80_FR_46944 80 FR 46793 - Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015

80 FR 46793 - Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 151 (August 6, 2015)

Page Range46793-46795
FR Document2015-19353

On June 29, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The Act provides a number of amendments to the antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty (``CVD'') laws but does not specify dates of application for those amendments. This notice of determination establishes a date of application for each statutory revision pertaining to the Department of Commerce and provides notice thereof to all interested parties to AD and CVD proceedings and to the public.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46793-46795]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19353]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 351

RIN 0625-AB04
[Docket No.: 150731663-5663-01]


Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 
2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Interpretive Rule; Notice of Determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 29, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The Act provides a number of 
amendments to the antidumping duty (``AD'') and countervailing duty 
(``CVD'') laws but does not specify dates of application for those 
amendments. This notice of determination establishes a date of 
application for each statutory revision pertaining to the Department of 
Commerce and provides notice thereof to all interested parties to AD 
and CVD proceedings and to the public.

DATES: The date of application of this interepretive rule is August 6, 
2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Heilferty, Deputy Chief Counsel 
for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-0082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27 (the 
``Act'') provides five amendments to the AD and CVD laws: (1) Section 
502 amends Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677e, to 
modify the provisions addressing the selection and corroboration of 
certain information that may be used as facts otherwise available with 
an adverse inference in an AD or CVD proceeding; (2) Section 503 amends 
Section 771(7) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(7), to modify 
the definition of ``material injury'' in AD and CVD proceedings; (3) 
Section 504 amends Section 771(15) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 
1677(15), and Section 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b, 
to modify the definition of ``ordinary course of trade'' and the 
provisions governing the treatment of a ``particular market situation'' 
in AD proceedings; (4) Section 505 amends Section 773(b)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), to modify the treatment of 
distorted prices or costs in AD proceedings; and (5) Section 506 amends 
Section 782(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677m(a), to modify 
the provision regarding accepting voluntary respondents in AD and CVD 
proceedings.
    The Act does not contain dates of application for any of these 
amendments. As explained below, it would be impracticable for the 
Department to apply at least one of the amendments, Section 505, 
immediately, and extremely difficult to apply the others immediately. 
Accordingly, the Department is establishing dates of application for 
each section, except for Section 503 (which relates to determinations 
of material injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission).
    As an initial matter, we are cognizant of the Supreme Court's 
ruling in Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994), that, 
absent clear Congressional intent that a statute be applied 
retroactively, a statute may not attach new legal consequences to 
events completed before its enactment. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280; see 
also, AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 (2009). In determining 
whether the Landgraf prohibition has been breached, important 
considerations are whether the new law takes away or impairs vested 
rights or creates new obligations, imposes a new duty, or attaches a 
new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already 
past. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269. Another important consideration is 
whether the prior provision was reasonably relied upon, so that 
application of the new provision would be manifestly unfair. INS v. St. 
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001).
    In considering whether application of the amended statutes to 
merchandise entered into the United States before the passage of the 
Act would disturb vested rights, create new obligations or upset a 
reasonable reliance, our starting point is the holding of the Supreme 
Court in Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 493 (1904), that ``no 
individual has a vested right to trade with foreign nations. . . .'' 
and that importing merchandise is not a fundamental right that is 
protected by other constitutional privileges such as due process. See 
also NEC Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 
More

[[Page 46794]]

specifically, the Supreme Court held in Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. 
v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318 (1933), that no party has a legal 
right to a particular rate of duty.
    It follows that, even assuming that one or more of the Act's 
amendments were to result in a higher rate of duty being applied to 
imported merchandise than otherwise would have been applied, 
application of that higher rate would not disturb a vested right, 
attach a new disability to transactions or considerations already past, 
or upset any legitimate expectation. In other words, the Act does not 
attach any ``new'' legal consequences to past events, because those 
events had no settled legal consequences to begin with and, therefore, 
created no legitimate expectations concerning duty rates. As the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') recently 
observed in GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780 F.3d 1136, 1144 
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ``[a]lthough trade duties are forward-looking in part, 
the government also has a clear interest in fashioning a remedy for 
damaging past acts, `level[ing] the playing field for particular 
American manufacturers,' and `remedy[ing] the harm American 
manufacturers and their workers experience as a result of unfair trade 
practices' '' (quoting Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. 
United States, 745 F.3d 1194, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
    Other decisions of the Federal Circuit are in accord. In Parkdale 
Int'l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal 
Circuit ruled that the application of the Department's new policy for 
resellers sales that preceded the announcement of that change in policy 
was not impermissibly retroactive. The Federal Circuit based its 
decision primarily on the fact that, under the U.S. system of duty 
assessment, final duty liability is not set until the entries of the 
imported merchandise are liquidated, which is often many years after 
the date of entry. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(C). Thus, importers 
bring goods into the United States with full knowledge that the rates 
of estimated duties deposited with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
upon importation may change. In Travenol Labs., Inc. v. United States, 
118 F.3d 749, 753-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Federal Circuit ruled that 
the application of an amendment to customs law that changed the time 
period in which interest was calculated for overpayment of duties to 
goods that entered the United States prior to enactment of the law was 
not impermissibly retroactive.
    Many decisions of the Court of International Trade agree. In GPX 
Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1314 (Ct. 
Int'l. Trade 2013), the court observed that ``customs duties are to an 
extent unique from other government assessments in that there is no 
right to import, and where unfair trade remedies apply those with goods 
that may be imported rarely can predict with accuracy what the duty 
will be [referencing Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 
288 U.S. 294, 318 (1933)]. For example, when goods become the subject 
of an AD/CVD investigation, liquidation is suspended while the initial 
investigation is undertaken, and generally while a review is conducted, 
prior to a final rate determination and duty assessment. See Parkdale 
Int'l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).'' 
Similarly, in Yamani Fishing Net Co. v. United States, 830 F. Supp. 
1502, 1507 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993), the Court ruled that the application 
of a new regulation creating additional requirements for the submission 
of information to Commerce to a segment of an AD proceeding initiated 
before the promulgation of that regulation was not impermissibly 
retroactive.
    Based on these precedents, we have determined that implementing 
these statutory amendments immediately, including to merchandise which 
entered into the United States before the passage of the Act, would not 
be impermissibly retroactive. In determining dates of application, 
therefore, we have been guided by Congress's intention that each 
amendment be implemented as soon as practicably possible. Accordingly, 
we have determined the earliest date at which each amendment 
practicably could be implemented and established that date as the date 
of application of that particular revision to the statute. This 
approach results in individual dates of application for different 
provisions of the Act, as explained below.
    Section 502 of the Act amends Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677e, to revise the provisions addressing the 
selection and corroboration of certain information that may be used as 
an adverse inference in applying facts available in an AD or CVD 
proceeding. These amendments provide that the Department may rely on, 
and is not required to adjust, certain information used as an adverse 
inference in applying facts available in an AD or CVD proceeding. They 
do not impose any new requirements on the parties to such proceedings 
that would require them to submit additional information or argument. 
Accordingly, we will apply this provision to determinations made on or 
after August 6, 2015.
    We note that Section 502 provides that, in making AD and CVD 
determinations on the basis of the facts available, the Department is 
not required to corroborate, in certain circumstances, the information 
employed, to make certain estimates or demonstrations concerning that 
information, or to address certain claims regarding the ``alleged 
commercial reality'' of non-cooperating parties. Because this section 
addresses the Department's discretion and, thus, does not require the 
Department to take any specific actions with respect to facts available 
determinations, it will be applied to determinations made on or after 
August 6, 2015. Although the amendment does not interfere with the 
operation of 19 CFR 351.308(d), the Department intends to consider 
whether to amend that regulation as a result of the amendment to the 
statute.
    Section 504 of the Act amends Sections 771(15) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(15), and Section 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 
U.S.C. 1677b, to modify the definition of ``ordinary course of trade'' 
and the provisions governing the treatment of a ``particular market 
situation'' in AD proceedings. Because this section codifies the 
Department's discretion and does not require the Department to take any 
action with respect to particular market situations, we will apply this 
provision to determinations made on or after August 6, 2015. The 
Department's regulation, 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(i), establishes a 
deadline for ``particular market situation'' allegations of ``10 days 
after the respondent interested party files the response to the 
relevant section of the questionnaire, unless the Secretary alters this 
time limit.'' The amendment does not require the alteration of this 
deadline, and so the regulation will continue to apply as before.
    Section 505 of the Act amends Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), to modify the treatment of distorted 
prices or costs in AD proceedings. It has two parts. Under the first 
part of the amendment of Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), the Department will request constructed value 
and cost of production information from respondent companies in all AD 
proceedings. The Department recognizes that it can cannot ask for such 
information in ongoing proceedings in which the time for doing so has 
passed. Accordingly, the Department will apply the new law to

[[Page 46795]]

determinations in which the complete initial questionnaire has not been 
issued as of August 6, 2015.
    The second part of Section 505 amends Section 773(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1673b(c)(5), to permit the Department to 
disregard price or cost values without further investigation if it has 
determined that certain subsidies have existed with respect to those 
values, or if those price or cost values were subject to an AD order. 
This amendment clarifies the Department's authority for its existing 
practice, and does not impose any new requirements on the parties to AD 
proceedings that would require them to submit additional information or 
argument. Accordingly, we will apply this provision to determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015.
    Section 506 of the Act amends Section 782(a) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677m(a), to identify the factors that the Department 
may take into account in determining whether accepting voluntary 
responses would be unduly burdensome. This amendment compliments the 
Department's voluntary respondent analysis and does not require parties 
to AD and CVD proceedings to submit additional information or argument. 
Accordingly, we will apply this provision to determinations made on or 
after August 6, 2015.

Classification

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), notice and comment are not required 
for this rule because its intent is to interpret the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act to apply as explained above and to provide notice to the 
public. This interpretation is meant to lend clarity to the statutory 
terms and will reduce or eliminate any possible confusion about the 
application of the Act without creating any new law, rights or duties. 
See General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 1561, 1565 (D.C. Cir. 
1984) (en banc) (finding that EPA's rule was interpretive because ``the 
agency regarded its rule as interpretive''; ``[its] entire 
justification for the rule is comprised of reasoned statutory 
interpretation, with reference to the language, purpose and legislative 
history of the [provision]''; and ``most importantly, the rule did not 
create any new rights or duties . . .''). Because notice and an 
opportunity for comment are not required, no regulatory flexibility 
analysis is required and none has been prepared. The rule has been 
determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Dated: July 31, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-19353 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 46793 controllers, as well as controllers Issued in Washington, DC on July 27, 2015. of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(15), and Section working in Federal Contract Towers, are Anthony S. Ferrante, 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. issued CTO certificates. NATCA states Director, Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service. 1677b, to modify the definition of that these air traffic controllers, as well [FR Doc. 2015–19278 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ and the FAA air traffic controllers, regularly BILLING CODE 4910–13–P provisions governing the treatment of a transfer between these employers. ‘‘particular market situation’’ in AD NATCA is concerned these transfers proceedings; (4) Section 505 amends will be stifled or new bureaucracies will Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), to modify need to be created to ensure equivalent qualifications before transfer. International Trade Administration the treatment of distorted prices or costs in AD proceedings; and (5) Section 506 The underlying requirements for the amends Section 782(a) of the Tariff Act FAA Credential encompass those of the 19 CFR Part 351 of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677m(a), to modify CTO certificate. In addition, the FAA RIN 0625–AB04 the provision regarding accepting Credential includes the biennial skills voluntary respondents in AD and CVD [Docket No.: 150731663–5663–01] evaluation discussed previously. proceedings. Therefore, the FAA does not expect Dates of Application of Amendments The Act does not contain dates of movement between employers to be to the Antidumping and Countervailing application for any of these stifled. Duty Laws Made by the Trade amendments. As explained below, it Preferences Extension Act of 2015 would be impracticable for the NATCA states that the FAA’s final Department to apply at least one of the rule does not address how the FAA will AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, amendments, Section 505, immediately, maintain CTO certificates for incumbent International Trade Administration, and extremely difficult to apply the employees for whom they will not be others immediately. Accordingly, the Department of Commerce. eliminated. Department is establishing dates of ACTION: Interpretive Rule; Notice of The procedures for current CTO Determination. application for each section, except for certificate holders have not changed. Section 503 (which relates to Therefore, no additional changes were SUMMARY: On June 29, 2015, President determinations of material injury by the needed to 14 CFR part 65. Obama signed into law the Trade U.S. International Trade Commission). Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The As an initial matter, we are cognizant NATCA states that FAA should have Act provides a number of amendments of the Supreme Court’s ruling in collaborated with them on the to the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. development of any changes to the CTO 244 (1994), that, absent clear certification process. countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) laws but does not specify dates of application for Congressional intent that a statute be The FAA followed the procedures and those amendments. This notice of applied retroactively, a statute may not requirements of the Administrative determination establishes a date of attach new legal consequences to events Procedure Act as well as those application for each statutory revision completed before its enactment. prescribed by FAA Order 1320.1. pertaining to the Department of Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280; see also, Finally, NATCA requested that the Commerce and provides notice thereof AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 FAA withdraw the rule and include to all interested parties to AD and CVD (2009). In determining whether the proceedings and to the public. Landgraf prohibition has been breached, FAA Credential holders in 14 CFR part important considerations are whether 65. NATCA notes that under such an DATES: The date of application of this the new law takes away or impairs amendment, all certified controllers, interepretive rule is August 6, 2015. vested rights or creates new obligations, whether holding a CTO certificate or an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: imposes a new duty, or attaches a new FAA Credential would be subject to the Robert Heilferty, Deputy Chief Counsel disability in respect to transactions or same rules, any subsequent rule changes for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, considerations already past. Landgraf, would be subject to due process because U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 511 U.S. at 269. Another important they would require amendments to 14 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC consideration is whether the prior CFR, and it would eliminate redundant 20230, 202–482–0082. provision was reasonably relied upon, processes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: so that application of the new provision The FAA followed the requirements would be manifestly unfair. INS v. St. Background in the Administrative Procedure Act Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). and FAA Order 1320.1. Because FAA The Trade Preferences Extension Act In considering whether application of Orders serve as the primary means of 2015, Public Law 114–27 (the ‘‘Act’’) the amended statutes to merchandise within the FAA to issue, establish, and provides five amendments to the AD entered into the United States before the and CVD laws: (1) Section 502 amends passage of the Act would disturb vested describe agency policies, organization, Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 rights, create new obligations or upset a responsibilities, methods, and U.S.C. 1677e, to modify the provisions reasonable reliance, our starting point is procedures for FAA employees, the addressing the selection and the holding of the Supreme Court in FAA has determined its actions are Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, corroboration of certain information that appropriate and have eliminated may be used as facts otherwise available 493 (1904), that ‘‘no individual has a mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES redundant processes. with an adverse inference in an AD or vested right to trade with foreign Conclusion CVD proceeding; (2) Section 503 nations. . . .’’ and that importing amends Section 771(7) of the Tariff Act merchandise is not a fundamental right After consideration of the comment of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(7), to modify the that is protected by other constitutional submitted in response to the final rule, definition of ‘‘material injury’’ in AD privileges such as due process. See also the FAA has determined that no and CVD proceedings; (3) Section 504 NEC Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d revisions to the rule are warranted. amends Section 771(15) of the Tariff Act 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). More VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM 06AUR1

46794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations specifically, the Supreme Court held in Many decisions of the Court of we will apply this provision to Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. International Trade agree. In GPX Int’l determinations made on or after August United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318 (1933), Tire Corp. v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 6, 2015. that no party has a legal right to a 2d 1296, 1314 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2013), the We note that Section 502 provides particular rate of duty. court observed that ‘‘customs duties are that, in making AD and CVD It follows that, even assuming that to an extent unique from other determinations on the basis of the facts one or more of the Act’s amendments government assessments in that there is available, the Department is not were to result in a higher rate of duty no right to import, and where unfair required to corroborate, in certain being applied to imported merchandise trade remedies apply those with goods circumstances, the information than otherwise would have been that may be imported rarely can predict employed, to make certain estimates or applied, application of that higher rate with accuracy what the duty will be demonstrations concerning that would not disturb a vested right, attach [referencing Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. information, or to address certain claims a new disability to transactions or Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318 regarding the ‘‘alleged commercial considerations already past, or upset (1933)]. For example, when goods reality’’ of non-cooperating parties. any legitimate expectation. In other become the subject of an AD/CVD Because this section addresses the words, the Act does not attach any investigation, liquidation is suspended Department’s discretion and, thus, does ‘‘new’’ legal consequences to past while the initial investigation is not require the Department to take any events, because those events had no undertaken, and generally while a specific actions with respect to facts settled legal consequences to begin with review is conducted, prior to a final rate available determinations, it will be and, therefore, created no legitimate determination and duty assessment. See applied to determinations made on or expectations concerning duty rates. As Parkdale Int’l v. United States, 475 F.3d after August 6, 2015. Although the the Court of Appeals for the Federal 1375, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).’’ amendment does not interfere with the Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) recently Similarly, in Yamani Fishing Net Co. v. operation of 19 CFR 351.308(d), the observed in GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 830 F. Supp. 1502, 1507 Department intends to consider whether United States, 780 F.3d 1136, 1144 (Fed. (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993), the Court ruled to amend that regulation as a result of Cir. 2015) ‘‘[a]lthough trade duties are that the application of a new regulation the amendment to the statute. creating additional requirements for the Section 504 of the Act amends forward-looking in part, the government submission of information to Commerce Sections 771(15) of the Tariff Act of also has a clear interest in fashioning a to a segment of an AD proceeding 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(15), and Section remedy for damaging past acts, initiated before the promulgation of that 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. ‘level[ing] the playing field for regulation was not impermissibly 1677b, to modify the definition of particular American manufacturers,’ ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ and the and ‘remedy[ing] the harm American retroactive. Based on these precedents, we have provisions governing the treatment of a manufacturers and their workers ‘‘particular market situation’’ in AD determined that implementing these experience as a result of unfair trade proceedings. Because this section statutory amendments immediately, practices’ ’’ (quoting Guangdong codifies the Department’s discretion and including to merchandise which entered Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. does not require the Department to take into the United States before the passage United States, 745 F.3d 1194, 1206 (Fed. any action with respect to particular of the Act, would not be impermissibly Cir. 2014)). retroactive. In determining dates of market situations, we will apply this Other decisions of the Federal Circuit application, therefore, we have been provision to determinations made on or are in accord. In Parkdale Int’l v. United guided by Congress’s intention that each after August 6, 2015. The Department’s States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007), amendment be implemented as soon as regulation, 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(i), the Federal Circuit ruled that the practicably possible. Accordingly, we establishes a deadline for ‘‘particular application of the Department’s new have determined the earliest date at market situation’’ allegations of ‘‘10 policy for resellers sales that preceded which each amendment practicably days after the respondent interested the announcement of that change in could be implemented and established party files the response to the relevant policy was not impermissibly that date as the date of application of section of the questionnaire, unless the retroactive. The Federal Circuit based its that particular revision to the statute. Secretary alters this time limit.’’ The decision primarily on the fact that, This approach results in individual amendment does not require the under the U.S. system of duty dates of application for different alteration of this deadline, and so the assessment, final duty liability is not set provisions of the Act, as explained regulation will continue to apply as until the entries of the imported below. before. merchandise are liquidated, which is Section 502 of the Act amends Section 505 of the Act amends often many years after the date of entry. Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(C). Thus, U.S.C. 1677e, to revise the provisions 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), to modify importers bring goods into the United addressing the selection and the treatment of distorted prices or costs States with full knowledge that the rates corroboration of certain information that in AD proceedings. It has two parts. of estimated duties deposited with U.S. may be used as an adverse inference in Under the first part of the amendment Customs and Border Protection upon applying facts available in an AD or of Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of importation may change. In Travenol CVD proceeding. These amendments 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), the Labs., Inc. v. United States, 118 F.3d provide that the Department may rely Department will request constructed 749, 753–54 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Federal on, and is not required to adjust, certain value and cost of production mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Circuit ruled that the application of an information used as an adverse information from respondent companies amendment to customs law that inference in applying facts available in in all AD proceedings. The Department changed the time period in which an AD or CVD proceeding. They do not recognizes that it can cannot ask for interest was calculated for overpayment impose any new requirements on the such information in ongoing of duties to goods that entered the parties to such proceedings that would proceedings in which the time for doing United States prior to enactment of the require them to submit additional so has passed. Accordingly, the law was not impermissibly retroactive. information or argument. Accordingly, Department will apply the new law to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM 06AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 46795 determinations in which the complete Dated: July 31, 2015. PART 1—INCOME TAXES initial questionnaire has not been issued Ronald K. Lorentzen as of August 6, 2015. Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation The second part of Section 505 and Compliance. for part 1 continues to read in part as amends Section 773(c)(5) of the Tariff [FR Doc. 2015–19353 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] follows: Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1673b(c)(5), to BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * permit the Department to disregard ■ Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1T is price or cost values without further amended by revising the first sentence investigation if it has determined that of paragraph (g)(1)(v) to read as follows: certain subsidies have existed with DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY respect to those values, or if those price § 1.432(e)(9)–1T Benefit suspensions for Internal Revenue Service multiemployer plans in critical and or cost values were subject to an AD declining status (temporary). order. This amendment clarifies the 26 CFR Part 1 Department’s authority for its existing * * * * * practice, and does not impose any new (g) * * * [TD 9723] (1) * * * requirements on the parties to AD proceedings that would require them to (v) * * * An application for submit additional information or RIN 1545–BM73 suspension that is not submitted in argument. Accordingly, we will apply combination with an application to Suspension of Benefits Under the PBGC for a plan partition under section this provision to determinations made Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of on or after August 6, 2015. 4233 of ERISA generally will not be 2014; Correction accepted unless the proposed effective Section 506 of the Act amends date of the suspension is at least nine Section 782(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. months from the date on which the 19 U.S.C. 1677m(a), to identify the application is submitted. * * * factors that the Department may take ACTION: Correcting amendment. into account in determining whether Martin V. Franks, accepting voluntary responses would be SUMMARY: This document contains Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, unduly burdensome. This amendment corrections to temporary regulations (TD Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief compliments the Department’s 9723) that were published in the Counsel (Procedure and Administration). voluntary respondent analysis and does Federal Register on Friday, June 19, [FR Doc. 2015–19364 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] 2015 (80 FR 35207). The temporary BILLING CODE 4830–01–P not require parties to AD and CVD regulations relate to multiemployer proceedings to submit additional pension plans that are projected to have information or argument. Accordingly, insufficient funds, at some point in the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY we will apply this provision to future, to pay the full benefits to which determinations made on or after August Internal Revenue Service individuals will be entitled under the 6, 2015. plans (referred to as plans in ‘‘critical Classification and declining status’’). 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 DATES: This correction is effective [TD 9723] Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), notice August 6, 2015 and applicable June 19, and comment are not required for this RIN 1545–BM73 2015. rule because its intent is to interpret the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suspension of Benefits Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act to Department of the Treasury MPRA Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of apply as explained above and to provide guidance information line at (202) 622– 2014; Correction notice to the public. This interpretation 1559 (not a toll-free number). is meant to lend clarity to the statutory AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), terms and will reduce or eliminate any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Treasury. possible confusion about the application Background ACTION: Temporary regulations; of the Act without creating any new correction. law, rights or duties. See General Motors The temporary regulations (TD 9723) that are the subject of this correction are SUMMARY: This document contains Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 1561, under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal corrections to temporary regulations (TD 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (en banc) (finding Revenue Code. 9723) that were published in the that EPA’s rule was interpretive because ‘‘the agency regarded its rule as Need for Correction Federal Register on Friday, June 19, interpretive’’; ‘‘[its] entire justification 2015 (80 FR 35207). The temporary As published, the temporary for the rule is comprised of reasoned regulations relate to multiemployer regulations (TD 9723) contain an error statutory interpretation, with reference pension plans that are projected to have that may prove to be misleading and are to the language, purpose and legislative insufficient funds, at some point in the in need of clarification. history of the [provision]’’; and ‘‘most future, to pay the full benefits to which importantly, the rule did not create any List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 individuals will be entitled under the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES new rights or duties . . .’’). Because plans (referred to as plans in ‘‘critical Income taxes, Reporting and notice and an opportunity for comment and declining status’’). recordkeeping requirements. are not required, no regulatory DATES: This correction is effective flexibility analysis is required and none Correction of Publication August 6, 2015 and applicable June 19, has been prepared. The rule has been Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 2015. determined to be not significant for amended by making the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: purposes of Executive Order 12866. correcting amendments: Department of the Treasury MPRA VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM 06AUR1


Document Created: 2018-02-23 10:55:24
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 10:55:24
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionInterpretive Rule; Notice of Determination.
DatesThe date of application of this interepretive rule is August 6, 2015.
ContactRobert Heilferty, Deputy Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-0082.
FR Citation80 FR 46793 
RIN Number0625-AB04
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR