WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States; Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam, 19745-19747 [2012-7605]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Brilliant
Technologies Corporation because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended March 31, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of 4C Controls,
Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended
September 30, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of 2–Track
Global, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
September 30, 2009.
The Commission is of the opinion that
the public interest and the protection of
investors require a suspension of trading
in the securities of the above-listed
companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the abovelisted companies is suspended for the
period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 29,
2012, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT
on April 12, 2012.
By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[File No. 500–1]
March 29, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Angstrom
Microsystems Corp. because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Bedminster
National Corp. because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period
ended September 30, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Brake
Headquarters U.S.A., Inc. because it has
Jkt 226001
The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (AUSTR@)
is providing notice that on February 21,
2012, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’) requested consultations
with the United States under the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization (AWTO
Agreement@) concerning certain
antidumping administrative reviews
and a sunset review conducted by the
Department of Commerce on imports of
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam (Investigation A–552–802), and
various U.S. laws, regulations,
administrative procedures, practices,
and methodologies. That request may be
found at www.wto.org contained in a
document designated as WT/DS429/1.
USTR invites written comments from
the public concerning the issues raised
in this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any
comments received during the course of
the dispute settlement proceedings,
comments should be submitted on or
SUMMARY:
Angstrom Microsystems Corp.,
Bedminster National Corp., Brake
Headquarters U.S.A., Inc., and
BrandPartners Group, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2012–7943 Filed 3–29–12; 4:15 pm]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding
Regarding United States; AntiDumping Measures on Certain Shrimp
from Viet Nam
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
17:42 Mar 30, 2012
By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Secretary.
[Dispute No. WTO/DS429]
[FR Doc. 2012–7942 Filed 3–29–12; 4:15 pm]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 1998.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of
BrandPartners Group, Inc. because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2009.
The Commission is of the opinion that
the public interest and the protection of
investors require a suspension of trading
in the securities of the above-listed
companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the abovelisted companies is suspended for the
period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 29,
2012, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT
on April 12, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19745
before April 13, 2012, to be assured of
timely consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Public comments should be
submitted electronically using
www.regulations.gov, docket number
USTR–2012–0003. If you are unable to
provide submissions using
www.regulations.gov, please contact
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to
arrange for an alternative method of
transmission.
If (as explained below) the comment
contains confidential information, then
the comment should be submitted by
fax only to Sandy McKinzy at (202)
395–3640.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. Daniel Stirk, Associate General
Counsel, Office of the United States
Trade Representative, 600 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–
3150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is
providing notice that consultations have
been requested pursuant to the WTO
Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(‘‘DSU’’). If such consultations should
fail to resolve the matter and a dispute
settlement panel is established pursuant
to the DSU, such panel, which would
hold its meetings in Geneva,
Switzerland, would be expected to issue
a report on its findings and
recommendations within nine months
after it is established.
Major Issues Raised by Vietnam
On February 21, 2012, Vietnam
requested consultations regarding
certain antidumping administrative
reviews and a sunset review conducted
by the Department of Commerce on
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam, referring in particular to the
use of what it describes as ‘‘zeroing’’ in
those reviews. Specifically, Vietnam
challenges (1) the imposition of
antidumping duties and cash deposit
requirements pursuant to the final
results of the fourth administrative
review for the period from February 1,
2008, to January 31, 2009, in Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010);
(2) the fourth administrative review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
insofar as it did not revoke the
antidumping duty order with respect to
certain respondents requesting such
revocation; (3) the imposition of
antidumping duties and cash deposit
requirements pursuant to the final
results of the fifth administrative review
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19746
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices
for the period from February 1, 2009,
through January 31, 2010, in Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 56158 (September 12,
2011); (4) the fifth administrative review
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
insofar as it did not revoke the
antidumping duty order with respect to
certain respondents requesting such
revocation; (5) any other ongoing or
future antidumping administrative
reviews, and the preliminary and final
results thereof, related to the imports of
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam (DOC case A–552–802), as well
as any assessment instructions, cash
deposit requirements, and revocation
determinations issued pursuant to such
reviews; (6) the final results of the
sunset review in which the Department
of Commerce determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order would be likely to lead to the
continuation or recurrence of dumping,
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of the First Five-Year
‘‘Sunset’’ Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 75 FR 75965 (December 7,
2010); and
(7) Section 129 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) and the
Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.
103–316 (1994), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040.
With regard to these measures,
Vietnam also has indicated it would like
to consult regarding various U.S. laws,
regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies, including
(1) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
in particular sections 731, 751, 752,
771(7), 771(35)(A), 771(35)(B), and
777A(d); (2) Section 129 of the URAA;
(3) the Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the URAA, H.R.
Doc. No. 103–316 (1994), reprinted in
1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040; (4) Department
of Commerce regulations set forth in
part 351 of Title 19 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, in particular
sections 351.218 and 351.414; (5) the
Import Administration Antidumping
Manual (2009 ed.), including the
computer programs referenced therein;
(6) the Department of Commerce’s
Policy Bulletin 98.3, ‘‘Policies
Governing the Conduct of Five-Year
(‘Sunset’) Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders’’ (April 16,
1998), 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998); (7)
the Department of Commerce’s
methodology for determining margins of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Mar 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
dumping in administrative reviews; (8)
the practice of requiring submission of
a separate rate application or
certification in original investigations
and periodic reviews concerning
Vietnamese producers in order to
qualify for the all others—or
‘‘separate’’—rate; (9) the practice of
limiting the number of respondents
selected for individual examination to
only a small fraction of the total number
of companies seeking individual review
and the accompanying failure to provide
alternative methods for non-investigated
respondents to demonstrates that they
are no longer dumping; (10) the
application of a so-called Vietnam-wide
entity rate based on adverse facts
available to respondents not
individually investigated who fail to
provide a separate rate application or
certification to demonstrate the absence
of government control; (11) the practice
of denying individually examined and
non-individually examined respondents
the opportunity to demonstrate the
absence of dumping, which would
allow for the dumping order to be
revoked as to individual respondents
that cease dumping behavior; (12) the
Department of Commerce’s practice and
methodology in five-year (‘‘sunset’’)
reviews for determining whether
revocation of antidumping orders would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping; and (13) the
practice of implementing adverse
Dispute Settlement Body rulings,
pursuant to Section 129 of the URAA,
such that unliquidated entries entered
or withdrawn from the warehouse for
consumption prior to the date of a
Section 129 determination remain
subject to assessment of duties pursuant
to the original antidumping duty
determination.
Vietnam alleges that these laws,
regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies are, as
such and as applied in the
determinations by the Department of
Commerce and actions by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection in the shrimp
administrative reviews and the sunset
review, inconsistent with Articles I:1,
VI:1, VI:2, and X:3(a) of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994;
Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6, 9, 11,
17.6(i), and Annex II of the Agreement
on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (the Antidumping Agreement);
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;
Articles 3.7, 19.1, 21.1, 21.3, and 21.5 of
the DSU; and Vietnam’s Protocol of
Accession to the WTO.
Vietnam alleges that the United States
acted inconsistently with the WTO
Agreement obligations identified above
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
by applying so-called ‘‘zeroing’’ in the
determination of the margins of
dumping in the reviews identified
above, by limiting the selection of
Vietnamese respondents seeking a
review such that non-reviewed
companies were denied an opportunity
to demonstrate the absence of dumping,
by treating the Vietnam-wide entity as a
single entity and applying to that entity
a dumping rate determined on the basis
of facts available, the continued use of
these practices, the use of dumping
margins calculated using ‘‘zeroing’’ to
make the final determination in the
sunset review, and the use of WTOinconsistent antidumping duty
assessment rates applied to
unliquidated entries that are assessed
following a Section 129 determination
that implements an adverse WTO
Dispute Settlement Body ruling.
Public Comment: Requirements for
Submissions
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments concerning
the issues raised in this dispute. Persons
may submit public comments
electronically using
www.regulations.gov docket number
USTR–2012–0003. If you are unable to
provide submissions using
www.regulations.gov, please contact
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to
arrange for an alternative method of
transmission.
To submit comments via
www.regulations.gov, enter docket
number USTR–2012–0003 on the home
page and click ‘‘search’’. The site will
provide a search-results page listing all
documents associated with this docket.
Find a reference to this notice by
selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document
Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link
entitled ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ (For
further information on using the
www.regulations.gov Web site, please
consult the resources provided on the
Web site by clicking on ‘‘Help’’ at the
top of the home page.)
The www.regulations.gov site
provides the option of providing
comments by filling in a ‘‘Type
Comments’’ field, or by attaching a
document using an ‘‘upload file’’ field.
It is expected that most comments will
be provided in an attached document. If
a document is attached, it is necessary
and sufficient to type ‘‘See attached’’ in
the ‘‘Type Comments’’ field. A person
requesting that information contained in
a comment submitted by that person be
treated as confidential business
information must certify that such
information is business confidential and
would not customarily be released to
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices
the public by the submitter.
Confidential business information must
be clearly designated as such and the
submission must be marked ‘‘BUSINESS
CONFIDENTIAL’’ at the top and bottom
of the cover page and each succeeding
page. Any comment containing business
confidential information must be
submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at
(202) 395–3640. A non-confidential
summary of the confidential
information must be submitted to
www.regulations.gov. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in
the docket and open to public
inspection.
Information or advice contained in a
comment submitted, other than business
confidential information, may be
determined by USTR to be confidential
in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that
information or advice may qualify as
such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the
information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as
‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ at the
top and bottom of the cover page and
each succeeding page; and
(3) Must provide a non-confidential
summary of the information or advice.
Any comment containing confidential
information must be submitted by fax. A
non-confidential summary of the
confidential information must be
submitted to www.regulations.gov. The
non-confidential summary will be
placed in the docket and open to public
inspection. Pursuant to section 127(e) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19
U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a
docket on this dispute settlement
proceeding accessible to the public at
www.regulations.gov, docket number
USTR–2012–0003.
The public file will include nonconfidential comments received by
USTR from the public with respect to
the dispute. If a dispute settlement
panel is convened or in the event of an
appeal from such a panel, the U.S.
submissions, any non-confidential
submissions, or non-confidential
summaries of submissions, received
from other participants in the dispute,
will be made available to the public on
USTR’s Web site at www.ustr.gov, and
the report of the panel, and, if
applicable, the report of the Appellate
Body, will be available on the Web site
of the World Trade Organization,
www.wto.org. Comments open to public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Mar 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
19747
inspection may be viewed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bradford L. Ward,
Acting Assistant United States Trade
Representative for Monitoring and
Enforcement.
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2012–0046]
[FR Doc. 2012–7605 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190–W2–P
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
Notice of Transportation Services’
Transition from Paper to Electronic
Fare Media
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[Order 2012–3–7; Docket DOT–OST–2012–
0022]
Proposed Cancelation
of the Air Taxi Authority Of VIH
Cougar Helicopters, Inc.
AGENCY: Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause
(Order 2012–3–7) Docket DOT–OST–
2012–0022.
ACTION:
The Department of
Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should
not issue an order finding that VIH
Cougar Helicopters, Inc. is not a U.S.
citizen as defined in 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(15) and canceling its Part 298
exemption authority.
SUMMARY:
Persons wishing to file
objections should do so no later than
April 2, 2012. .
DATES:
Objections and answers to
objections should be filed in Docket
DOT–OST–2012–0022 and addressed to
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, (M–30, Room W12–
140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590, and should be served upon the
parties listed in Attachment A to the
order.
ADDRESSES:
Mr.
Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness
Division (X–56, Room W86–465), U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, (202) 366–7785.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012–6408 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Office of
Transportation Services (TRANServe),
located within the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration,
has initiated the adoption of a new
program distribution methodology for
transit benefits. TRANServe has shifted
to electronic fare media in specific areas
in New York, parts of the National
Capitol Region, and parts of the
Southeast. TRANServe intends to
implement electronic fare media across
the United States within the eight
TRANServe Geographic Service Areas
as it ensures that the implementation in
each area will be consistent with
applicable statutes and regulations. The
implementation of electronic
distribution, and a limited paper
voucher process, allows for the most
effective and efficient mechanism for
the qualified transportation fringe
benefit.
SUMMARY:
TRANServe will consider all
comments received on or before April
23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit or
view comments and to view supporting
and related materials available
electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send one copy of your comment
to Docket No. DOT–OST–2012–0046,
DOT/TRANServe, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Reading Room (Public Terminal): You
may read any comments that we receive
on this docket in our reading room
(Public Terminal). The reading room is
located in room W12–140 of the US
DOT 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9826 or (202) 366–
9317 before arriving.
Other Information: Additional
information about TRANServe is
available on the internet at (https://
transerve.dot.gov/).
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19745-19747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7605]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Dispute No. WTO/DS429]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States; Anti-
Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (AUSTR@)
is providing notice that on February 21, 2012, the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam (``Vietnam'') requested consultations with the United States
under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(AWTO Agreement@) concerning certain antidumping administrative reviews
and a sunset review conducted by the Department of Commerce on imports
of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (Investigation A-552-
802), and various U.S. laws, regulations, administrative procedures,
practices, and methodologies. That request may be found at www.wto.org
contained in a document designated as WT/DS429/1. USTR invites written
comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be
submitted on or before April 13, 2012, to be assured of timely
consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Public comments should be submitted electronically using
www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2012-0003. If you are unable to
provide submissions using www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy
McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of
transmission.
If (as explained below) the comment contains confidential
information, then the comment should be submitted by fax only to Sandy
McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. Daniel Stirk, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United
States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508,
(202) 395-3150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is providing notice that consultations
have been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU''). If such
consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute
settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which
would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to
issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months
after it is established.
Major Issues Raised by Vietnam
On February 21, 2012, Vietnam requested consultations regarding
certain antidumping administrative reviews and a sunset review
conducted by the Department of Commerce on certain frozen warmwater
shrimp from Vietnam, referring in particular to the use of what it
describes as ``zeroing'' in those reviews. Specifically, Vietnam
challenges (1) the imposition of antidumping duties and cash deposit
requirements pursuant to the final results of the fourth administrative
review for the period from February 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009, in
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010); (2) the fourth administrative
review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam insofar as it did not revoke the antidumping duty order with
respect to certain respondents requesting such revocation; (3) the
imposition of antidumping duties and cash deposit requirements pursuant
to the final results of the fifth administrative review
[[Page 19746]]
for the period from February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010, in
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158 (September 12, 2011); (4) the fifth
administrative review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam insofar as it did not revoke the
antidumping duty order with respect to certain respondents requesting
such revocation; (5) any other ongoing or future antidumping
administrative reviews, and the preliminary and final results thereof,
related to the imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam
(DOC case A-552-802), as well as any assessment instructions, cash
deposit requirements, and revocation determinations issued pursuant to
such reviews; (6) the final results of the sunset review in which the
Department of Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping
duty order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of
dumping, Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Five-Year ``Sunset'' Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 75965 (December 7, 2010); and (7) Section
129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'') and the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316
(1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040.
With regard to these measures, Vietnam also has indicated it would
like to consult regarding various U.S. laws, regulations,
administrative procedures, practices, and methodologies, including (1)
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in particular sections 731, 751,
752, 771(7), 771(35)(A), 771(35)(B), and 777A(d); (2) Section 129 of
the URAA; (3) the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N.
4040; (4) Department of Commerce regulations set forth in part 351 of
Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in particular sections
351.218 and 351.414; (5) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual
(2009 ed.), including the computer programs referenced therein; (6) the
Department of Commerce's Policy Bulletin 98.3, ``Policies Governing the
Conduct of Five-Year (`Sunset') Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders'' (April 16, 1998), 63 FR 18871 (April 16,
1998); (7) the Department of Commerce's methodology for determining
margins of dumping in administrative reviews; (8) the practice of
requiring submission of a separate rate application or certification in
original investigations and periodic reviews concerning Vietnamese
producers in order to qualify for the all others--or ``separate''--
rate; (9) the practice of limiting the number of respondents selected
for individual examination to only a small fraction of the total number
of companies seeking individual review and the accompanying failure to
provide alternative methods for non-investigated respondents to
demonstrates that they are no longer dumping; (10) the application of a
so-called Vietnam-wide entity rate based on adverse facts available to
respondents not individually investigated who fail to provide a
separate rate application or certification to demonstrate the absence
of government control; (11) the practice of denying individually
examined and non-individually examined respondents the opportunity to
demonstrate the absence of dumping, which would allow for the dumping
order to be revoked as to individual respondents that cease dumping
behavior; (12) the Department of Commerce's practice and methodology in
five-year (``sunset'') reviews for determining whether revocation of
antidumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping; and (13) the practice of implementing adverse
Dispute Settlement Body rulings, pursuant to Section 129 of the URAA,
such that unliquidated entries entered or withdrawn from the warehouse
for consumption prior to the date of a Section 129 determination remain
subject to assessment of duties pursuant to the original antidumping
duty determination.
Vietnam alleges that these laws, regulations, administrative
procedures, practices, and methodologies are, as such and as applied in
the determinations by the Department of Commerce and actions by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection in the shrimp administrative reviews and
the sunset review, inconsistent with Articles I:1, VI:1, VI:2, and
X:3(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Articles 1,
2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6, 9, 11, 17.6(i), and Annex II of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (the Antidumping Agreement); Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement; Articles 3.7, 19.1, 21.1, 21.3, and 21.5 of the DSU; and
Vietnam's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.
Vietnam alleges that the United States acted inconsistently with
the WTO Agreement obligations identified above by applying so-called
``zeroing'' in the determination of the margins of dumping in the
reviews identified above, by limiting the selection of Vietnamese
respondents seeking a review such that non-reviewed companies were
denied an opportunity to demonstrate the absence of dumping, by
treating the Vietnam-wide entity as a single entity and applying to
that entity a dumping rate determined on the basis of facts available,
the continued use of these practices, the use of dumping margins
calculated using ``zeroing'' to make the final determination in the
sunset review, and the use of WTO-inconsistent antidumping duty
assessment rates applied to unliquidated entries that are assessed
following a Section 129 determination that implements an adverse WTO
Dispute Settlement Body ruling.
Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public
comments electronically using www.regulations.gov docket number USTR-
2012-0003. If you are unable to provide submissions using
www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to
arrange for an alternative method of transmission.
To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number
USTR-2012-0003 on the home page and click ``search''. The site will
provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with
this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ``Notice''
under ``Document Type'' on the left side of the search-results page,
and click on the link entitled ``Submit a Comment.'' (For further
information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult
the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on ``Help'' at the
top of the home page.)
The www.regulations.gov site provides the option of providing
comments by filling in a ``Type Comments'' field, or by attaching a
document using an ``upload file'' field. It is expected that most
comments will be provided in an attached document. If a document is
attached, it is necessary and sufficient to type ``See attached'' in
the ``Type Comments'' field. A person requesting that information
contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as
confidential business information must certify that such information is
business confidential and would not customarily be released to
[[Page 19747]]
the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be
clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked ``BUSINESS
CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top and bottom of the cover page and each
succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential
information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-
3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must
be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will
be placed in the docket and open to public inspection.
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE''
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or
advice.
Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted
by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must
be submitted to www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will
be placed in the docket and open to public inspection. Pursuant to
section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)),
USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding
accessible to the public at www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-
2012-0003.
The public file will include non-confidential comments received by
USTR from the public with respect to the dispute. If a dispute
settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a
panel, the U.S. submissions, any non-confidential submissions, or non-
confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants
in the dispute, will be made available to the public on USTR's Web site
at www.ustr.gov, and the report of the panel, and, if applicable, the
report of the Appellate Body, will be available on the Web site of the
World Trade Organization, www.wto.org. Comments open to public
inspection may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Bradford L. Ward,
Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-7605 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W2-P
