Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/04/01/2013-07328/polyethylene-terephthalate-film-sheet-and-strip-from-india-and-taiwan-institution-of-five-year
Timestamp: 2018-07-23 03:07:38
Document Index: 418387324

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 201', 'art 201', 'art 207', 'art 207', '§\u2009207', '§\u2009201']

Federal Register :: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India and Taiwan; Institution of Five-Year Reviews
A Notice by the International Trade Commission on 04/01/2013
ITC-2013-0100
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-07328 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-07328
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 order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET film”) from India and the antidumping duty orders on PET film from India 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 May 1, 2013. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 14, 2013. 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).
Background.—On July 1, 2002, the Department of Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on imports of PET film from India (67 FR 44179) and antidumping duty orders on imports of PET film from India (67 FR 44175) and Taiwan (67 FR 44174). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective May 8, 2008, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on imports of PET film from India (73 FR 26080) and the antidumping duty orders on imports of PET film from India and Taiwan (73 FR 26079). The Commission is now conducting second five-year 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.
(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 reviews, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all PET film corresponding to Commerce's scope, which does not include equivalent PET film.
(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 first full five-year reviews, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry to include all domestic producers of PET film.
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 Start Printed Page 19525rule 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.
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 May 1, 2013. 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 June 14, 2013. 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. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing have been amended. The amendments took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76 FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. 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).
(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, Start Printed Page 19526assuming 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);
1. No 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. 13-5-284, expiration date June 30, 2014. 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.
[FR Doc. 2013-07328 Filed 3-29-13; 8:45 am]