Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30431 

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. 10–5–217, 

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. 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or 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. Hearing-impaired 

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 voted to institute this 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Knowles 

Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois 

(‘‘Knowles’’). 74 FR 68077 (Dec. 22, 

2009). The complaint named as the sole 

respondent Analog Devices Inc. of 

Norwood, Massachusetts (‘‘Analog’’). 

The accused products are microphone 

packages. Knowles’ complaint asserts 

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231, 

and numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,242,089. 

Knowles also filed with its complaint 

a motion for temporary relief that 

requested that the Commission issue a 

temporary limited exclusion order and 

temporary cease and desist order. The 

ID at issue is the ALJ’s denial of 

Knowles’ motion. In that ID, the ALJ 

analyzed the four factors for preliminary 

relief: likelihood of success on the 

merits, irreparable harm, balance of 

hardships, and public interest. 

On the likelihood of success on the 

merits, the ALJ found that all but one of 

the asserted patent claims were likely 

anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,324,907 

to Halteren. Some of these same claims 

were also likely anticipated by U.S. 

Patent No. 6,594,369 to Une. The 

remaining claim, while not invalid, was 

not likely infringed. There was no 

patent claim for which Knowles 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

the merits (i.e., as to both validity and 

infringement). 

The ID also found that Knowles had 

not demonstrated irreparable harm. In 

particular, the ID found that Analog’s 

sales of accused microphone packages 

had not caused Knowles lost sales, had 

not damaged Knowles’ relationships 

with its customers, and otherwise had 

no proven detrimental effect on 

Knowles. The ALJ found that these two 

factors (likelihood of success and 

irreparable harm) precluded temporary 

relief here. Nonetheless, the ALJ 

considered the remaining two factors 

(balance of hardships and the public 

interest). As to these remaining two 

factors, the ID found that the balance of 

hardships favored Knowles, and the ID 

also found that the public interest 

would not preclude preliminary relief. 

On review to the Commission, the 

parties filed opening and reply 

comments, as authorized by 19 CFR 

210.66(c) & (e)(1). These comments do 

not take issue with the ALJ’s findings 

regarding the balance of hardships or 

the public interest. Instead, the 

comments principally deal with 

Knowles’ likelihood of success on the 

merits, challenging various aspects of 

the ALJ’s analyses of validity and 

infringement. The private parties also 

dispute whether the Commission should 

address at all the likelihood of success, 

as Knowles now concedes to the 

Commission that it has not suffered 

irreparable harm. Thus, Knowles 

believes that the question of likelihood 

of success is moot and urges the 

Commission not to reach likelihood of 

success. Analog has taken the position 

that Knowles’ concession is 

inappropriate and that the Commission 

should decide likelihood of success. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s ID 

and the subsequent comments and reply 

comments, the Commission finds that 

even absent Knowles’ concession, 

irreparable harm has not been 

demonstrated. It was Knowles’ burden 

to demonstrate that such harm was 

likely absent temporary relief, and it 

failed to meet that burden. Winter v. 

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 

S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission 

notes, in addition to the reasons 

discussed in the ID, that Knowles did 

not seek temporary relief to exclude the 

only product it has identified that 

allegedly contains the accused 

microphone package. See Complaint of 

Knowles Elecs. LLC Under Section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended 

¶¶ 6, 18, 48–49 (Nov. 12, 2009). The 

Commission has therefore determined 

not to review the ID’s finding of lack of 

irreparable harm and the ID’s denial of 

temporary relief. The parties have not 

sought the Commission’s review as to 

the balance of hardships and public 

interest analyses, and the Commission 

has determined not to review the ID’s 

findings on those issues. 

Because irreparable harm is 

dispositive here, the Commission need 

not evaluate the likelihood of success on 

the merits, and therefore, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s finding on likelihood of success 

and to take no position on it. See Beloit 

Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984). The Commission’s decision 

enables the ALJ to assess the merits 

unburdened by Commission 

impressions that may have been formed 

on a limited temporary-relief record. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.52 and 210.66 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.52, 210.66). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 21, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12742 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review)] 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden. 

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 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

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 July 1, 2010. Comments on 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30432 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

2Commerce excluded three forms of 

carboxymethylcellulose from the scope of the 

original investigations: unpurified or crude 

carboxymethylcellulose (often called ‘‘technical 

carboxymethylcellulose’’), carboxymethylcellulose 

in fluidized polymer suspension, and 

carboxymethylcellulose that is cross-linked through 

heat treatment. 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by August 16, 

2010. 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: June 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 July 11, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

purified carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden (70 FR 39734). The Commission 

is conducting 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 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 review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Finland, Mexico, 

Netherlands, and Sweden. 

(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, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all forms of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose, as that term 

was defined by Commerce in the scope 

of the original investigations.2

(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. Based on its finding that the 

Domestic Like Product consisted of all 

purified carboxymethylcellulose, the 

Commission found in its original 

determinations that the Domestic 

Industry consisted of Aqualon, the only 

domestic producer of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose at that time. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty orders under review 

became effective. In these reviews, the 

Order Date is July 11, 2005. 

(6) 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 July 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30433 

conduct an expedited or full review. 

The deadline for filing such comments 

is August 16, 2010. 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 

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 since 

the Order Date. 

(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); 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 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. 10–5–218, 

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. 

2Following the five-year reviews, Commerce 

revoked the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate from Canada effective May 21, 2004 (70 

FR 41207, July 18, 2005). 3Following a changed circumstances review, 

Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order 

on stainless steel plate from Italy, effective 

September 4, 1998 (71 FR 15380, March 28, 2006). 

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; 

(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 since the Order 

Date, 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 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: May 24, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12760 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–376 and 379 

and 731–TA–788, 790–793 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan. 

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 stainless 

steel plate from Belgium and South 

Africa and the antidumping duty orders 

on stainless steel plate from Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

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 July 1, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by August 16, 

2010. 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: June 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.—May 11, 1999, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued countervailing duty orders on 

imports of certain stainless steel plate 

from Belgium, Italy, and South Africa 

(64 FR 25288). On May 21, 1999, 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of certain stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Canada, Italy, 

Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan (64 FR 

27756). On March 11, 2003, Commerce 

amended these antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

certain stainless steel plate to remove 

the original language that excluded 

cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils 

(68 FR 11520 and 68 FR 11524). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective July 18, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, and 

South Africa and the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium, Italy, Korea, South Africa, and 

Taiwan (70 FR 41202).2 The 

Commission is now conducting second 

reviews of the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa 3 and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES