Notice Regarding Post Employment Restrictions for Former Employees Seeking To Appear in Sequential Five-Year Reviews Stemming From the Same Underlying Original Title VII Investigation, 3246-3248 [2014-00801]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3246
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
States at less than fair value within the
meaning of section 733 of the Act (19
U.S.C. 1673b).2 The investigations were
requested in a petition filed on June 27,
2013, by All America Threaded
Products Inc., Denver, Colorado; Bay
Standard Manufacturing Inc.,
Brentwood, California; and Vulcan
Threaded Products Inc., Pelham,
Alabama.
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, provided that the
application is made no later than 21
days prior to the hearing date specified
in this notice. Authorized applicants
must represent interested parties, as
defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are
parties to the investigations. A party
granted access to BPI in the preliminary
phase of the investigations need not
reapply for such access. A separate
service list will be maintained by the
Secretary for those parties authorized to
receive BPI under the APO.
Staff report.—The prehearing staff
report in the final phase of these
investigations will be placed in the
nonpublic record on March 7, 2014, and
2 In addition to making its preliminary affirmative
countervailing duty determination on certain steel
threaded rod from India, the Department of
Commerce simultaneously announced the
alignment of the final countervailing duty
determination with the final determination in the
companion antidumping duty investigation (India).
Thus, the Department of Commerce’s final
countervailing duty will be issued on the same date
as the final antidumping determination, which is
currently scheduled to be issued on April 28, 2014.
78 FR 76815.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Jan 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
a public version will be issued
thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of
the Commission’s rules.
Hearing.—The Commission will hold
a hearing in connection with the final
phase of these investigations beginning
at 9:30 a.m. on March 20, 2014, at the
U.S. International Trade Commission
Building. Requests to appear at the
hearing should be filed in writing with
the Secretary to the Commission on or
before March 14, 2014. A nonparty who
has testimony that may aid the
Commission’s deliberations may request
permission to present a short statement
at the hearing. All parties and
nonparties desiring to appear at the
hearing and make oral presentations
should attend a prehearing conference
to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 18,
2014, at the U.S. International Trade
Commission Building. Oral testimony
and written materials to be submitted at
the public hearing are governed by
sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and
207.24 of the Commission’s rules.
Parties must submit any request to
present a portion of their hearing
testimony in camera no later than 7
business days prior to the date of the
hearing.
Written submissions.—Each party
who is an interested party shall submit
a prehearing brief to the Commission.
Prehearing briefs must conform with the
provisions of section 207.23 of the
Commission’s rules; the deadline for
filing is March 14, 2014. Parties may
also file written testimony in connection
with their presentation at the hearing, as
provided in section 207.24 of the
Commission’s rules, and posthearing
briefs, which must conform with the
provisions of section 207.25 of the
Commission’s rules. The deadline for
filing posthearing briefs is March 27,
2014. In addition, any person who has
not entered an appearance as a party to
the investigations may submit a written
statement of information pertinent to
the subject of the investigations,
including statements of support or
opposition to the petition, on or before
March 27, 2014. On April 10, 2014, the
Commission will make available to
parties all information on which they
have not had an opportunity to
comment. Parties may submit final
comments on this information on or
before April 14, 2014, but such final
comments must not contain new factual
information and must otherwise comply
with section 207.30 of the Commission’s
rules. Finally, on May 2, 2014, parties
may submit supplemental final
comments addressing only Commerce’s
final antidumping and countervailing
duty determinations regarding imports
from India. These supplemental final
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comments may not contain new factual
information and may not exceed five (5)
pages in length. All written submissions
must conform with the provisions of
section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules;
any submissions that contain BPI must
also conform with the requirements of
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the
Commission’s rules. The Commission’s
Handbook on E-Filing, available on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the
Commission’s rules with respect to
electronic filing.
Additional written submissions to the
Commission, including requests
pursuant to section 201.12 of the
Commission’s rules, shall not be
accepted unless good cause is shown for
accepting such submissions, or unless
the submission is pursuant to a specific
request by a Commissioner or
Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules,
each document filed by a party to the
investigations must be served on all
other parties to the investigations (as
identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules.
Issued: January 13, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–00800 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Notice Regarding Post Employment
Restrictions for Former Employees
Seeking To Appear in Sequential FiveYear Reviews Stemming From the
Same Underlying Original Title VII
Investigation
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given of a
clarification in agency practice
regarding appearances by former
Commission employees in multiple fiveyear reviews stemming from the same
underlying Title VII investigation.
Former employees of the U.S.
International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) may now represent a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Notices
party in a five-year review conducted
under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930
even if they participated personally and
substantially in an earlier five-year
review of the same 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 and a
five-year review is not the same
particular matter as an earlier review of
the same underlying investigation for
the purpose of applying post
employment restrictions. In addition,
former employees seeking to appear in
a later five-year review will no longer be
required to seek approval to appear
before the Commission, pursuant to
Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR
201.15(b)), even if the underlying
original investigation or an earlier
review 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 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et.
seq. and 1673 et. seq.), U.S. industries
may petition the U.S. Department of
Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) and the
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 that five years after the date
of publication of a countervailing duty
order, an antidumping order, or a notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Jan 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
of suspension of an investigation,
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 also requires that
reviews be conducted every five years
unless the determination to revoke the
duty order or terminate a suspended
investigation has already been made.
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 U.S. 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)). This view
that a five-year review and its original
underlying investigation are the same
particular matter was primarily based
on the expectation that the records of
the review and underlying original
investigation would involve the same
basic facts and the same confidential
information, two of the factors listed in
OGE’s regulations to be considered
when determining if two matters are the
same. 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). Thus, a
former employee who had worked
personally and substantially on an
underlying original investigation while
a Commission employee could not
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3247
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 in administering the fiveyear 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 reassessed the previous advice
given to former employees and
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. This conclusion
was reached after consultation with the
OGE which, on March 27, 2008, 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.’’ Subsequently, the
Commission issued a Federal Register
notice on May 5, 2008, 73 FR 24609,
stating the DAEO’s conclusion that five
year reviews are no longer considered
the same particular matter as the
underlying original investigation. The
notice also indicated that former
Commission employees would no
longer need to seek permission to
appear in a five-year review from the
Commission, pursuant to 19 CFR
201.15, even if the original underlying
investigation had been pending during
their employment with the Commission.
After the question of whether fiveyear reviews were the same particular
matters as the underlying original
investigation was resolved in 2008,
former Commission employees have
raised the additional question as to
whether sequential five-year reviews of
the same underlying original
investigation are the same particular
matters as each other. For example, if a
former employee, before leaving the
Commission, participated in the first
five-year review, would that former
employee be able to participate in the
second or third five-year review after
leaving the Commission in light of the
post-employment restrictions in 18
U.S.C. 207.
The original view that a five-year
review and its original underlying
investigation are the same particular
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3248
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Notices
matter was formed early in the conduct
of the five-year reviews. By 2008,
however, the Commission had
conducted more than 175 reviews. With
regard to the factors outlined in OGE’s
regulations defining ‘‘same particular
matter,’’ experience had shown that a
review differs in important respects
from the underlying original
investigation. In particular significant
changes often have occurred in the
markets and industries during the lapse
of time between the original
investigation and the review.
In five-year reviews, the Commission
must take into account the volume,
price effect, and impact of the subject
imports on the industry before the order
was in place. However, the
Commission’s experience has been that
most of the key information for making
the required forward-looking
determination is the most current
information developed on the record as
part of the five-year review process.
When making his determination that
five-year reviews of the same underlying
original investigation are all different
particular matters, the DAEO considered
issues such as whether expedited and
full reviews should be distinguished or
whether the five-year reviews should all
be considered the same particular
matter. The DAEO’s conclusion that
neither five-year reviews nor the
underlying original investigation are the
same particular matter was based on a
number of factors. First, those factors
listed in OGE’s regulations defining
‘‘same particular matter’’ support the
finding. OGE’s regulations provide that
‘‘all relevant factors should be
considered, including the extent to
which the matters involve the same
basic facts, the same or related parties,
related issues, the same confidential
information, and the amount of time
elapsed.’’ 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). The
analysis used by the Commission in
reviews relies primarily on the newly
developed record to determine not what
has happened in the past but rather
what is likely to happen if the order
under review is revoked. The focus in
the reviews is generally not the
information from the record of the
original investigation or previous
reviews, but rather new information
developed for the record of the current
five-year review. Five years elapse
between each review, during which
economic and marketplace
developments can change the basic facts
and confidential information considered
by the Commission. In the five years
between reviews, the identity of the
relevant parties, such as domestic and
foreign manufacturers and purchasers,
could also change. The DAEO also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Jan 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
considered the fact that each review of
an underlying original investigation is
treated as a different case upon judicial
review.
In accordance with the DAEO’s
interpretation of both the statute and the
Commission’s experience in five-year
reviews, 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 either the
underlying investigation or any other
five-year review stemming from the
same underlying original 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 therefore, for that
provision, will not consider a review to
be the same matter as the underlying
original investigation or any other
review based on that underlying
investigation. Consequently, former
employees no longer need to seek
approval from the Commission to
appear in a review even if the
underlying original investigation or an
earlier review of the underlying
investigation had been pending while
they were employees.
Issued: January 13, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–00801 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1124–0002]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested: Supplemental
Statement (Foreign Agents)
ACTION:
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ),
National Security Division (NSD), will
be submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. This
proposed information collection was
previously published in the Federal
Register Volume 78, Number 218, page
67396 on November 12, 2013, allowing
for a 60 day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
for an additional 30 days for public
comment until February 18, 2014. This
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the items contained in this
notice, especially the estimated public
burden and associated response time,
should be directed to The Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention Department of Justice Desk
Officer, Washington, DC 20503.
Additionally, comments may be
submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202)
395–7285.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension of currently approved
collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Supplemental Statement (Foreign
Agents)
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form Number: NSD–2.
National Security Division, U.S.
Department of Justice. Pursuant to
Section 212 of Public Law 110–81, the
Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), the
FARA registration forms recently
submitted to OMB for 3 year renewal
approvals, contain fillable-fileable, and
E-signature capabilities, and the FARA
e-File system in operation since March
1, 2011, permits registrants to file their
registration forms electronically to the
FARA Registration Unit, 24 hours a day,
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3246-3248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00801]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Notice Regarding Post Employment Restrictions for Former
Employees Seeking To Appear in Sequential Five-Year Reviews Stemming
From the Same Underlying Original Title VII Investigation
AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a clarification in agency practice
regarding appearances by former Commission employees in multiple five-
year reviews stemming from the same underlying Title VII investigation.
Former employees of the U.S. International Trade Commission
(``Commission'') may now represent a
[[Page 3247]]
party in a five-year review conducted under title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930 even if they participated personally and substantially in an
earlier five-year review of the same 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 and a five-year review is not the same particular matter
as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for the
purpose of applying post employment restrictions. In addition, former
employees seeking to appear in a later five-year review will no longer
be required to seek approval to appear before the Commission, pursuant
to Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), even if the underlying
original investigation or an earlier review 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 (19 U.S.C.
1671 et. seq. and 1673 et. seq.), U.S. industries may petition the U.S.
Department of Commerce (``Commerce'') and the 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 that five
years after the date of publication of a countervailing duty order, an
antidumping order, or a notice of suspension of an investigation,
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 also requires that reviews be
conducted every five years unless the determination to revoke the duty
order or terminate a suspended investigation has already been made. 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 U.S. 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)). This view that a
five-year review and its original underlying investigation are the same
particular matter was primarily based on the expectation that the
records of the review and underlying original investigation would
involve the same basic facts and the same confidential information, two
of the factors listed in OGE's regulations to be considered when
determining if two matters are the same. 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). 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 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 reassessed the previous advice given to
former employees and 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. This
conclusion was reached after consultation with the OGE which, on March
27, 2008, 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.'' Subsequently, the
Commission issued a Federal Register notice on May 5, 2008, 73 FR
24609, stating the DAEO's conclusion that five year reviews are no
longer considered the same particular matter as the underlying original
investigation. The notice also indicated that former Commission
employees would no longer need to seek permission to appear in a five-
year review from the Commission, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, even if the
original underlying investigation had been pending during their
employment with the Commission.
After the question of whether five-year reviews were the same
particular matters as the underlying original investigation was
resolved in 2008, former Commission employees have raised the
additional question as to whether sequential five-year reviews of the
same underlying original investigation are the same particular matters
as each other. For example, if a former employee, before leaving the
Commission, participated in the first five-year review, would that
former employee be able to participate in the second or third five-year
review after leaving the Commission in light of the post-employment
restrictions in 18 U.S.C. 207.
The original view that a five-year review and its original
underlying investigation are the same particular
[[Page 3248]]
matter was formed early in the conduct of the five-year reviews. By
2008, however, the Commission had conducted more than 175 reviews. With
regard to the factors outlined in OGE's regulations defining ``same
particular matter,'' experience had shown that a review differs in
important respects from the underlying original investigation. In
particular significant changes often have occurred in the markets and
industries during the lapse of time between the original investigation
and the review.
In five-year reviews, the Commission must take into account the
volume, price effect, and impact of the subject imports on the industry
before the order was in place. However, the Commission's experience has
been that most of the key information for making the required forward-
looking determination is the most current information developed on the
record as part of the five-year review process.
When making his determination that five-year reviews of the same
underlying original investigation are all different particular matters,
the DAEO considered issues such as whether expedited and full reviews
should be distinguished or whether the five-year reviews should all be
considered the same particular matter. The DAEO's conclusion that
neither five-year reviews nor the underlying original investigation are
the same particular matter was based on a number of factors. First,
those factors listed in OGE's regulations defining ``same particular
matter'' support the finding. OGE's regulations provide that ``all
relevant factors should be considered, including the extent to which
the matters involve the same basic facts, the same or related parties,
related issues, the same confidential information, and the amount of
time elapsed.'' 5 CFR 2641.201(h)(5). The analysis used by the
Commission in reviews relies primarily on the newly developed record to
determine not what has happened in the past but rather what is likely
to happen if the order under review is revoked. The focus in the
reviews is generally not the information from the record of the
original investigation or previous reviews, but rather new information
developed for the record of the current five-year review. Five years
elapse between each review, during which economic and marketplace
developments can change the basic facts and confidential information
considered by the Commission. In the five years between reviews, the
identity of the relevant parties, such as domestic and foreign
manufacturers and purchasers, could also change. The DAEO also
considered the fact that each review of an underlying original
investigation is treated as a different case upon judicial review.
In accordance with the DAEO's interpretation of both the statute
and the Commission's experience in five-year reviews, 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 either the underlying investigation or any other five-year review
stemming from the same underlying original 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 therefore, for
that provision, will not consider a review to be the same matter as the
underlying original investigation or any other review based on that
underlying investigation. Consequently, former employees no longer need
to seek approval from the Commission to appear in a review even if the
underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the
underlying investigation had been pending while they were employees.
Issued: January 13, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-00801 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
