WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States; Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam, 19745-19747 [2012-7605]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 (http:// 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