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
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54071 

(Dec. 29, 2008) (NSK II). Accordingly, 

on February 6, 2009, the Commission 

published a notice that it was resuming 

its remand proceeding. The Commission 

provided parties with an opportunity to 

file comments on the Court’s remand 

instructions and the evidence obtained 

on remand, and directed that they be 

filed by March 23, 2009. 74 FR 6174. 

The Commission also prepared a 

supplemental staff report regarding nonsubject producer questionnaire 

information gathered in the remand 

proceeding. On March 23, 2009, 

comments on the remand were filed by 

petitioner The Timken Company, and 

the Japanese and United Kingdom 

respondents JTEKT Corp., Koyo Corp. of 

U.S.A., NSK Corporation, NSK Ltd., and 

NSK Europe Ltd. On May 4, 2009, the 

Commission issued its remand 

determinations in Ball Bearings from 

Japan and the United Kingdom, 731– 

TA–394A & 399A, (Second Review) 

(Remand), USITC Pub. 4082 (May 2009). 

By unanimous vote, the Commission 

again determined that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom would 

likely result in continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

On August 31, 2009, the CIT issued an 

opinion in NSK Corp. et al. v. United 

States, Slip Op. 09–91 (NSK III), again 

remanding the Commission’s affirmative 

determinations in Certain Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from Japan and the 

United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 731–TA– 

394–A & 399–A (Second Review) 

(Remand), USITC Pub. 4082 (May 2009). 

In NSK III, the Court has remanded the 

same three issues which it previously 

remanded for further explanation in 

NSK I and NSK II. First, the Court 

remanded the Commission’s analysis of 

non-subject imports, with instructions 

to ‘‘to determine whether, in light of the 

significant presence of non-subject 

imports, the subject imports are more 

than a mere minimal or tangential factor 

in the material injury to the domestic 

industry that is likely to continue or 

recur in the absence of the antidumping 

duty order.’’ NSK III at 29. Second, the 

Court directed the Commission to 

‘‘provide a more careful and reasoned 

explanation of (1) the large scale 

restructuring within the ball bearing 

industry and (2) the significant rise in 

non-subject imports in the U.S. market’’ 

as part of its cumulation analysis of the 

subject imports from the United 

Kingdom. Id. Third, the Court directed 

the Commission to ‘‘revisit its 

determination on the vulnerability of 

the domestic market and the likely 

impact of subject imports on the 

domestic market.’’ Id. at 30. 

The Court has ordered the 

Commission to file its remand 

determination with the Court by January 

5, 2010. 

Participation in the proceeding.— 

Only those persons who were interested 

parties to the reviews (i.e., persons 

listed on the Commission Secretary’s 

service list) and parties to the appeal 

may participate in the remand 

proceeding. Such persons need not 

make any additional filings with the 

Commission to participate in the 

remand proceeding, unless they are 

adding new individuals to the list of 

persons entitled to receive business 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order. 

Business proprietary information 

(‘‘BPI’’) referred to during the remand 

proceeding will be governed, as 

appropriate, by the administrative 

protective order issued in the reviews. 

Written submissions.—The 

Commission is not re-opening the 

record in this remand proceeding. The 

Commission will permit the parties to 

file comments pertaining to the specific 

issues that are the subject of the Court’s 

remand instructions and, in this regard, 

may comment on the new information 

obtained on remand. Comments should 

be limited to no more than fifteen (15) 

double-spaced and single-sided pages of 

textual material. No appendices or other 

attachments are allowed. The parties 

may not themselves submit any new 

factual information in their comments 

and may not address any issue other 

than those that are the subject of the 

Court’s remand instructions. Any such 

comments must be filed with the 

Commission no later than October 23, 

2009. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

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 (Nov. 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (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. 

Parties are also advised to consult 

with 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) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25244 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Summary of Commission Practice 

Relating to Administrative Protective 

Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of Commission 

practice relating to administrative 

protective orders. 

SUMMARY: Since February 1991, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has issued an annual 

report on the status of its practice with 

respect to violations of its 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APOs’’) in investigations under Title 

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response 

to a direction contained in the 

Conference Report to the Customs and 

Trade Act of 1990. Over time, the 

Commission has added to its report 

discussions of APO breaches in 

Commission proceedings other than 

under Title VII and violations of the 

Commission’s rules including the rule 

on bracketing business proprietary 

information (‘‘BPI’’) (the ‘‘24-hour 

rule’’), 19 CFR 207.3(c). This notice 

provides a summary of investigations 

completed during calendar year 2008 of 

breaches in proceedings under Title VII, 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 

section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974. In 

addition, there is a summary of rules 

violation investigations completed in 

2008. The Commission intends that this 

report inform representatives of parties 

to Commission proceedings as to some 

specific types of APO breaches and 

rules violations encountered by the 

Commission and the corresponding 

types of actions the Commission has 

taken. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–3088. Hearing impaired individuals 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES