Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54069 

1Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Dean 

A. Pinkert found that no other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review and voted for 

an expedited review. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on sorbitol from France would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. 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: October 5, 2009. 

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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31762, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A 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. 

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: October 14, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25249 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 

(Review)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2009. 

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: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31750, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Malaysia 

was adequate and decided to conduct a 

full review with respect to the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Malaysia. The Commission found that 

the respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to China and 

Thailand were inadequate. However, the 

Commission determined to conduct full 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China and Thailand to 

promote administrative efficiency in 

light of its decision to conduct a full 

review with respect to the antidumping 

duty order concerning polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from Malaysia. A 

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. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25248 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

1Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. 

Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert found that no 

other circumstances warranted conducting a full 

review and voted for an expedited review. 

order on barium chloride from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. A 

schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. 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: October 5, 2009. 

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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31757, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A 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. 

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: October 14, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25246 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–394–A & 399– 

A (Second Review) (Remand)] 

Ball Bearings From Japan and the 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of remand proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of its second remand 

proceedings with respect to its 

affirmative determinations in the fiveyear reviews of the antidumping orders 

on ball bearings from Japan and the 

United Kingdom. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this proceeding 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, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James McClure, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3191, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In June 2006, the 

Commission unanimously determined 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on ball bearings from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonable foreseeable 

time. The Commission’s determinations 

for Japan and the United Kingdom were 

appealed to the Court of International 

Trade (the ‘‘Court’’). On September 9, 

2008, the Court issued a decision 

remanding the matter to the 

Commission for further proceedings. 

NSK v. United States, Slip Op. 08–95 

(Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 9, 2008) (NSK I). 

In its opinion, the Court issued an order 

instructing the Commission to (1) 

‘‘[C]onduct a Bratsk analysis of nonsubject imports as outlined in this 

opinion;’’(2) ‘‘reassess supply 

conditions within the domestic 

industry,’’ i.e., the industry’s 

restructuring efforts during the period of 

review, and (3) ‘‘reexamine its findings 

with regard to likely impact and its 

decision to cumulate imports from the 

United Kingdom in light of changes in 

its determinations that may result as a 

consequence of the foregoing remand 

instructions.’’ 

On October 8, 2008, in accordance 

with the Court’s order, the Commission 

initiated remand proceedings in the 

above-captioned reviews. The notice of 

initiation for the remand proceeding 

was published in the Federal Register at 

73 FR 63217 (Oct. 20, 2008). The 

Commission re-opened its record to 

obtain information to conduct a Bratsk 

analysis of non-subject imports as 

outlined in the Court’s opinion. The 

Commission also permitted parties to 

file comments pertaining to the specific 

issues that are the subject of the Court’s 

remand instructions and to comment on 

the new information obtained on 

remand. Id. 

On October 9, 2008, the Commission 

filed a motion for reconsideration with 

the Court. In the motion, the 

Commission requested that the Court 

reconsider its decision in light of the 

Federal Circuit’s decision, Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Limited v. United States, 

Court No. 2007–1552 (September 18, 

2008) (Mittal). In its motion, the 

Commission also requested that the CIT 

issue a stay of the remand proceeding 

pending the Court’s disposition of the 

Commission’s motion for 

reconsideration. Defendant-Intervenor 

The Timken Company (‘‘Timken’’) filed 

a similar motion for reconsideration and 

a motion to stay the remand proceeding. 

On October 29, 2008, the CIT granted 

the requests of the Commission and 

Timken to stay the Commission’s 

remand proceeding pending its 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

and Timken’s motions for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, the 

Commission stayed its remand 

proceeding on November 17, 2008 

pending the Court’s ruling on the 

motions for reconsideration. On 

December 29, 2008, the Court denied 

the motions for reconsideration by the 

Commission and Timken. NSK Corp. et 

al. v. United States, Slip Op. 08–145 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES