS statistical reporting number 3904.61.0010 during calendar year 2009 are as follows: 1.49 million

pounds and $3.8 million. Data regarding U.S. imports of granular PTFE resin, as reported by Commerce,

 43 Ibid., p. I-19.

 44 DuPont’s subject granular PTFE production in 2009 was reported to be about *** pounds. Response of

domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 10.

 45 In its response to the Commission's notice of institution, DuPont reported that there were no related party

issues. However, the producer has a joint venture with Japanese company Mitsui DuPont Fluorochemicals, which

manufactures and exports granular PTFE resin. ***. DuPont's response to Commission questions, March 31, 2011,

p. 2.

 46 Total U.S. industry data for 2009, the only year for which data were collected, is compiled from DuPont’s

response to the Commission’s notice of institution.

 47 Data from the original investigation and subsequent five-year reviews are presented in Appendix C.

 48 Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 8.

I-10
are presented in table I-1.49 Italian imports fell from 5.5 million pounds (valued at $18.9 million) in 2006

to 0.8 million pounds ($2.3 million) in 2010 while all other imports rose from 6.6 million pounds

($24.6 million) to 14.9 million pounds ($54.8 million) during the same period.

Table I-1

Granular PTFE resin: U.S. imports, by source, 2006-101

Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Italy 5,480 4,588 5,665 1,488 770

China 1,441 1,731 3,088 2,083 5,416

Russia 2,936 2,524 2,326 1,685 2,775

Germany 1,660 1,561 1,713 791 1,466

India 0 0 501 652 3,004

United Kingdom 488 318 1,060 430 805

Netherlands 109 48 147 121 1,340

Japan 5 17 89 681 21

All other 7 90 5 4 49

Total imports 12,127 10,878 14,593 7,935 15,646

Value ($1,000)

Italy 18,922 15,834 21,097 3,798 2,319

China 5,624 8,488 12,520 8,034 19,323

Russia 7,837 6,534 7,269 4,742 8,830

Germany 8,733 9,427 9,467 4,204 8,123

India 0 5 1,500 1,875 8,570

United Kingdom 1,828 1,550 6,688 2,882 4,634

Netherlands 481 181 554 531 4,867

Japan 32 95 701 4,859 287

All other 42 180 34 32 141

Total imports 43,499 42,295 59,831 30,956 57,094

Table continued on next page.

 49 Data for 2005 are not available. HTS statistical reporting number 3904.61.0010, which contains only subject

merchandise, became effective in mid-2005.

I-11
Table I-4--Continued

Granular PTFE resin: U.S. imports, by source, 2006-20101

Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Unit value ($/pound)

Italy $3.45 $3.45 $3.72 $2.55 $3.01

China $3.90 $4.90 $4.05 $3.86 $3.57

Russia $2.67 $2.59 $3.12 $2.81 $3.18

Germany $5.26 $6.04 $5.53 $5.32 $5.54

India -- $16.34 $2.99 $2.88 $2.85

United Kingdom $3.74 $4.87 $6.31 $6.70 $5.75

Netherlands $4.42 $3.79 $3.77 $4.39 $3.63

Japan $6.84 $5.71 $7.91 $7.13 $13.82

All other $5.81 $2.00 $7.23 $7.04 $2.88

Average $3.59 $3.89 $4.10 $3.90 $3.65

 1 No imports reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3904.61.0010 until January 2006, which contains

only subject merchandise, that became effective in mid-2005.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 3904.61.0010.

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent consumption, based upon U.S. shipments and imports, in 2009 was *** million pounds

(valued at $*** million). Domestic production accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption,

while imports from Italy accounted for *** percent. Purchaser *** reported that granular resins and raw

materials (the prices of which have increased) are in tight supply.50 *** also emphasizes China as playing

a larger role in the market (raw material and finished products) and asserts that China has taken some U.S.

market share from the domestic producer.51

SUMMARY DATA

Appendix C presents selected data from all investigations and reviews that the Commission has

compiled regarding granular PTFE resin since the original investigations. 

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, subject granular PTFE resin from Italy has not been subject to

any other import relief investigations in any other countries.

 50 The company credited the tight supply of granular resins to the 2007 shutdown of AGC’s Bayonne, NJ facility,

and to *** decision to shift the majority of its “free flow” products from the U.S. to its facility in ***. *** also

reported that several manufacturers rationed granular resins during 2009-10. Purchaser survey response of ***.

 51 Purchaser survey responses of ***.

I-12
THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

Solvay Solexis (Solvay) is the only known producer of PTFE resins in Italy. In 2008, this

Belgian owned firm had a reported aggregate annual production capability for ***, following a ***. 

Solvay was reportedly *** for a family of *** at its fluorinated polymers plant at Spinetta Marengo,

Italy.52 DuPont contends that a 30 percent rise in Solvay’s Italian PTFE capacity to 14.3 million pounds

between 2005-07 would increase the vulnerability of the domestic market to harmful effects from a

foreseeable, near-term influx of aggressively priced granular PTFE resin imports from Italy that would

occur if the antidumping order were lifted.53 DuPont asserts that in fall 2008, granular PTFE resin sold

for $5 per kilogram in the European Union (“E.U.”), while in the United States it sold for $9. DuPont

argues that in the absence of the antidumping duty order, Italian granular PTFE resin could fetch a price

80 percent higher in the U.S. when compared with the E.U. market. Further, the U.S. currently imports

approximately 60 percent of granular PTFE resin produced in the E.U. DuPont states that “if the order is

revoked, the U.S. market would become even more attractive for Solvay, which would lead to widespread

underselling of domestic producers of PTFE, as well as significant downward pressure on PTFE prices.”54

 52 ***.

 53 Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 5.

 54 Response of domestic interested party, February 28, 2011, p. 7.

I-13
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

67082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 

adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 

1/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 1/22/ 

09). The ASF is an option for grantees 

for the establishment or reorganization 

of general-purpose zones and can permit 

significantly greater flexibility in the 

designation of new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ 

sites for operators/users located within 

a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context 

of the Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for a general-purpose 

zone project. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed 

on October 26, 2010. 

FTZ 176 was approved by the Board 

on March 1, 1991 (Board Order 511, 56 

FR 10409, 3/12/91) and expanded on 

February 9, 2005 (Board Order 1368, 70 

FR 9613, 2/28/05), August 3, 2006 

(Board Order 1473, 71 FR 47483, 8/17/ 

06) and on January 30, 2009 (Board 

Order 1603, 74 FR 6570, 2/10/09). FTZ 

176 was reorganized under the ASF on 

August 19, 2010 (Board Order 1702, 75 

FR 52511–52512, 8/26/2010). 

The zone project currently has a 

service area that includes Winnebago, 

Stephenson, Ogle, Lee, DeKalb, and 

Boone Counties, and portions of Bureau, 

McHenry and Kane Counties, Illinois. 

The applicant is requesting authority 

to expand the service area of the zone 

to include portions of LaSalle and 

Putnam Counties, as described in the 

application. If approved, the grantee 

would be able to serve sites throughout 

the expanded service area based on 

companies’ needs for FTZ designation. 

The proposed expanded service area is 

adjacent to the Rockford Customs and 

Border Protection port of entry. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the 

FTZ Staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and to report findings 

and recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is January 3, 2011. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to January 18, 2011. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http://www.

trade.gov/ftz. For further information, 

contact Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27520 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). 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 FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–533–817 ......... 731–TA–817 ...... India ......................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–560–805 ......... 731–TA–818 ...... Indonesia .................. Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–475–826 ......... 731–TA–819 ...... Italy ........................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–588–847 ......... 731–TA–820 ...... Japan ....................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–580–836 ......... 731–TA–821 ...... South Korea ............. Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–475–703 ......... 731–TA–385 ...... Italy ........................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (3rd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–588–707 ......... 731–TA–386 ...... Japan ....................... Granular Polytetraflouroethylene (3rd Review).David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–588–866 ......... 731–TA–1090 .... Japan ....................... Superalloy Degassed Chromium ................ Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–827 ......... 731–TA–669 ...... PRC .......................... Cased Pencils (3rd Review) ....................... David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–570–804 ......... 731–TA–464 ...... PRC .......................... Sparklers (3rd Review) ............................... Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

A–533–809 ......... 731–TA–639 ...... India ......................... Forged Stainless Steel Flanges (3rd Review).Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 67083 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–583–821 ......... 731–TA–640 ...... Taiwan ...................... Forged Stainless Steel Flanges (3rd Review).Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

C–533–818 ........ 701–TA–388 ...... India ......................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

C–560–806 ........ 701–TA–389 ...... Indonesia .................. Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

C–475–827 ........ 701–TA–390 ...... Italy ........................... Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon- Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

C–580–837 ........ 701–TA–391 ...... South Korea ............. Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate (2nd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27522 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0684–XZ34 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northeast Region, NMFS, has made a 

preliminary determination that the 

subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) 

application contains all the required 

information and warrants further 

consideration. The subject EFP would 

allow commercial fishing vessels to 

conduct fishing operations that are 

otherwise restricted by the regulations 

governing the fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States. Regulations 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

require publication of this notification 

to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on applications 

for proposed EFPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by e-mail to 

NERO.EFP@noaa.gov. Written 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on the SNE Flatfish Discard 

Mortality EFP.’’ Comments may also be 

sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281– 

9135. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Vasquez, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9166, fax (978) 281– 

9135. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 67105 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–231, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2009 

(report quantity data in gross and value 

data in U.S. dollars, landed and dutypaid at the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 26, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27442 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–385 and 386 

(Third Review)] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Italy and Japan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene 

resin from Italy and Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy 

and Japan would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 1, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 14, 2011. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 24, 1988, 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping 

duty order on imports of granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Japan 

(53 FR 32267). On August 30, 1988, 

Commerce issued an antidumping duty 

order on imports of granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy 

(53 FR 33163). Following first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective January 3, 2000, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin 

from Italy and Japan (65 FR 6147, 

February 8, 2000). Following second 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective December 22, 

2005, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty orders on 

imports of granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy 

and Japan (70 FR 76026). The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

67106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 

Commission is now conducting third 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Italy and Japan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, its expedited first fiveyear review determinations, and its full 

second five-year review determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Like Product as granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin, 

coextensive with Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

its expedited first five-year review 

determinations, and its full second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry to include all U.S. producers of 

granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 1, 2010. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is January 14, 2011. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided In 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 67107 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

67108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–229, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in each Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 26, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27438 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–388–391 and 

731–TA–817–821 (Second Review)] 

Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

From India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and 

Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on cut-to-length (‘‘CTL’’) carbon 

steel plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, 

and Korea and the antidumping duty 

orders on CTL carbon steel plate from 

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty orders on CTL 

carbon steel plate from India, Indonesia, 

Italy, and Korea and the antidumping 

duty orders on CTL carbon steel plate 

from India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and 

Korea would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 1, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 14, 2011. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 10, 2000, 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) issued countervailing 

duty orders on imports of CTL carbon 

steel plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, 

and Korea (65 FR 6587) and 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

CTL carbon steel plate from India, 

Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea (65 

FR 6585). Following five-year reviews 

by Commerce and the Commission, 

effective December 6, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty orders on CTL 

carbon steel plate from India, Indonesia, 

Italy, and Korea and the antidumping 

duty orders on CTL carbon steel plate 

from India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and 

Korea (70 FR 72607). The Commission 

is now conducting second reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are India, Indonesia, Italy, 

Japan, and Korea. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations and its full first five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as all 

domestically produced CTL steel plate 

that corresponds to Commerce’s scope 

description, including grade X–70 plate, 

micro-alloy steel plate, and plate cut 

from coils. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations 

and its full first five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as all 

producers of CTL steel plate, whether 

toll producers, integrated producers, or 

processors. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 12939 

1See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 76 FR 

4292 (January 25, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

2See Letter from Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, to Interested Parties: Extending 

Surrogate Value Submission & Briefing Schedule for 

New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (February 

10, 2011). 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to 

the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, 

the deadline for completion of the 

preliminary results is now May 2, 2011. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5374 Filed 3–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of the Seventh Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5403. 

Background 

On January 25, 2011, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

in the Federal Register the Preliminary 

Results of the seventh new shipper 

reviews of certain frozen fish fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

covering the period August 1, 2009, 

through February 15, 2010.1 Subsequent 

to the publication of the Preliminary 

Results, the Department extended the 

deadlines for submission of surrogate 

values, case briefs, and rebuttal 

comments.2 The final results are 

currently due no later than April 14, 

2011. 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the 

Department to issue the final results in 

a new shipper review of an antidumping 

duty order 90 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

issued. The Department may, however, 

extend the deadline for completion of 

the final results of a new shipper review 

to 150 days if it determines that the case 

is extraordinarily complicated. See 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(2). 

The Department finds this case to be 

extraordinarily complicated because 

there is voluminous new material on the 

record regarding the surrogate value of 

whole fish that has not yet been 

considered in a completed review. The 

Department will need more time to 

analyze the data. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) 

of the Act, we are extending the time for 

the completion of the final results of 

this review by 60 days to June 13, 2011. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5385 Filed 3–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–703] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Italy: Final Results of Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated the third sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene 

resin (‘‘PTFE resin’’) from Italy. The 

Department has conducted an expedited 

sunset review of this order. As a result 

of this review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the margins identified in the Final 

Results of Review section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Shuler or Nancy Decker, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1293 or (202) 482– 

0196, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

third sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on PTFE resin from Italy 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 75 FR 67082 (November 1, 

2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On January 

12, 2011, the Federal Register published 

a correction to that notice, indicating 

that an incorrect product name for this 

case was listed in the Initiation Notice. 

See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review: Correction, 76 FR 2083 (January 

12, 2011) (‘‘Correction Notice’’). We 

allowed interested parties an extension 

of time in which to file a notice of intent 

to participate and substantive responses. 

On January 13, 2011, we also notified 

the International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) of these new deadlines. On 

January 12, 2011, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from a domestic interested party, E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours & Co. (‘‘DuPont’’ or 

‘‘domestic interested party’’). 

Submission of the notice of intent to 

participate was filed by DuPont within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i), as extended due to the 

Correction Notice. DuPont claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as a producer of 

PTFE resin in the United States. On 

February 11, 2011, the Department 

received a substantive response from the 

domestic interested party within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i), as extended due to the 

Correction Notice. We received no 

substantive responses from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is 

conducting an expedited sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. The order 

also covers PTFE wet raw polymer 

exported from Italy to the United States. 

See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 

Resin From Italy; Final Affirmative 

Determination of Circumvention of 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 

1Solvay Solexis S.p.A. and Solvay Solexis, Inc. 

are successors-in-interest to Ausimont S.p.A. and 

Ausimont U.S.A. Inc. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 

25327 (May 12, 2003). 

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 26100 

(April 30, 1993). The order excludes 

PTFE dispersions in water and fine 

powders. During the period covered by 

this review, such merchandise was 

classified under item number 

3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). We are providing this 

HTSUS number for convenience and 

customs purposes only. The written 

description of the scope remains 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 1, 2011, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were 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 the Central Records Unit in room 

7046 of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on PTFE 

resin from Italy would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

margins: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Montefluos S.p.A./Ausimont 

U.S.A.1 .................................. 46.46 

All Others .................................. 46.46 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials 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 

the results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5373 Filed 3–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3207. 

Background 

On January 28, 2011, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

covering the period December 1, 2009, 

through November 30, 2010. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011). 

On February 24, 2011, the American 

Honey Producers Association and Sioux 

Honey Association (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’) withdrew their request for 

an administrative review for the 

following companies: Ahcof Industrial 

Development Corp., Ltd.; Alfred L. 

Wolff (Beijing) Co., Ltd.; Anhui Honghui 

Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Anhui 

Honghui Import & Export Trade Co., 

Ltd.; Anhui Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs 

I/E (Group) Corporation; Anhui 

Hundred Health Foods Co., Ltd.; Anhui 

Native Produce Imp & Exp Corp.; APM 

Global Logistics (Shanghai) Co.; Baiste 

Trading Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan 

Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chengdu Stone 

Dynasty Art Stone; Damco China 

Limited Qingdao Branch; Eurasia Bee’s 

Products Co., Ltd.; Feidong Foreign 

Trade Co., Ltd.; Fresh Honey Co., Ltd. 

(formerly Mgl. Yun Shen); Golden 

Tadco Int’l; Hangzhou Golden Harvest 

Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Haoliluck Co., 

Ltd.; Hengjide Healthy Products Co. 

Ltd.; Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd.; Inner 

Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping; Inner 

Mongolia Youth Trade Development 

Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Cereals, Oils 

Foodstuffs Import Export (Group) Corp.; 

Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods 

Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry 

Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; Jilin 

Province Juhui Import; Maersk Logistics 

(China) Company Ltd.; Nefelon Limited 

Company; Ningbo Shengye Electric 

Appliance; Ningbo Shunkang Health 

Food Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Yuehai Trading 

Co., Ltd.; Product Source Marketing 

Ltd.; Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; 

QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd.; 

Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng 

Industrial Co., Ltd.; Renaissance India 

Mannite; Shaanxi Youthsun Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai Bloom International Trading 

Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., 

Ltd.; Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co., 

Ltd.; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; 

Shine Bal Co., Ltd.; Sichuan-Dujiangyan 

Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Silverstream International Co., Ltd.; 

Sunnice Honey; Suzhou Aiyi IE Trading 

Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Shanding Honey 

Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey 

Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Weigeda Trading Co., 

Ltd.; Wanxi Haohua Food Co., Ltd.; 

Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan 

Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Anjie 

Food Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Deli Foods Co. 

Ltd.; Wuhu Fenglian Co., Ltd.; Wuhu 

Qinshi Tangye; Xinjiang Jinhui Food 

Co., Ltd.; Youngster International 

Trading Co., Ltd.; and, Zhejiang Willing 

Foreign Trading Co. 

Petitioners were the only party to 

request a review of these companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. Petitioners’ 

request was submitted within the 90- 

day period and, thus, is timely. Because 

Petitioners’ withdrawal of requests for 

review is timely and because no other 

party requested a review of the


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Notices 27663 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by IDENTIFY to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

3See revised schedule, 76 FR 4936, January 27, 

2011. 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 

210.50(a)(4)). 

Issued: May 9, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11632 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–358: (Third 

Review)] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Italy; Scheduling of an Expedited 

Five-Year Review Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefania Pozzi Porter (202–205–3177; 

Stefania.PozziPorter@usitc.gov), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On May 2, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 67105, November 1, 2011) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 1, 2011, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before June 6, 

2011, and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by June 6, 2011. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination. The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B).3

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: May 9, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11647 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review) 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands and 

Sweden 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico 

and Sweden would not be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time and that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland 

and Netherlands would be likely to lead 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices 28455 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Title: 30 CFR Part 870—Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Fund—Fee 

Collection and Coal Production 

Reporting. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0063. 

SUMMARY: The information is used to 

maintain a record of coal produced for 

sale, transfer, or use nationwide each 

calendar quarter, the method of coal 

removal and the type of coal, and the 

basis for coal tonnage reporting in 

compliance with 30 CFR part 870 and 

section 401 of Public Law 95–87. 

Individual reclamation fee payment 

liability is based on this information. 

Without the collection of information 

OSM could not implement its regulatory 

responsibilities and collect the fee. 

Bureau Form Number: OSM–1. 

Frequency of Collection: Quarterly. 

Description of Respondents: Coal 

mine permittees. 

Total Annual Responses: 11,192. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,462. 

Dated May 11, 2011. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12004 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments for 1029–0092. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

its intention to request approval for the 

collections of information for StateFederal cooperative agreements. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

information collection must be received 

by July 18, 2011, to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Ave., NW., Room 202–SIB, 

Washington, DC 20240. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically to 

jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

receive a copy of the information 

collection request contact John Trelease, 

at (202) 208–2783 or by e-mail at 

jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice 

identifies information collection that 

OSM will be submitting to OMB for 

approval. This collection is contained in 

30 CFR 745—State-Federal cooperative 

agreements. Responses are required to 

obtain a benefit. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for 30 CFR 745 is 1029–0092. 

OSM will request a 3-year term of 

approval for this information collection 

activity. 

Comments are invited on: (1) The 

need for the collection of information 

for the performance of the functions of 

the agency; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (4) 

ways to minimize the information 

collection burden on respondents, such 

as use of automated means of collection 

of the information. A summary of the 

public comments will accompany 

OSM’s submission of the information 

collection request to OMB. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

This notice provides the public with 

60 days in which to comment on the 

following information collection 

activity: 

Title: 30 CFR Part 745—State-Federal 

cooperative agreements. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0092. 

SUMMARY: 30 CFR part 745 requires that 

States submit information when 

entering into a cooperative agreement 

with the Secretary of the Interior. OSM 

uses the information to make findings 

that the State has an approved program 

and will carry out the responsibilities 

mandated in the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act to regulate surface 

coal mining and reclamation activities 

on Federal lands. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Description of Respondents: State 

governments that regulate coal 

operations. 

Total Annual Responses: 11. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 600. 

Total Annual Non-Wage Costs: $0. 

Dated: May 11, 2011. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12006 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–385 (Third 

Review)] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Italy; Scheduling of an Expedited 

Five-Year Review Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefania Pozzi Porter (202–205–3177; 

Stefania.PozziPorter@usitc.gov), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Identify to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

3See revised schedule, 76 FR 4936, January 27, 

2011. 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On May 2, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 67105, November 1, 2011) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 1, 2011, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before June 6, 

2011, and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by June 6, 2011. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination. The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B).3

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: May 9, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11981 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has received a complaint 

entitled In Re Certain Muzzle-Loading 

Firearms and Components Thereof, DN 

2804; the Commission is soliciting 

comments on any public interest issues 

raised by the complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to 

the Commission, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2000. The public version of the 

complaint can be accessed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be 

available for inspection during official 

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) 

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received a complaint 

filed on behalf of Thompson/Center 

Arms Company, Inc. on May 11, 2011. 

The complaint alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain muzzleloading firearms and components 

thereof. The complaint names as 

respondents Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa 

Limitada of Bergara, Spain; Bergara 

Barrels Europe of Spain; Blackpowder 

Products Inc. of Duluth, GA; 

Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, GA; 

Bergara Barrels North America of 

Duluth, GA; Ardesa Firearms of Spain 

and Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. of 

Old Saybrook, CT. 

The complainant, proposed 

respondents, other interested parties, 

and members of the public are invited 

to file comments, not to exceed five 

pages in length, on any public interest 

issues raised by the complaint. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of an exclusion order and/or a 

cease and desist order in this 

investigation would negatively affect the 

public health and welfare in the United 

States, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the orders are used 

in the United States; 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
29008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Notices 

2All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative. 

3Because they do not find that finished heat sinks 

are a separate domestic like product, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson and Commissioner Charlotte 

R. Lane do not join in this determination. 

4Finished heat sinks are fabricated heat sinks, 

sold to electronics manufacturers, the design and 

production of which are organized around meeting 

certain specified thermal performance requirements 

and which have been fully, albeit not necessarily 

individually, tested to comply with such 

requirements.

China other than finished heat sinks, 

provided for in subheadings 7604.21, 

7604.29, and 7608.20 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States, 

that the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) has determined are 

subsidized and sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’).2 The 

Commission further determined that an 

industry in the United States is not 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or that the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is not materially retarded, 

by reason of imports of finished heat 

sinks from China.3 4

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

investigations effective March 31, 2010, 

following receipt of a petition filed with 

the Commission and Commerce by 

Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union. The final 

phase of the investigations was 

scheduled by the Commission following 

notification of a preliminary 

determinations by Commerce that 

imports of certain aluminum extrusions 

from China were subsidized within the 

meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and dumped within the 

meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of 

the final phase of the Commission’s 

investigations and of a public hearing to 

be held in connection therewith was 

given by posting copies of the notice in 

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register on 

December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80527). The 

hearing was held in Washington, DC, on 

March 29, 2011, and all persons who 

requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on May 13, 

2011. The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4229 

(May 2011), entitled Certain Aluminum 

Extrusions from China: Investigation 

Nos. 701–TA–475 and 731–TA–1177 

(Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 13, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12276 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–385 (Third 

Review)] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From Italy; Correction of Notice of 

Scheduling 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In a notice published in the 

Federal Register May 12, 2011 (76 FR 

27663), the Commission published a 

notice of scheduling of an expedited 

five-year review on an antidumping 

duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy. 

CORRECTION: The Commission hereby 

corrects the investigation number to Inv. 

No. 731–TA–385 (Third Review), and 

footnote 2 that replaces IDENTIFY with 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefania Pozzi Porter (202–205–3177; 

Stefania.PozziPorter@usitc.gov), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 13, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12277 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–227] 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and 

Consumers and on Beneficiary 

Countries; Notice of public hearing 

and opportunity to submit comments 

in connection with the 20th report on 

the economic impact of the Caribbean 

Basin Economic Recovery Act 

(CBERA). 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Section 215 of the CBERA (19 

U.S.C. 2704) requires the Commission to 

report biennially to the Congress and 

the President by September 30 of each 

reporting year on the economic impact 

of the Act on U.S. industries and U.S. 

consumers and on the economy of the 

beneficiary countries. This series of 

biennial reports was instituted as 

investigation No. 332–227, Caribbean 

Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact 

on U.S. Industries and Consumers and 

on Beneficiary Countries. The 

Commission has scheduled a public 

hearing for its 2011 CBERA report, 

covering trade during calendar years 

2009 and 2010, for June 21, 2011. 

DATES: 

June 8, 2011: Deadline for filing 

requests to appear at the public hearing. 

June 14, 2011: Deadline for filing prehearing briefs and statements. 

June 21, 2011: Public hearing. 

June 28, 2011: Deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs and statements and 

all other written submissions. 

September 30, 2011: Transmittal of 

Commission report to Congress and the 

President. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Walker Pollard (202–205–3228 or 

walker.pollard@usitc.gov), or James 

Stamps (202–205–3227 or 

james.stamps@usitc.gov) Country and 

Regional Analysis Division, Office of 

Economics, U.S. International Trade 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1
 
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

Inv. No. 731-TA-385 (Third Review)

On May 2, 2011, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review in the subject fiveyear review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §

1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a single response to its notice of institution from the sole domestic

producer of granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. The Commission

found this response to be individually adequate. The Commission also found that the domestic interested

party group response to its notice of institution was adequate. 

No responses were received from any respondent interested parties. Consequently, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review of

the order. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct an expedited review of the order.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA FROM THE SECOND REVIEW

C-1
C-2
Table I-1

Granular PTFE resin: Summary data from the original investigations, the first reviews, and the

current reviews, 1985-1987 and 1997-2004

* * * * * * *

C-3