Notice of Change in Post Employment Restrictions for Former Employees Seeking To Appear in Five-Year Reviews, 24609-24610 [E8-9760]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Notice of Change in Post Employment
Restrictions for Former Employees
Seeking To Appear in Five-Year
Reviews
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a
change in agency practice. Former
employees of the U.S. International
Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) may
now represent a party in a five-year
review conducted under title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930 even if they
participated personally and
substantially in the corresponding
underlying original title VII
investigation while a Commission
employee. The five-year review is not
the same particular matter as the
underlying original investigation for the
purpose of applying post employment
restrictions. In addition, former
employees seeking to appear in a fiveyear review will no longer be required
to seek approval to appear from the
Commission, pursuant to Commission
rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), even
if the underlying original investigation
had been pending when they were
employed by the Commission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Deputy
Agency Ethics Official, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3088. Hearing-impaired individuals
are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal at (202)
205–1810. General information
concerning the Commission can also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(https://www.usitc.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission’s authority to issue this
notice is based on 19 U.S.C. 1335 and
5 CFR part 2638.
Under Title VII of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, U.S. industries may
petition the U.S. Department of
Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) and the U.S.
International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) for relief from imports
that are sold in the United States at less
than fair value (‘‘dumped’’) or that
benefit from countervailable subsidies
provided through foreign government
programs. If Commerce and the
Commission make final affirmative
determinations that dumped and/or
subsidized imports are injuring or
threaten to injure a domestic industry in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
the United States an antidumping duty
or countervailing duty order will be
issued. For the purposes of this notice,
such investigations are considered to be
‘‘underlying original investigations.’’
In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, which added
the requirement to Title VII of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. and
1673 et seq.) that five years after the
date of publication of a countervailing
duty order, an antidumping order, or a
notice of suspension of an investigation,
the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) and the Commission
shall conduct a review to determine, in
accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1675(c),
whether revocation of the
countervailing or antidumping duty
order or termination of the investigation
suspended under 19 U.S.C. 1671c or
1673c would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping or a
countervailable subsidy and material
injury. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1675a,
mandates that certain information and
factors be considered by Commerce and
the Commission respectively in
reaching their review determinations. 19
U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A) requires the
Commission to take into account, among
other factors, ‘‘its prior injury
determinations, including the volume,
price effect, and impact of imports of
the subject merchandise on the industry
before the order was issued or the
suspension agreement was accepted.’’ In
compliance with this provision, the
Commission adds to the record of the
review the Commission’s published
opinion and the Commission’s staff
report from the final phase of each
original investigation.
Beginning in 1996, when questions
were first raised about the effect of post
employment laws and regulations on
former employees seeking to represent
parties in five-year reviews, the
Commission’s Designated Agency Ethics
Official (‘‘DAEO’’) advised former
employees, after consideration of the
relevant post employment and title VII
statutes and regulations and
consultation with the Office of
Government Ethics (‘‘OGE’’), that the
five-year review would be considered
the ‘‘same particular matter’’ as the
underlying original investigation for the
application of the post-employment law,
18 U.S.C. 207, and Commission rule
201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)). Thus, a
former employee who had worked
personally and substantially on an
underlying original investigation while
a Commission employee could not
represent a party in the corresponding
five-year review after leaving the
Commission. In addition, because the
underlying investigation and the review
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24609
were considered to be the same matter
under 19 CFR 201.15(b), former
employees who worked at the
Commission while the underlying
investigation was pending, even if they
did not work on that investigation, were
required to seek Commission approval
to appear in such review.
As a result of the Commission’s
experience gained in administering the
five-year review provisions of the law,
and more specifically the experience in
the second set of five-year reviews,
which commenced in 2004, the
Commission’s DAEO has reassessed the
previous advice given to former
employees and has determined that an
underlying original investigation should
no longer be considered to be the same
particular matter as any five-year review
of the corresponding order.
As part of this reassessment, the
Commission’s DAEO sought an opinion
from the Office of Government Ethics
(‘‘OGE’’). On March 27, 2008, OGE
issued an informal advisory letter
(‘‘2008 Opinion’’) concluding that ‘‘first,
second and subsequent reviews are not
the same particular matter involving
specific parties as the underlying
original investigation leading to the
original order.’’
A. Initial Conclusion
The initial conclusion in 1996 that a
first review was the same particular
matter as the underlying original
investigation was based on the
definition of ‘‘same particular matter’’
found in OGE’s regulations, 5 CFR part
2637, and in its published summary of
post employment restrictions, which
was issued in 1992. OGE’s regulation
interpreting the ‘‘same particular
matter’’ (5 CFR 2637.201(c)(4)) states
that ‘‘[t]he same particular matter may
continue in another form or in part.’’ In
determining whether two particular
matters are the same, ‘‘the agency
should consider the extent to which the
matters involved the same basic facts,
related issues, the same or related
parties, time elapsed, the same
confidential information, and the
continuing existence of an important
Federal interest.’’ Analyzing these
factors in light of the statutory mandate
that the Commission consider its prior
injury determinations in reaching its
determination in a five-year review, 19
U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A), the Commission’s
DAEO at the time concluded and OGE
confirmed in a 1999 informal advisory
letter, OGE 99x14(2), that a review is the
same particular matter as the underlying
original investigation because the
records of the original investigation and
the review would contain much of the
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
24610
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 87 / Monday, May 5, 2008 / Notices
same basic facts and the same
confidential information.
been pending while they were
employees.
B. The Commission’s Experience
Conducting Reviews
Issued: April 29, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–9760 Filed 5–2–08; 8:45 am]
The earlier view that the records of
the review and underlying original
investigation would largely involve the
same basic facts and the same
confidential information was
necessarily formed without the benefit
of the Commission’s subsequent
experience. Since 1999, when the earlier
advisory opinion was issued by OGE,
the Commission has conducted more
than 175 reviews. With regard to the
factors outlined in OGE’s regulations
defining ‘‘same particular matter,’’ this
experience has shown that a review
differs in important respects from the
underlying original investigation.
Developments in the markets and
industries that occur during the lapse of
time between the original investigation
and the review are an especially
significant factor.
The Commission’s experience with
reviews has shown that although the
volume, price effect, and impact of the
imports on the industry before the order
was in place must be taken into account,
the key information frequently relied
upon to reach the required forwardlooking determination in a five-year
review regarding the likely volume,
price effect, and impact of the imports
on the domestic industry in the event of
revocation is the most current
information that is developed on the
record as part of the five-year review
process.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
C. In Conclusion
In accordance with the DAEO’s
interpretation of both the statute and the
Commission’s experience in five-year
reviews, which was confirmed in OGE’s
2008 Opinion (that a five-year review is
not the same particular matter as the
underlying original investigation),
appearances of former employees in
Commission five-year reviews will be
treated under 18 U.S.C. 207 as
appearances that are not in the same
particular matter as the underlying
investigation. In addition, the
Commission has traditionally applied
19 U.S.C. 201.15(b) consistently with
the application of 18 U.S.C. 207 and
will do so in this situation. Therefore,
a review will not be considered to be the
same matter as the underlying original
investigation pursuant to section
201.15(b). Consequently, former
employees no longer need to seek
approval from the Commission to
appear in a review even if the
underlying original investigation had
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 May 02, 2008
Jkt 214001
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–453 and 731–
TA–1136–1137 (Final)]
Sodium Nitrite From China and
Germany
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of
countervailing duty and antidumping
investigations.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of the final
phase of countervailing duty
investigation No. 701–TA–453 (Final)
under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and
the final phase of antidumping
investigation Nos. 731–TA–1136–1137
(Final) under section 735(b) of the Act
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine
whether an industry in the United
States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury, or the
establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded, by
reason of subsidized and less-than-fairvalue imports from China and Germany
of sodium nitrite, provided for in
subheading 2834.10.10 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States.1
For further information concerning
the conduct of this phase of the
investigations, hearing procedures, 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 and C (19 CFR part 207).
DATES: Effective Date: April 23, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Lofgren (202–205–3185), Office of
1 For purposes of these investigations, the
Department of Commerce has defined the subject
merchandise as ‘‘sodium nitrite in any form, at any
purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered
by this investigation may or may not contain an
anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly
used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid,
sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit,
and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium
nitrite is NaNO2.’’ Commerce has further indicated
that the American Chemical Society Chemical
Abstract Service (CAS) registry number is 7632–00–
0.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background. The final phase of these
investigations is being scheduled as a
result of affirmative preliminary
determinations by the Department of
Commerce that certain benefits which
constitute subsidies within the meaning
of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671b) are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
in China of sodium nitrite, and that
such products from China and Germany
are being sold in the United States at
less than fair value within the meaning
of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1673b). The investigations were
requested in a petition filed on
November 8, 2007, by General Chemical
LLC, of Parsippany, NJ.
Participation in the investigations 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 final phase of these
investigations as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
section 201.11 of the Commission’s
rules, no later than 21 days prior to the
hearing date specified in this notice. A
party that filed a notice of appearance
during the preliminary phase of the
investigations need not file an
additional notice of appearance during
this final phase. The Secretary will
maintain a public service list containing
the names and addresses of all persons,
or their representatives, who are parties
to the investigations.
Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and BPI service list. Pursuant to section
207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the
Secretary will make BPI gathered in the
final phase of these investigations
available to authorized applicants under
the APO issued in the investigations,
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 87 (Monday, May 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24609-24610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9760]
[[Page 24609]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Notice of Change in Post Employment Restrictions for Former
Employees Seeking To Appear in Five-Year Reviews
AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a change in agency practice. Former
employees of the U.S. International Trade Commission (``Commission'')
may now represent a party in a five-year review conducted under title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 even if they participated personally and
substantially in the corresponding underlying original title VII
investigation while a Commission employee. The five-year review is not
the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation for
the purpose of applying post employment restrictions. In addition,
former employees seeking to appear in a five-year review will no longer
be required to seek approval to appear from the Commission, pursuant to
Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), even if the underlying
original investigation had been pending when they were employed by the
Commission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Deputy
Agency Ethics Official, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205-3088. Hearing-impaired individuals are
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting
the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information
concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission's authority to issue this
notice is based on 19 U.S.C. 1335 and 5 CFR part 2638.
Under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, U.S.
industries may petition the U.S. Department of Commerce (``Commerce'')
and the U.S. International Trade Commission (``Commission'') for relief
from imports that are sold in the United States at less than fair value
(``dumped'') or that benefit from countervailable subsidies provided
through foreign government programs. If Commerce and the Commission
make final affirmative determinations that dumped and/or subsidized
imports are injuring or threaten to injure a domestic industry in the
United States an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order will be
issued. For the purposes of this notice, such investigations are
considered to be ``underlying original investigations.''
In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which
added the requirement to Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1671 et seq. and 1673 et seq.) that five years after the date of
publication of a countervailing duty order, an antidumping order, or a
notice of suspension of an investigation, the Department of Commerce
(``Commerce'') and the Commission shall conduct a review to determine,
in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1675(c), whether revocation of the
countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of the
investigation suspended under 19 U.S.C. 1671c or 1673c would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable
subsidy and material injury. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1675a, mandates
that certain information and factors be considered by Commerce and the
Commission respectively in reaching their review determinations. 19
U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A) requires the Commission to take into account,
among other factors, ``its prior injury determinations, including the
volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise
on the industry before the order was issued or the suspension agreement
was accepted.'' In compliance with this provision, the Commission adds
to the record of the review the Commission's published opinion and the
Commission's staff report from the final phase of each original
investigation.
Beginning in 1996, when questions were first raised about the
effect of post employment laws and regulations on former employees
seeking to represent parties in five-year reviews, the Commission's
Designated Agency Ethics Official (``DAEO'') advised former employees,
after consideration of the relevant post employment and title VII
statutes and regulations and consultation with the Office of Government
Ethics (``OGE''), that the five-year review would be considered the
``same particular matter'' as the underlying original investigation for
the application of the post-employment law, 18 U.S.C. 207, and
Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)). Thus, a former employee
who had worked personally and substantially on an underlying original
investigation while a Commission employee could not represent a party
in the corresponding five-year review after leaving the Commission. In
addition, because the underlying investigation and the review were
considered to be the same matter under 19 CFR 201.15(b), former
employees who worked at the Commission while the underlying
investigation was pending, even if they did not work on that
investigation, were required to seek Commission approval to appear in
such review.
As a result of the Commission's experience gained in administering
the five-year review provisions of the law, and more specifically the
experience in the second set of five-year reviews, which commenced in
2004, the Commission's DAEO has reassessed the previous advice given to
former employees and has determined that an underlying original
investigation should no longer be considered to be the same particular
matter as any five-year review of the corresponding order.
As part of this reassessment, the Commission's DAEO sought an
opinion from the Office of Government Ethics (``OGE''). On March 27,
2008, OGE issued an informal advisory letter (``2008 Opinion'')
concluding that ``first, second and subsequent reviews are not the same
particular matter involving specific parties as the underlying original
investigation leading to the original order.''
A. Initial Conclusion
The initial conclusion in 1996 that a first review was the same
particular matter as the underlying original investigation was based on
the definition of ``same particular matter'' found in OGE's
regulations, 5 CFR part 2637, and in its published summary of post
employment restrictions, which was issued in 1992. OGE's regulation
interpreting the ``same particular matter'' (5 CFR 2637.201(c)(4))
states that ``[t]he same particular matter may continue in another form
or in part.'' In determining whether two particular matters are the
same, ``the agency should consider the extent to which the matters
involved the same basic facts, related issues, the same or related
parties, time elapsed, the same confidential information, and the
continuing existence of an important Federal interest.'' Analyzing
these factors in light of the statutory mandate that the Commission
consider its prior injury determinations in reaching its determination
in a five-year review, 19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A), the Commission's DAEO
at the time concluded and OGE confirmed in a 1999 informal advisory
letter, OGE 99x14(2), that a review is the same particular matter as
the underlying original investigation because the records of the
original investigation and the review would contain much of the
[[Page 24610]]
same basic facts and the same confidential information.
B. The Commission's Experience Conducting Reviews
The earlier view that the records of the review and underlying
original investigation would largely involve the same basic facts and
the same confidential information was necessarily formed without the
benefit of the Commission's subsequent experience. Since 1999, when the
earlier advisory opinion was issued by OGE, the Commission has
conducted more than 175 reviews. With regard to the factors outlined in
OGE's regulations defining ``same particular matter,'' this experience
has shown that a review differs in important respects from the
underlying original investigation. Developments in the markets and
industries that occur during the lapse of time between the original
investigation and the review are an especially significant factor.
The Commission's experience with reviews has shown that although
the volume, price effect, and impact of the imports on the industry
before the order was in place must be taken into account, the key
information frequently relied upon to reach the required forward-
looking determination in a five-year review regarding the likely
volume, price effect, and impact of the imports on the domestic
industry in the event of revocation is the most current information
that is developed on the record as part of the five-year review
process.
C. In Conclusion
In accordance with the DAEO's interpretation of both the statute
and the Commission's experience in five-year reviews, which was
confirmed in OGE's 2008 Opinion (that a five-year review is not the
same particular matter as the underlying original investigation),
appearances of former employees in Commission five-year reviews will be
treated under 18 U.S.C. 207 as appearances that are not in the same
particular matter as the underlying investigation. In addition, the
Commission has traditionally applied 19 U.S.C. 201.15(b) consistently
with the application of 18 U.S.C. 207 and will do so in this situation.
Therefore, a review will not be considered to be the same matter as the
underlying original investigation pursuant to section 201.15(b).
Consequently, former employees no longer need to seek approval from the
Commission to appear in a review even if the underlying original
investigation had been pending while they were employees.
Issued: April 29, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-9760 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P