Federal Register Vol. 81, No.106,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 106 (June 2, 2016)

Page Range35269-35578
FR Document

81_FR_106
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 35356 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 35395 - Sunshine Act Cancellation Notice-OPIC June 1, 2016 Public HearingPDF
81 FR 35358 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 35357 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 35270 - International Product ChangesPDF
81 FR 35434 - Request for Comments and Suggestions for Environmental Cooperation Pursuant to the United States-Bahrain Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental CooperationPDF
81 FR 35337 - Notice of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on a Proposal To Exempt, Pursuant to the Authority in Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Federal Reserve Banks From Sections 4d and 22 of the Commodity Exchange ActPDF
81 FR 35360 - Informational Meeting: The Importation and Exportation of Infectious Biological Agents, Infectious Substances and Vectors; Public WebcastPDF
81 FR 35368 - National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 35346 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 35345 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 35348 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Annual and Final Performance Report Data Collection for Arts in Education GranteesPDF
81 FR 35332 - Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 35400 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
81 FR 35401 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Additions to Permitted CoverPDF
81 FR 35423 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to SPDR Series Trust and SPDR Dorsey Wright Fixed Income Allocation ETF Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation MPDF
81 FR 35425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of BlackRock Government Collateral Pledge Unit Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 35402 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Membership Approval ProcessPDF
81 FR 35441 - Finding That the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Is a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering ConcernPDF
81 FR 35290 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 Through #5PDF
81 FR 35333 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Paperwork Submissions Under the Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency RequirementsPDF
81 FR 35382 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data; MeetingPDF
81 FR 35350 - Clean Water Act: Availability of List DecisionsPDF
81 FR 35350 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
81 FR 35351 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for April 2016PDF
81 FR 35357 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 35396 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 35397 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 35398 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 35395 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 35361 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service-Annual ReportPDF
81 FR 35294 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the National Sheep Industry Improvement CenterPDF
81 FR 35334 - Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 35335 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 35333 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 35275 - Inversions and Related Transactions; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 35387 - Nuclear Waste Partnerships, LLCPDF
81 FR 35383 - In the Matter of LaCrosse Solutions, LLC; Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse Boiling Water ReactorPDF
81 FR 35398 - Request for Information on the Development of the 2017 National Plan for Civil Earth ObservationsPDF
81 FR 35434 - Supplementary Agreement Amending the Agreement on Social Security Between the United States and the Czech Republic; Entry Into ForcePDF
81 FR 35359 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Unmodified Qualified Trust Model Certificates and Model Trust DocumentsPDF
81 FR 35358 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 35388 - Policy Statement for the Agreement State ProgramPDF
81 FR 35358 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 35447 - Open Meeting for the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC)PDF
81 FR 35446 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 3520PDF
81 FR 35269 - Adjusting the Penalty for Violation of Notice Posting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 35371 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 35374 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 35370 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 35373 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Study of Center of Global Health's (CGH) Workshops (NCI)PDF
81 FR 35369 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (NIDA)PDF
81 FR 35349 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 35293 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 35433 - Montana Disaster #MT-00095PDF
81 FR 35296 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 35293 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 35329 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 35436 - In the Matter of the Designation of Tariq Gidar Group, aka TGG, aka Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP)-Tariq Gidar Group, aka Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Geedar Group, aka Tariq Geedar Group, aka Commander Tariq Afridi Group, aka Tariq Afridi Group, aka Tariq Gidar Afridi Group, aka The Asian Tigers as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 35377 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 35436 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Picasso: The Line” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 35376 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 35435 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Watteau's Soldiers: Scenes From Military Life in 18th Century France” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 35435 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, aka Islamic Movement of Turkestan, aka Islamic Party of Turkestan, aka Harakut Islamiyyah, aka Harakut ul Islamiyyah Özbeskistan, aka Islamic MovementPDF
81 FR 35303 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 35310 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in PartPDF
81 FR 35299 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Negative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 35436 - Determination and Certification Under Section 40A of the Arms Export Control ActPDF
81 FR 35313 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
81 FR 35439 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Voluntary Tanker AgreementPDF
81 FR 35440 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Generic Clearance of Customer Satisfaction SurveysPDF
81 FR 35435 - In the Matter of the Designation of Jama'at ul Dawa al-Qu'ran, aka JDQ, aka Jamaat al Dawa ila al Sunnah, aka Jamaat ud Dawa il al Quran al Sunnah, aka Jamaat ul Dawa al Quran, aka Jamaat-ud-Dawa al Quran wal Sunnah, aka Jama'at Da'wa al-Sunnat, aka Jama'at al-Da'wa ala-l-Quran wa-l-Sunna, aka Society for the Call/Invitation to the Quran and the Sunna, aka JDQS, aka Salafi Group, aka Jama'at ad-Da'wa as-Salafiya wa-l-Qital, aka Jamiat al-Dawa al-Quran wal-Sunna, aka Assembly for the Call of the Koran and the Sunnah as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 35326 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
81 FR 35320 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
81 FR 35323 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Affirmative DeterminationPDF
81 FR 35316 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in PartPDF
81 FR 35375 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee; June 2016 TeleconferencePDF
81 FR 35308 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in PartPDF
81 FR 35297 - Foreign-Trade Zone 154-Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Geismar, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 35298 - Approval of Subzone Status; Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C.; Houma and Lockport, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 35297 - Foreign-Trade Zone 87-Lake Charles, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Sulphur, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 35348 - Defense Intelligence Agency National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 35357 - Notice of Termination; 10325 First Commercial Bank of Florida, Orlando, FLPDF
81 FR 35357 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10310, Western Commercial Bank Woodland Hills, CAPDF
81 FR 35298 - Foreign-Trade Zone 261-Alexandria, Louisiana; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
81 FR 35301 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 35316 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
81 FR 35306 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
81 FR 35363 - Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 35362 - Determination That TRIVARIS (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Injectable Suspension, 80 Milligrams/Milliliters, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
81 FR 35295 - Information Collection; Online Registration for FSA-Hosted Events and ConferencesPDF
81 FR 35274 - Ensuring Continuity of 911 CommunicationsPDF
81 FR 35362 - Collaborating To Strengthen Food, Drug, and Medical Device Safety Systems; Notice of ConferencePDF
81 FR 35381 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 35377 - Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and BondingPDF
81 FR 35379 - Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 35385 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Consolidation of Class 1E DC and Uninterruptible Power Supply System Spare Battery Termination BoxesPDF
81 FR 35332 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 35347 - Requests To Exhume and Repatriate Native American Burials From Carlisle Indian Industrial School Cemetery; Public Listening SessionsPDF
81 FR 35372 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 35371 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 35369 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 35369 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 35371 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 35372 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 35415 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31P(e) Regarding ALO OrdersPDF
81 FR 35405 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk ProtectionPDF
81 FR 35359 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances-Requirement To Report Agency Payments for RelocationPDF
81 FR 35547 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to BlueCrest Alaska Operating, LLC Drilling Activities at Cosmopolitan State Unit, Alaska, 2016PDF
81 FR 35367 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological ProductsPDF
81 FR 35437 - Categorical Exclusion Survey ReviewPDF
81 FR 35436 - Notice and Request for Comment on Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Rail ProjectsPDF
81 FR 35380 - Notice of Receipt of Amended Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 35419 - Ares Capital Corporation, et al.;PDF
81 FR 35410 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 130PDF
81 FR 35406 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price ListPDF
81 FR 35409 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)PDF
81 FR 35411 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)PDF
81 FR 35421 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 35412 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees Effective June 1, 2016PDF
81 FR 35432 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)PDF
81 FR 35361 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) Program Outcome MeasurementPDF
81 FR 35271 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and RegulationsPDF
81 FR 35449 - Comprehensive Child Welfare Information SystemPDF
81 FR 35275 - Addition of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) Category; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release ReportingPDF
81 FR 35483 - Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR)PDF

Issue

81 106 Thursday, June 2, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-12987 35293-35294 2016-12991 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 35294-35295 2016-13019 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Requests to Exhume and Repatriate Native American Burials from Carlisle Indian Industrial School Cemetery; Public Listening Sessions, 35347-35348 2016-12910 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Importation and Exportation of Infectious Biological Agents, Infectious Substances and Vectors; Public Webcast, 35360-35361 2016-13053 Children Children and Families Administration RULES Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System, 35450-35482 2016-12509 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Meetings: Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Teleconferences, 35375-35376 2016-12963 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Proposed Orders of Exemption, 35337-35345 2016-13055 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Senior Medicare Patrol Program Outcome Measurement, 35361-35362 2016-12868 University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service—Annual Report, 35361 2016-13020 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-13046 35345-35347 2016-13047 2016-13048 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Intelligence Agency National Intelligence University Board of Visitors, 35348 2016-12957
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual and Final Performance Report Data Collection for Arts in Education Grantees, 35348-35349 2016-13045 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Wyoming; Revisions to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, 35271-35274 2016-12725 PROPOSED RULES Addition of Hexabromocyclododecane Category: Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 35275-35290 2016-12464 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for April 2016, 35351-35356 2016-13028 Clean Water Act: List Decisions, 35350 2016-13030 Pesticide Product Registration: Applications for New Uses, 35350-35351 2016-13029 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission RULES Adjusting the Penalty for Violation of Notice Posting Requirements, 35269-35270 2016-12999 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Online Registration for FSA-hosted Events and Conferences, 35295-35296 2016-12947 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, 35274 2016-12946 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 35356-35357 2016-13159 Terminations of Receivership: First Commercial Bank of Florida, Orlando, FL, 35357 2016-12956 Western Commercial Bank, Woodland Hills, CA, 35357 2016-12955 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 2016-12992 35349-35350 2016-12993 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 35357 2016-13027 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 35357-35358 2016-13117 2016-13118 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Rail Projects, 35436-35437 2016-12883 Categorical Exclusion Survey Review, 35437-35439 2016-12884 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 35358 2016-13007 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 35358 2016-13005 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network NOTICES Findings: Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern, 35441-35446 2016-13038 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, 35367-35368 2016-12885 Draft Guidance for Industry and Staff: Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods, 35363-35367 2016-12950 Meetings: Collaborating to Strengthen Food, Drug, and Medical Device Safety Systems; Conference, 35362 2016-12942 Withdrawals of Drug Products from Sale for Reasons other than Safety or Effectiveness: TRIVARIS (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Injectable Suspension, 80 Milligrams/Milliliters, 35362-35363 2016-12949 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Application for Subzone Status: Westlake Chemical Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 87, Lake Charles, LA, 35297-35298 2016-12958 Applications for Reorganization under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 261, Alexandria, LA, 35298 2016-12954 Approval of Subzone Status: Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, LLC, Houma and Lockport, LA, 35298 2016-12960 Westlake Chemical Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 154, Baton Rouge, LA, 35297 2016-12961 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Federal Travel Regulation: Relocation Allowances—Requirement to Report Agency Payments for Relocation, 35359 2016-12888 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Unmodified Qualified Trust Model Certificates and Model Trust Documents, 35359-35360 2016-13008 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System, 35450-35482 2016-12509
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps, 35368-35369 2016-13052 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Interior Interior Department See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Inversions and Related Transactions; Correction, 35275 2016-13015 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35446-35447 2016-13001 Meetings: Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee, 35447 2016-13002 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews, 35316 2016-12952 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, 35323-35326 2016-12967 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy, 35326-35329 2016-12971 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan, 35299-35301 2016-12977 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 35308-35310 2016-12962 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea, 35310-35313 2016-12978 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 35306-35308 2016-12951 Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 35301-35303 2016-12953 Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China, 35332 2016-13044 Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, 35329-35332 2016-12986 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy, 35320-35323 2016-12969 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan, 35313-35316 2016-12975 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 35316-35319 2016-12965 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea, 35303-35306 2016-12979 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Accompanying Product Catalogues, Product Inserts, Literature and Components Thereof, 35380-35381 2016-12879 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, 35381-35382 2016-12935 Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the Same, 35377-35379 2016-12923 Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, 35379-35380 2016-12922 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance of Customer Satisfaction Surveys, 35440-35441 2016-12973 Voluntary Tanker Agreement, 35439-35440 2016-12974 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data, 35382-35383 2016-13033 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35296 2016-12989 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, 35369-35370 2016-12994 The Study of Center of Global Health's Workshops, 35373-35374 2016-12995 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 35372-35373 2016-12892 Meeting: National Institute of Nursing Research, 35371 2016-12896 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 2016-12898 35370-35372, 35374-35375 2016-12996 2016-12997 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 35371 2016-12893 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 35369 2016-12895 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016-12894 35369, 35371-35372 2016-12998 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 through #5, 35290-35292 2016-13035 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35332-35333 2016-12912 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Paperwork Submissions under the Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Requirements, 35333-35334 2016-13034 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 35335-35337 2016-13017 New England Fishery Management Council, 35333 2016-13016 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 35334-35335 2016-13018 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: BlueCrest Alaska Operating, LLC Drilling Activities at Cosmopolitan State Unit, AK, 35548-35578 2016-12886 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 35376-35377 2016-12982 Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 35377 2016-12984 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Nuclear Waste Partnerships, LLC, 35387-35388 2016-13014 Exemptions and Combined License Amendments: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Consolidation of Class 1E dc and Uninterruptible Power Supply System Spare Battery Termination Boxes, 35385-35386 2016-12917 Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program, 35388-35395 2016-13006 Transfer of Licenses; Orders: LaCrosseSolutions, LLC Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, 35383-35385 2016-13013 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 35395 2016-13149 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments, 35484-35546 2016-12034 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 35395-35398 2016-13021 2016-13022 2016-13023 2016-13024 2016-13025 2016-13026 Postal Service Postal Service RULES International Product Changes, 35270-35271 2016-13080 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35296-35297 2016-12988 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Development of the 2017 National Plan for Civil Earth Observations, 35398-35400 2016-13010 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications for Deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act, 35400 2016-13043 Applications: Ares Capital Corporation, et al., 35419-35421 2016-12878 Orders: Limited Exemptions from Exchange Act Rules to SPDR Series Trust and SPDR Dorsey Wright Fixed Income Allocation ETF, 35423-35425 2016-13041 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 35421-35423 2016-12873 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 35432-35433 2016-12871 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 35401-35402 2016-13042 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 35409-35410 2016-12875 ISE Gemini, LLC, 35411-35412 2016-12874 ISE Mercury, LLC, 35405-35406 2016-12890 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 35406-35411 2016-12876 2016-12877 NYSE Arca, Inc., 35412-35419, 35425-35432 2016-12872 2016-12891 2016-13040 The Options Clearing Corp., 35402-35405 2016-13039 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Montana, 35433-35434 2016-12990 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Entry Into Force of Supplementary Agreement on Social Security between the United States and the Czech Republic, 35434 2016-13009 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmental Cooperation Pursuant to the United States-Bahrain Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation, 35434-35435 2016-13056 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Picasso: The Line, 35436 2016-12983 Watteau's Soldiers: Scenes from Military Life in 18th Century France, 35435 2016-12981 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, aka Islamic Movement of Turkestan, et al., 35435 2016-12980 Designations as Global Terrorists: Jama'at ul Dawa al-Qu'ran, aka JDQ, aka Jamaat al Dawa ila al Sunnah, aka Jamaat ud Dawa il al Quran al Sunnah, aka Jamaat ul Dawa al Quran, etc., 35435-35436 2016-12972 Tariq Gidar Group, aka TGG, aka Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP)-Tariq Gidar Group, et al., 35436 2016-12985 Determinations and Certifications under Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act, 35436 2016-12976 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Children and Families Administration, 35450-35482 2016-12509 Health and Human Services Department, 35450-35482 2016-12509 Part III Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 35484-35546 2016-12034 Part IV Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 35548-35578 2016-12886 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

81 106 Thursday, June 2, 2016 Rules and Regulations EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1601 RIN 3046-AB03 Adjusting the Penalty for Violation of Notice Posting Requirements AGENCY:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, this final rule adjusts for inflation the civil monetary penalty for violation of the notice-posting requirements in Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Ashley M. Martin, General Attorney, (202) 663-4695, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M St. NE., Washington, DC 20507. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY), or to the Publications Information Center at 1-800-669-3362 (toll free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which is incorporated by reference in section 105 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 207 of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), and 29 CFR 1601.30(a), every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program covered by Title VII, ADA, or GINA must post notices describing the pertinent provisions of Title VII, ADA, or GINA. Such notices must be posted in prominent and accessible places where notices to employees, applicants, and members are customarily maintained.

The EEOC first adjusted the civil monetary penalty for violations of the notice posting requirements in 1997 pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIA Act), 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, Sec. 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1373. A final rule was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 1997, at 62 FR 26934, which raised the maximum penalty per violation from $100 to $110. The EEOC's second adjustment, made pursuant to the FCPIA Act, as amended by the DCIA, was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2014, at 79 FR 15220 and raised the maximum penalty per violation from $110 to $210.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, Sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 599, further amended the FCPIA Act, to require each federal agency, not later than July 1, 2016, and not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed pursuant to each agency's statutes. The purpose of the adjustment is to maintain the remedial impact of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law. These periodic adjustments to the penalty are to be calculated pursuant to the inflation adjustment formula provided in section 5(b) of the 2015 Act and, in accordance with section 6 of the 2015 Act, the adjusted penalty will apply only to penalties assessed after the effective date of the adjustment.

Generally, the periodic inflation adjustment to a civil monetary penalty under the 2015 Act will be based on the percentage change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. The initial adjustment made to a civil monetary penalty under the 2015 Act, however, will be based on the percentage change between the CPI-U for the month of October 2015 and the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was established or last adjusted other than pursuant to the FCPIA Act. For the first adjustment made by an agency under the 2015 Act, the maximum amount of the increase in civil monetary penalty may not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty as it was on the date of enactment of 2015 Act.

II. Mathematical Calculation

The adjustment set forth in this final rule was calculated by comparing the CPI-U for October 2015 with the CPI-U for October 1964, the calendar year during which the amount of the civil monetary penalty was established, resulting in an inflation adjustment factor of 7.64752. Once the inflation adjustment factor is determined, the first step of the calculation is to multiply the inflation adjustment factor (7.64752) by the civil penalty amount ($100) in the year that the penalty was established to calculate the inflation-adjusted penalty level ($764.752). The second step is to round this inflation-adjusted penalty to the nearest dollar ($765). The third step is to compare the new inflation-adjusted penalty amount ($765) with the penalty amount ($210) reported in the prior year's Agency Financial Report (AFR). Under the 2015 Act, the adjustment amount cannot exceed 150 percent of the last reported penalty ($210). To achieve an increase of 150 percent, multiply the penalty amount ($210) last reported in the AFR by 2.5, and round to the nearest dollar ($525). The final step is to compare the inflation-adjusted penalty amount ($765) with the penalty amount that is 150 percent more than the last reported penalty level ($525). The 2015 Act specifies that if the inflation-adjusted penalty amount ($765) is larger, the 150 percent limit applies, and the increase is limited to 150 percent. Accordingly, we are adjusting the maximum penalty per violation specified in 29 CFR 1601.30(a) from $210 to $525.

III. Regulatory Procedures Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides an exception to the notice and comment procedures where an agency finds good cause for dispensing with such procedures, on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. EEOC finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule because this adjustment of the civil monetary penalty is required by the 2015 Act, the formula for calculating the adjustment to the penalty is prescribed by statute, and the Commission has no discretion in determining the amount of the published adjustment. Accordingly, we are issuing this revised regulation as a final rule without notice and comment.

Executive Order 13563 and 12866

In promulgating this final rule, EEOC has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and applicable principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EEOC has coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, the EEOC and OMB have determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. The great majority of employers and entities covered by these regulations comply with the posting requirement, and, as a result, the aggregate economic impact of these revised regulations will be minimal, affecting only those limited few who fail to post required notices in violation of the regulation and statue. The rule only increases the penalty by $315 for each separate offense, nowhere near the $100 million figure that would amount to a significant regulatory action.1

1 In the last ten years, the highest number of charges alleging notice posting violations occurred in 2010. In that year, only 114 charges of the 90,837 Title VII, ADA, and GINA charges (.13%) contained a notice posting violation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. This final rule contains no new information collection requirements, and therefore, will create no new paperwork burdens or modifications to existing burdens that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only requires a regulatory flexibility analysis when notice and comment is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or some other statute. As stated above, notice and comment is not required for this rule. For that reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EEOC will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the effective date of the rule. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by the CRA at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1601

Administrative practice and procedure.

For the Commission.

Dated: May 25, 2016. Jenny R. Yang, Chair.

Accordingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1601 as follows:

PART 1601—PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1601 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17; 42 U.S.C. 12111 to 12117; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff to 2000ff-11.

2. Section 1601.30 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1601.30 Notices to be posted.

(b) Section 711(b) of Title VII and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, make failure to comply with this section punishable by a fine of not more than $525 for each separate offense.

[FR Doc. 2016-12999 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 20 International Product Changes AGENCY:

Postal Service.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On April 22, 2016, the Postal Service published in the Federal Register a final rule concerning revisions to the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM®), to reflect classification changes to Competitive Services. Due to subsequent circumstances, it has become necessary to reschedule the effective date of that final rule. This document establishes a new effective date.

DATES:

The effective date for the rule published on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23634), is delayed until August 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Rabkin at 202-268-2537.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 22, 2016, the United States Postal Service® filed a final rule (81 FR 23634) revising the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), making classification changes to Competitive Services to support the shift of Priority Mail International® Flat Rate Envelopes and Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes from the letter-post stream to the air-parcel stream, with an effective date of June 3, 2016. Due to subsequent circumstances, the stated effective date will need to be changed. This document establishes a new effective date of August 28, 2016.

In rule FR Doc. 2016-09213 published on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23634), the effective date is delayed until August 28, 2016.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-13080 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-0AR-2016-0014; FRL-9947-13-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming on November 6, 2015. This submittal revises the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) that pertain to the issuance of Wyoming air quality permits for major sources in nonattainment areas. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2016-0014. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode SP AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or leone.kevin @epa.gov.

I. Background

In this final rulemaking, we are taking action to approve the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit requirements, and updated Section 14, Incorporation by reference, Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) to the Wyoming SIP. These provisions were submitted by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) on November 6, 2015, to address certain CAA requirements related to ozone nonattainment areas.

On March 27, 2008 , the EPA promulgated a revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone with an 8-hour concentration limit of 0.075 parts per million (“8-Hour Ozone NAAQS”). Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB) area of Wyoming as “nonattainment” for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. For nonattainment areas, states are required to submit SIP revisions, including a nonattainment NSR permitting program for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources located in the nonattainment area.

On May 10, 2011, before the formal designation of the UGRB area as nonattainment for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, the WDEQ submitted a nonattainment new source review (NSR) permitting program SIP revision to EPA. This new section incorporated by reference 40 CFR 51.165 in its entirety, with the exception of paragraphs (a) and (a)(l), into Wyoming's Chapter 6 Permitting Requirements. On February 20, 2015 (80 FR 9194), the EPA took final action to disapprove the portion of Wyoming's May 10, 2011 submittal that added this new section to the permitting requirements in WAQSR Chapter 6. As explained in 80 FR 9194, the method Wyoming used to create a nonattainment NSR program was not consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations.

Our final disapproval started a two-year clock under CAA section 110(c)(1) for our obligation to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency and the 18-month clock for sanctions, as required by CAA section 179(a)(2). These deadlines will be removed by the approval of this SIP revision addressing the deficiency in Wyoming's nonattainment NSR permitting requirements. Under section 110(c)(1), the EPA must promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiencies unless the state corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves the plan or plan revision, before the EPA promulgates the FIP. Under section 179(a), sanctions apply unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months. See also 40 CFR 52.31(d). With our approval of the November 6, 2015 submittal, we are affirmatively determining that the deficiencies identified in our February 20, 2015 notice have been corrected, and as a result the deadlines for a FIP and sanctions have been removed.

The SIP revisions submitted by the WDEQ on November 6, 2015, involve Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 13, Nonattainment new source review permit requirements, and Section 14, Incorporation by reference. The revisions to Section 13 establish specific nonattainment new source review permitting requirements. In Section 13, the WDEQ has incorporated federal regulatory language from 40 CFR 51.165 and reformatted it into state specific language that effectively imposes requirements on major sources in Wyoming. Additionally, the WDEQ has revised language within the rule to maintain consistency with the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 4). In addition to the revisions to Chapter 6, Section 13, the November 6, 2015, submittal also updates Chapter 6, Section 14, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference the CFR as published on July 1, 2014. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 6, Section 14 on May 28, 2015 that requested adoption by reference of the CFR as published on July 1, 2013.

II. What are the changes that EPA is taking final action to approve?

In our March 1, 2016 proposed action (81 FR 10559), we proposed to approve the following revisions to the WASQR: Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit requirements, and updated Section 14, Incorporation by reference, WAQSR to the Wyoming SIP. As explained in 81 FR 10559, these changes are consistent with CAA and EPA regulations and address the deficiencies identified in our February 20, 2015 disapproval.

Instead of incorporating 40 CFR 51.165 by reference, the November 6, 2015 submittal adapts the language in 40 CFR 51.165 to remove phrases such as “the plan shall provide” and “the plan may provide,” and specifies the procedures to be used. In addition, the submittal revises language in 40 CFR 51.165 to specify that the WDEQ is the reviewing authority. In one place, the submittal modifies the term “building, structure, facility, or installation” to “structure, building, facility, equipment, installation, or operation,” without modifying the substance of the definition of the term, which is permissible. These changes are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. Specifically:

1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter.”

2. CAA section 172(c)(5), provides that the plan “shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with section [173].” By removing language such as “the plan shall provide,” the submittal avoids any ambiguity as to whether permits are required.

3. CAA section 173, lays out the requirements for obtaining a permit that must be included in a state's SIP-approved permit program. Wyoming's Chapter 6, Section 13 rules impose these requirements on sources, and the State's proposed plan clearly satisfies the requirements of these statutory provisions.

4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Chapter 6, Section 13 creates enforceable obligations for sources by removing phrases such as “the plan shall provide” and “the plan may provide.”

5. CAA section 110(i), (with certain limited exceptions) prohibits states from modifying SIP requirements for stationary sources except through the SIP revision process. By eliminating unspecified procedures that were referenced in the May 10, 2011 submittal, the November 6, 2015 submittal addresses this issue.

6. CAA section 172(c)(7), requires that nonattainment plans, including nonattainment NSR programs required by section 172(c)(5), meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2), including the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) for enforceable emission limitations and other control measures.

7. CAA section 110(1), provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that interferes with any applicable requirement of the Act. As described above, the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13 to the Wyoming SIP would not interfere with sections 110(a)(2) and 110(i) of the Act.

8. Wyoming's SIP revision complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 as the plan imposes the regulatory requirements on individual sources, as required by the regulatory provisions. The crosswalk table in the docket details how the submittal addresses specific requirements in 40 CFR 51.165.

Wyoming's submittal also addresses the potential conflicts with the State's approved minor NSR and PSD programs that existed in the May 5, 2011 submittal. First, Section 13(c)(i) provides that the exemptions in the minor NSR program (Section 2(k)) shall not apply with regards to applicability of the nonattainment NSR program. Second, Section 13(d)(iv) states that lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER), not best available control technology (BACT), applies to sources subject to nonattainment NSR. Finally, Section 13(f)(iii) clarifies that Section 13 does not apply in the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment area; instead the construction ban in Section 2(c)(ii)(B) continues to apply. We also note that Wyoming will have permitting authority for new major sources and major modifications in the Sheridan coarse particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment area, if Wyoming submits and we approve the removal of the construction ban from the SIP. Wyoming has had a construction ban in place and approved into the SIP for over 20 years (See WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 2(c)(ii)(B)).

EPA's final approval of Wyoming's nonattainment permitting program allows Wyoming to apply WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 13 as permitting authority in the UGRB ozone nonattainment area for new major sources and major modifications of nitrogen oxide (NOX) and volatile organic ompounds (VOCs) as ozone precursors.

Finally, as explained in our proposal notice, the November 6, 2015 submittal treats sulfur dioxide (SO2) as a precursor to PM2.s, and presumes that NOX is also a precursor to PM2.s. The State of Wyoming has no nonattainment areas for the PM2.s standards. Accordingly, the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that major sources of VOCs and ammonia do not contribute significantly to PM2.s nonattainment within the State. Thus, there is no need at this time for the State to regulate VOCs or ammonia as PM2.s precursors in the State's nonattainment NSR permitting program, and so we are approving the submittal 's PM2.s precursor provisions. Should the EPA in the future designate an area in Wyoming as nonattainment for PM2.s, the State would have the obligation to ensure that the nonattainment NSR program met all applicable requirements for PM2.s, including appropriate control of precursors. See CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(l)(A).

We provided a detailed explanation of the basis of approval in our proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR 65362). We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on March 31, 2016.

III. Response to Comments

We received one comment letter during the public comment period. The comment letter was submitted by Nancy E. Vehr, Air Quality Division (AQD) Administrator for the State of Wyoming.

Comment: The comment expresses the AQD's support for the EPA's proposed approval of the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit requirements, and updated Section 14, Incorporation by reference, WAQSR to the Wyoming SIP.

Response: We have received the comment and acknowledge the support.

IV. What action is EPA taking today?

The EPA is taking final action to fully approve Wyoming's November 6, 2015, submittal. As discussed in our proposal and this notice, our action is based on an evaluation of Wyoming's rules against the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(i), 110(1), 172(c)(5), 172(c)(7), 173, and regulations at 40 CFR 51.165.

As described in our proposed rulemaking, and in Section II of this notice, the EPA is approving the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment new source review permit requirements, and updated Section 14, Incorporation by reference, WAQSR to the Wyoming SIP submitted by Wyoming on November 6, 2015. We are also determining that the November 6, 2015 submittal addresses the deficiencies identified by the EPA in Wyoming 's prior submittal of Section 13; as a result the deadlines for a FIP and sanctions are removed.

V. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference.

In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the WDEQ rules as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 741O(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 11, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 2. In § 52.2620, in the table in paragraph (c), under ”Chapter 06. Permitting Requirements.” add an entry for “Section 13” and revise the entry for “Section 14” to read as follows:
§ 52.2620 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

Rule No. Rule title State effective EPA effective date Final rule
  • citation/date
  • Comments
    Chapter 06. Permitting Requirements *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 13 Nonattainment new source review permit requirements 10/13/2015 7/5/2016 6/2/2016 [insert Federal Register citation] Section 14 Incorporation by reference 10/13/2015 7/5/2016 6/2/2016 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-12725 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 12 [PS Docket No. 14-174, FCC 15-98] Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction of announcement of compliance date.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register of April 7, 2016, an announcement that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications Report and Order's (Order) consumer disclosure requirement. We inadvertently announced the wrong compliance date for providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines as April 1, 2017. This document changes the date to February 1, 2017.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2016 the compliance date for the rule published April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20258) is corrected from April 1, 2017 to February 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda M. Pintro, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7490, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FCC published a document in the Federal Register of April 7, 2016, (81 FR 20258) announcing that, on March 21, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the subscriber notification rules contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 15-98, published at 80 FR 62470, October 16, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1217. The Commission published this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. This document inadvertently announced the compliance date for providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines as April 1, 2017. This correction replaces this compliance date with February 1, 2017.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12946 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 106 Thursday, June 2, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-135734-14] RIN 1545-BM45 Inversions and Related Transactions; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-135734-14) that were published in the Federal Register on Friday, April 8, 2016 (81 FR 20588). The proposed regulations relate to transactions that are structured to avoid the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 81 FR 20588, April 8, 2016 are still being accepted and must be received by July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations under sections 304, 367, and 7874, Shane M. McCarrick or David A. Levine, (202) 317-6937; concerning the proposed regulations under sections 956 and 770 (l), Rose E. Jenkins (202) 317-6934; concerning submissions or comments or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson 202-317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-135734-14) that is the subject of this correction is under sections 304, 367, 956, 7701(l), and 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-135734-14) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-135734-14) that was the subject of FR Doc. 2016-07299 is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 20588, in the preamble, in the “Background” paragraph, in the fifth line, the language “954, 956, 7701(l), and 7874 of the” is corrected to read “956, 7701(l), and 7874 of the”.
    § 1.7874-4 [Corrected]
    2. On page 20590, second column, seventh line of paragraph (c)(1)(ii), the language “(ii) [Reserved].” is corrected to read “(ii) introductory text through (ii)(A) [Reserved].”. 3. On page 20590, second column, second line of paragraph (i)(7), the language “(i)(7)(iii) introductory text [Reserved].” is corrected to read “(i)(7)(iii)(B) [Reserved].”. 4. On page 20590, third column, first and second line of paragraph (j), the language “(j) introductory text through (j)(6) [Reserved].” is corrected to read “(i)(8) through (j)(6) [Reserved]”. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-13015 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0607; FRL-9943-55] RIN 2025-AA42 Addition of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) Category; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to add a hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) category to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). EPA is proposing to add this chemical category to the EPCRA section 313 list because EPA believes HBCD meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) and (C) toxicity criteria. Specifically, EPA believes that HBCD can reasonably be anticipated to cause developmental and reproductive effects in humans and is highly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. In addition, based on the available bioaccumulation and persistence data, EPA believes that HBCD should be classified as a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical and assigned a 100-pound reporting threshold. Based on a review of the available production and use information, members of the HBCD category are expected to be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would exceed a 100-pound EPCRA section 313 reporting threshold.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2015-0607, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#hq.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Daniel R. Bushman, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division (7409M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0743; email: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline; telephone numbers: toll free at (800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or (703) 412-9810 in Virginia and Alaska; or toll free, TDD (800) 553-7672; or go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/infocenter/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this notice apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use HBCD. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.

    * Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.

    • Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).

    • Federal facilities.

    To determine whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 372, subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to add a hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) category to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. As discussed in more detail later in this document, EPA is proposing to add this chemical category to the EPCRA section 313 list because EPA believes HBCD meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) and (C) toxicity criteria.

    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action is issued under EPCRA sections 313(d) and 328, 42 U.S.C. 11023 et seq., and PPA section 6607, 42 U.S.C. 13106. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

    Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels to report their environmental releases and other waste management quantities of such chemicals annually. These facilities must also report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an initial list of toxic chemicals that comprised 308 individually listed chemicals and 20 chemical categories.

    EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing criteria in EPCRA section 313(d)(2) are met. Therefore, to add a chemical, EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to remove a chemical from the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) dictates that EPA must demonstrate that none of the following listing criteria in EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A)-(C) are met:

    • The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases.

    • The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans: Cancer or teratogenic effects, or serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects.

    • The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause, because of its toxicity, its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section.

    EPA often refers to the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the “acute human health effects criterion;” the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criterion as the “chronic human health effects criterion;” and the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the “environmental effects criterion.”

    EPA published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) (FRL-4922-2), a statement clarifying its interpretation of the EPCRA section 313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals.

    II. Background Information A. What is HBCD?

    HBCD is a cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbon consisting of a 12-membered carbon ring with 6 bromine atoms attached (molecular formula C12H18Br6). HBCD has 16 possible stereoisomers. Technical grades of HBCD consist predominantly of three diastereomers, α-, ß- and γ-HBCD (Ref. 1). HBCD may be designated as a non-specific mixture of all isomers (hexabromocyclododecane, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) 25637-99-4) or as a mixture of the three main diastereomers (1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane, CASRN 3194-55-6) (Ref 1). The main use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) (Ref. 2). EPS and XPS are used primarily for thermal insulation boards in the building and construction industry. HBCD may also be used as a flame retardant in textiles including: upholstered furniture, upholstery seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, mattress ticking, and interior textiles, such as roller blinds (Ref. 2). In addition, HBCD is used as a flame retardant in high-impact polystyrene for electrical and electronic appliances such as audio-visual equipment, as well as for some wire and cable applications (Ref. 2).

    Concerns for releases and uses of HBCD have been raised because it is found world-wide in the environment and wildlife and has also been found in human breast milk, adipose tissue and blood (Ref. 1). HBCD is known to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in the food chain and has been detected over large areas and in remote locations in environmental monitoring studies (Ref. 1).

    B. How is EPA proposing to list HBCD under EPCRA section 313?

    HBCD is identified through two primary CASRNs 3194-55-6 (1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane) and 25637-99-4 (hexabromocyclododecane) (Ref. 1). EPA is proposing to create an HBCD category that would cover these two chemical names and CASRNs. The HBCD category would be defined as: Hexabromocyclododecane and would only include those chemicals covered by the following CAS numbers:

    • 3194-55-6; 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane.

    • 25637-99-4; Hexabromocyclododecane.

    As a category, facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use HBCD covered under both of these names and CASRNs would file just one report.

    In addition to listing HBCD as a category, EPA is proposing to add the HBCD category to the list of chemicals of special concern. There are several chemicals and chemical categories on the EPCRA section 313 chemical list that have been classified as chemicals of special concern because they are PBT chemicals (see 40 CFR 372.28(a)(2)). In a final rule published in the Federal Register of October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58666) (FRL-6389-11), EPA established the PBT classification criteria for chemicals on the EPCRA section 313 chemical list. For purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, EPA established persistence half-life criteria for PBT chemicals of 2 months in water/sediment and soil and 2 days in air, and established bioaccumulation criteria for PBT chemicals as a bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of 1,000 or higher. Chemicals meeting the PBT criteria were assigned 100-pound reporting thresholds. With regards to setting the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds, EPA set lower reporting thresholds (10 pounds) for those PBT chemicals with persistence half-lives of 6 months or more in water/sediment or soil and with BCF or BAF values of 5,000 or higher, these chemicals were considered highly PBT chemicals. The data presented in this proposed rule support classifying the HBCD category as a PBT chemical category with a 100-pound reporting threshold.

    III. What is EPA's evaluation of the toxicity, bioaccumulation, and environmental persistence of HBCD?

    EPA evaluated the available literature on the human health toxicity, ecological toxicity, bioaccumulation potential, and environmental persistence of HBCD (Ref. 1). Unit III.A. provides a review of the human health toxicity studies and EPA's conclusions regarding the human health hazard potential of HBCD. Unit III.B. discusses the ecological toxicity of HBCD, Unit III.C. contains information on the bioaccumulation potential of HBCD, and Unit III.D. provides information on the environmental persistence of HBCD.

    A. What is EPA's review of the human health toxicity data for HBCD?

    1. Toxicokinetics. HBCD is absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract and metabolized in rodents (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). Once absorbed, HBCD is distributed to a number of tissues, including fatty tissue, muscle, and the liver (Refs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). Elimination of HBCD is predominantly via feces (as the parent compound), but it is also eliminated in urine (as secondary metabolites) (Refs. 3, 4, and 5). HBCD has been detected in human milk, adipose tissue, and blood (Refs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24). The composition of HBCD isomers in most rodent toxicity studies resembles that of industrial grade HBCD, which may differ from human exposure to certain foods that have been shown to contain elevated fractions of α-HBCD (Ref. 25).

    2. Effects of acute exposure. HBCD was not found to be highly toxic in acute oral, inhalation, and dermal studies in rodents. One study reported an oral median lethal dose (LD50) of >10,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in Charles River rats (Ref. 26). Another study by the same researchers, however, reported an LD50 of 680 mg/kg for females and 1,258 mg/kg for males in Charles River CD rats (Ref. 27). Two other studies reported an oral LD50 of >5,000 mg/kg in Sprague-Dawley rats and >10,000 mg/kg in NR rats (Refs. 28 and 29). An oral study in NR mice reported an LD50 of >6,400 mg/kg (Ref. 30). Acute inhalation studies in rats have generally concluded that HCBD is not highly toxic, with a median lethal concentration (LC50) reported by Gulf South Research Institute of >200 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Refs. 26, 27, 29, 31). Acute dermal toxicity studies have generally shown HBCD not to be highly toxic in rabbits (Refs. 27, 29, 31, and 32). One dermal study reported an LD50 of 3,969 mg/kg (Ref. 27). Additionally, HBCD is not a dermal irritant in rabbits (Refs. 27, 29, and 31), but it is a mild skin allergen in guinea pigs (Ref. 32). Acute eye irritation studies have concluded that HBCD is a primary eye irritant (Ref. 27) and a mild, transient ocular irritant (Ref. 29).

    3. Effects of short-term and subchronic exposure. In subacute and subchronic studies, HBCD demonstrated effects on the thyroid and liver (Refs. 8, 33, 34, and 35). In a subacute study, van der Ven et al. (Ref. 8) exposed Wistar rats (5/sex/dose) by gavage to a mixture of HBCD dissolved in corn oil at concentrations resulting in doses of 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 10, 30, 100, and 200 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) for 28 days. The isomeric composition of the HBCD was 10.3% α, 8.7% β, and 81.0% γ. The authors reported a benchmark dose lower bound confidence limit (BMDL) of 29.9 mg/kg/day for an increase in pituitary weight, a BMDL of 1.6 mg/kg/day for an increase in thyroid weight, and a BMDL of 22.9 mg/kg/day for an increase in liver weight. The increase in thyroid weight was the most sensitive end point observed and, according to research by EPA, is considered relevant to humans (Ref. 36). Additionally, histopathology of the thyroid demonstrated that thyroid follicles were smaller, depleted, and had hypertrophied epithelium in female rats.

    In another subacute study, HBCD was administered orally by gavage in corn oil to Sprague-Dawley Crl:CD BR rats for 28 days at doses of 0, 125, 350, or 1,000 mg/kg/day (6 rats/sex/dose in 125 and 350 mg/kg/day groups and 12 rats/sex/dose in the control and 1,000 mg/kg/day groups) (Ref. 33). At the end of 28 days, 6 rats/sex/dose were necropsied, while the remaining rats in the control and 1,000 mg/kg/day groups were untreated for a 14-day recovery period prior to necropsy. The authors reported increased absolute and liver to body weight ratios in females, but the authors considered the findings to be adaptive and not adverse. This study also identified a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    In an older subacute study (Ref. 37), an HBCD product was administered to Sprague-Dawley rat (10/sex/group) at doses of 0, 1, 2.5, and 5% of the diet for 28 days. Doses were calculated to be 0, 940, 2,410, 4,820 mg/kg/day. Mean liver weight (both absolute and relative) was increased in all dose groups, but no microscopic pathology was detected. Thyroid hyperplasia was observed in some animals at all doses in addition to slight numerical development of the follicles and ripening follicles in the ovaries at the high dose. The authors concluded that these observed effects were not pathologic and reported a NOAEL of 940 mg/kg/day (Ref. 37).

    In a subchronic study, Chengelis (Refs. 34 and 35) administered HBCD by oral gavage in corn oil daily to Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR rats (15/sex/dose) at dose levels of 0, 100, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/day for 90 days. At the end of 90 days, 10 rats/sex/dose were necropsied, while the remaining rats were untreated for a 28-day recovery period prior to necropsy. The authors reported significant treatment-related changes in rats, including decreased liver weight and histopathological changes, but the authors considered these changes mild, reversible, and adaptive. Decreased liver weight accompanied by the observed histopathological changes, however, can be considered an adverse effect. Therefore, EPA identified a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) of 100 mg/kg/day based on these changes.

    In an older subchronic study (Ref. 38) an HBCD product was administered to Sprague-Dawley rats (10/sex/group) at doses of 0, 0.16, 0.32, 0.64, and 1.28% of the diet for 90 days. Doses were calculated to be 0, 120, 240, 470, and 950 mg/kg/day. An increase in relative liver weight was observed and was accompanied by fatty accumulation. The pathology report concluded that although fat was visible microscopically in treated rats, the change was not accompanied by any pathology, and therefore could not be defined as “fatty liver.” No histological changes were found in any other organ. The authors concluded that the increased liver weight and the fat deposits, both of which were largely reversible when administration of HBCD was stopped, were the result of a temporary increase in the activity of the liver. They identified a NOAEL of 950 mg/kg/day.

    4. Carcinogenicity. No adequate studies were found evaluating the carcinogenicity of HBCD in animals or humans. One non-guideline study (Ref. 39) was cited in the U.S. EPA's Flame Retardant Alternatives for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): Final Report (Ref. 40), but this study was not adequate to draw conclusions regarding carcinogenicity.

    5. Developmental and reproductive toxicity. The developmental and reproductive toxicity of HBCD have been investigated in several studies. In a 1-generation study that included additional immunological, endocrine and neurodevelopmental endpoints, van der Ven et al. (Ref. 9) exposed Wistar rats (10/sex/dose) to a composite mixture of technical-grade HBCD (10.3% α, 8.7% β, and 81.0% γ) in the diet at concentrations resulting in doses of 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 10, 30, or 100 mg/kg/day. In the highest dose group (100 mg/kg/day) body weight decreases of 7-36% in males and 10-20% in females were observed in first generation (F1) pups. The authors observed decreases in kidney and thymus weight in both F1 males and females. Decreases in testes, adrenal, prostate, heart, and brain weights in F1 males were also observed. No histopathological changes, however, were observed in any of these organs. Other developmental effects were observed, including: Immune system effects, indications of liver toxicity, and decreases in bone mineral density at very low doses (i.e., <1.3 mg/kg/day). The authors noted that the vehicle used (corn oil) may have affected some observations at higher doses, including: Increased mortality during lactation, decreased liver weight in males, decreased adrenal weight in females, decreased plasma cholesterol in females, and other immunological markers of toxicity. Increased anogenital distance was observed in males at 100 mg/kg on postnatal day (PND) 4, but not on PND 7 or 21. There was no effect on preputial separation. The time to vaginal opening was delayed in females at the 100 mg/kg dose. There were no effects of HBCD exposure on thyroid hormones triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4) in either the parental or F1 animals. There were no effects on thyroid weight or thyroid pathology in the F1 animals (parents were not examined). The most sensitive endpoints with valid benchmark dose (BMD)/BMDL ratios for female rats were decreased bone mineral density with a BMDL of 0.056 mg/kg/day (BMD of 0.18 mg/kg/day) at a benchmark response (BMR) of 10% and decreased concentrations of apolar retinoids in the liver with a BMDL of 1.3 mg/kg/day (BMD = 5.1 mg/kg/day) at a BMR of 10%. The most sensitive endpoint with a valid BMD/BMDL ratio for male rats was an increased IgG response to sheep red blood cells with a BMDL of 0.46 mg/kg/day (BMD = 1.45 mg/kg/day) at a BMR of 20%. There were no significant effects of HBCD exposure on any measure of reproduction, including: Mating success, time to gestation, duration of gestation, number of implantation sites, pup mortality (at birth and throughout lactation), or sex ratios within a litter. Therefore, a BMDL for reproductive toxicity could not be derived for this study.

    Saegusa et al. (Ref. 41) exposed pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats (10/sex/dose) to HBCD from gestation day 10 until PND 20 at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 parts per million (ppm) in a soy-free diet. The authors observed increased relative thyroid weight and decreased T3 levels in F1 male Sprague-Dawley rats at postnatal week (PNW) 11 following dietary exposure to 1,000 ppm (approximately 146.3 mg/kg/day) HBCD. The authors also reported a significant reduction in the number of CNPase-positive oligodendrocytes at 10,000 ppm (approximately 1,504.8 mg/kg/day). EPA identified a maternal LOAEL of 10,000 ppm (about 1,504.8 mg/kg/day) based on increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy, and a developmental LOAEL of 1,000 ppm (about 146.3 mg/kg/day) based on increased relative thyroid weight and decreased T3 levels in F1 males at PNW 11. Changes in reproductive endpoints (e.g., the number of implantation sites, live offspring, sex ratio) were not observed. Therefore, a LOAEL for reproductive toxicity could not be determined for this study.

    Ema et al. (Ref. 42) administered HBCD to groups of male and female Crl:CD(SD) rats (24/sex/dose, as a mixture of α-HBCD, β -HBCD, and γ-HBCD with proportions of 8.5, 7.9, and 83.7%, respectively) in the diet at concentrations of 0, 150, 1,500, or 15,000 ppm from 10 weeks prior to mating through mating, gestation, and lactation. The authors reported a decrease in the number of primordial follicles in F1 female rats at 1,500 ppm (approximately 138 mg/kg/day) and a significant increase in the number of litters lost in the F1 generation at 15,000 ppm (approximately 1,363 mg/kg/day). These authors reported no other significant treatment-related effects in any generation for indicators of reproductive health, including: Estrous cyclicity, sperm count and morphology, copulation index, fertility index, gestation index, delivery index, gestation length, number of pups delivered, number of litters, or sex ratios. The authors reported a reduced viability index on day 4 and day 21 of lactation among second generation (F2) offspring at 15,000 ppm (approximately 1,363 mg/kg/day). They observed additional developmental effects at doses as low as 1,500 ppm (approximately 115 and 138 mg/kg/day for F1 males and females, respectively), including: An increase in dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in F1 males and an increased incidence of animals with decreased thyroid follicle size in both sexes and generations. These authors reported no effects on sexual development indicated by anogenital distance, vaginal opening, or preputial separation among F1 or F2 generations. The percentage of pups with completed eye opening on PND 14 was significantly decreased compared to controls in F2 females at 1,500 ppm and in F2 males and females at 15,000 ppm. Fewer F2 females exposed to 15,000 ppm HBCD completed the mid-air righting reflex (76.9%) than control F2 females (100%). These findings were not consistent over generations or sexes and were not considered treatment related. No other effects of HBCD exposure on the development of reflexes were observed in either F1 or F2 progeny. EPA identified a maternal LOAEL of 150 ppm (about 14 mg/kg/day) based on increased thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). A reproductive LOAEL of 1,500 ppm (about 138 mg/kg/day) was identified based on a decreased number of primordial follicles in the ovary observed in F1 females. A developmental LOAEL of 15,000 ppm (about 1,142 mg/kg/day for males and 1,363 mg/kg/day for females) was identified based on increased pup mortality during lactation in the F2 generation.

    Murai et al. (Ref. 43) fed female Wistar rats HBCD in the diet at concentrations of 0, 0.01, 0.1, or 1% throughout gestation (Days 0-20). Dams in the high-dose group demonstrated a statistically significant decrease (8.4%) in food consumption and increase in liver weight (13%) in comparison with controls. There were no treatment-related effects on maternal or fetal body weight. There were no effects on the number of implants; number of resorbed, dead, or live fetuses; body weight of live fetuses; or incidence of external or visceral abnormalities. A few skeletal variations were present but were also observed in controls and not considered significant. There were no effects on weaning or survival. The European Commission (Ref. 44) used the study's data to calculate the doses to be 0, 7.5, 75, and 750 mg/kg/day (based on the assumption of a mean animal weight of 200 grams (g) and food consumption of 15 g/day). They concluded that the offspring NOAEL was 750 mg/kg/day and the maternal LOAEL was 750 mg/kg/day based on a 13% liver weight increase in the high dose group.

    Eriksson et al. (Ref. 45) conducted a study that examined behavior, learning, and memory in adult mice following exposure to HBCD on PND 10. The authors administered a single oral dose of HBCD (mixture of, α-, β-, and γ-diastereoisomers) dissolved in a fat emulsion at 0, 0.9, or 13.5 mg/kg/day on PND 10 to male and female NMRI mice. The authors concluded that exposure on PND 10 affected spontaneous motor behavior, learning, and memory in adult mice in a dose-dependent manner. The authors identified the lowest exposure level, 0.9 mg/kg, as the LOAEL based on significantly reduced mean locomotor activity compared with controls during the first 20-minute interval of testing. EPA, however, identified a LOAEL of 13.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased habituation, locomotion, and rearing during all intervals. This study was not conducted according to current guidelines (Ref. 46) and Good Laboratory Practices; therefore, EPA reserves judgment on the significance of these findings.

    6. Genotoxicity. A limited number of studies investigated the genotoxicity of HBCD. These studies indicate that HBCD is not likely to be genotoxic (Refs. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54).

    7. Conclusions regarding the human hazard potential of HBCD. The available evidence indicates that HBCD has the potential to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity at moderately low to low doses. While there were some indications of liver toxicity in some short-term and subchronic studies, the evidence for these effects is not sufficient to support listing. The available evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity, however, is sufficient to conclude that HBCD can be reasonably anticipated to cause moderately high to high chronic toxicity in humans based on the EPCRA section 313 listing criteria published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) (FRL-4922-2).

    B. What is EPA's review of the ecological toxicity of HBCD?

    HBCD can cause effects on survival, growth, reproduction, development, and behavior in aquatic and terrestrial species. Observed acute toxicity values as low as 0.009 mg/L for a 72-hour EC50 (i.e., the concentration that is effective in producing a sublethal response in 50% of test organisms) based on reduced growth in the marine algae Skeletonema costatum (Ref. 55) indicate high acute aquatic toxicity. Observed chronic aquatic toxicity values as low as 0.0042 mg/L (maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC)) for reduced size (length) of surviving young in water fleas (Daphnia magna) (Ref. 56) indicate high chronic aquatic toxicity. Reduced chick survival in Japanese quails (Coturnix coturnix japonica) fed a 15 parts per million (ppm) HBCD diet (2.1 mg/kg/day) (Ref. 57 as cited in Ref. 58) and altered reproductive behavior (reduced courtship and brood-rearing activity) and reduced egg size in American kestrels (Falco sparverius) fed 0.51 mg/kg/day (Refs. 59, 60, 61, and 62) indicate high toxicity to terrestrial species as well.

    Assessment of HBCD's aquatic toxicity is complicated by its low water solubility and differences in the solubility of the three main HBCD isomers, which makes testing difficult and interpretation uncertain for studies conducted above the water solubility. Studies conducted at concentrations above the water solubility of HBCD are essentially testing the effects at the maximum HBCD concentration possible. In some acute and chronic aquatic toxicity studies conducted using methods, test species, and endpoints recommended by EPA, no effects were reported at or near the limit of water solubility. However, water solubility is not considered a limiting factor for hazard determination for aquatic species since there are studies showing adverse effects at or below the water solubility of HBCD. In addition, the potential for HBCD to bioaccumulate, biomagnify, and persist in the environment, significantly increases concerns for effects on aquatic organisms.

    A wide range of effects of HBCD have been reported in fish (e.g., developmental toxicity, embryo malformations, reduced hatching success, reduced growth, hepatic enzyme and biomarker effects, thyroid effects, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage to erythrocytes, and oxidative damage) and in invertebrates (e.g., degenerative changes, morphological abnormalities, decreased hatching success, and altered enzyme activity) (Refs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74). Reduced thyroid hormone (triiodothyronine, T3, and thyroxine, T4) levels in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Refs. 68 and 69), are similar to those observed in mammals. Reduced T4 levels were also reported in birds exposed to HBCD (Ref. 61).

    1. Acute aquatic toxicity. Adverse effects observed following acute exposure were found in studies with marine algae, including EPA-recommended estuarine/marine algae species Skeletonema costatum (Ref. 75 as cited in Refs. 44 and 76, Refs. 55 and 77), a series of short-term (72 to 120-hour) early life stage tests with zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos (Refs. 64, 65, 67, and 72), and short-term (72-hour) results from an early life stage test with sea urchin embryos (Ref. 63). Effects in these studies, reported at concentrations as low as 0.009 mg/L (measured) in algae, 0.01 mg/L (nominal) in zebrafish embryos, and 0.064 mg/L (nominal) in sea urchin embryos, indicate high acute toxicity. Walsh et al. (Ref. 55) reported measured 72-hour EC50 values in Skeletonema costatum ranging from 0.009 to 0.012 mg/L based on reduced growth rate in five different types of saltwater media (0.010 mg/L in seawater itself). The study tested two other marine algal species, Chlorella sp. and Thalassiosira pseudonana, that were also found to be inhibited by HBCD, albeit at higher concentrations than Skeletonema costatum. EC50 values for reduced growth in these species were 0.05-0.37 mg/L (0.08 mg/L in seawater) for Thalassiosira pseudonana and >1.5 mg/L for Chlorella sp.

    Subsequent studies by Desjardins et al. (Ref. 75) confirmed the high acute toxicity of HBCD to Skeletonema costatum. In these studies, single concentrations were tested, but the assays were conducted without solvent and the concentrations were measured. Desjardins et al. (Ref. 75) reported approximately 10% inhibition of growth in Skeletonema costatum exposed to 0.041 mg/L for 72 hours. Desjardins et al. (Ref. 77) found that a saturated solution of 0.0545 mg/L resulted in 51% growth inhibition after 72 hours of exposure. The latter result corresponds to an approximate EC50 of 0.052 mg/L.

    Zebrafish embryo studies reported a variety of effects on embryos and larvae at low HBCD concentrations. In the Deng et al. (Ref. 64) study, developmental toxicity endpoints were assessed at 96 hours post-fertilization in embryos/larvae exposed to HBCD starting 4 hours post-fertilization. Survival of embryos/larvae was significantly reduced at all tested concentrations, making the low concentration of 0.05 mg/L the lowest-observed-effect-concentration (LOEC) in this study; a no-observed-effect-concentration (NOEC) was not established. Embryonic malformation rate was significantly increased and larval growth significantly decreased at ≥0.1 mg/L. Malformations included epiboly deformities, yolk sac and pericardial edema, tail and heart malformations, swim bladder inflation, and spinal curvature. Embryo hatching rate was reduced only at the high concentration of 1 mg/L. Heart rate, a marker for cardiac developmental toxicity, was significantly decreased at all tested concentrations. Associated mechanistic studies suggest the mechanism for developmental toxicity involves the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the consequent triggering of apoptosis genes. Increased ROS formation (indicative of oxidative stress) was observed at a nominal concentration of 0.1 mg/L. In the same study, zebrafish embryos exposed to HBCD exhibited increased expression of pro-apoptotic genes (Bax, P53, Puma, Apaf-1, caspase 3, and caspase-9), decreased expression of anti-apoptotic genes (Mdm2 and Bcl-2), and increased activity of enzymes involved in apoptosis (caspase-3 and caspase-9) with LOECs of 0.05-1 mg/L.

    Hu et al. (Ref. 67) found that hatching of zebrafish embryos was delayed at 0.002 mg/L, the lowest concentration tested, and other concentrations up to and including 0.5 mg/L, but not the two high concentrations of 2.5 and 10 mg/L. The same authors observed an increase in heat shock protein (Hsp70) at 0.01 mg/L and an increase in malondialdehyde activity, used as a measure of lipid peroxidation, at 0.5 mg/L. The activity of superoxide dismutase was increased at 0.1 mg/L, but decreased at 2.5 and 10 mg/L. The authors concluded that HBCD can cause oxidative stress and over expression of Hsp70 in acute exposures of zebrafish embryos.

    Du et al. (Ref. 65) exposed zebrafish embryos 4 hours post-fertilization to each of three diastereomers of HBCD (α-, β-, and γ-HBCD) individually at nominal concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 mg/L. Hatching success was reduced after 68 hours of exposure to γ-HBCD at the lowest concentration (0.01 mg/L), but a higher concentration of α- or β-HBCD (0.1 mg/L) was necessary to reduce hatching success. After 92 hours, survival was reduced at concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/L of γ-, β-, and α-HBCD, respectively. Growth, measured as body length of larvae after 92 hours of exposure, was reduced at 0.1 mg/L of β- and γ-HBCD and at 1 mg/L of α-HBCD. After 116 hours of exposure, malformations were observed at all test concentrations of β- and γ-HBCD and at 0.1 mg/L and above for α-HBCD. Effects on heart rate varied depending upon the length of exposure; reduced heart rate was observed at 0.1 mg/L of β- and γ-HBCD or 1 mg/L of α-HBCD at 44 hours and at 0.1 mg/L of α- and β-HBCD at 92 hours, whereas γ-HBCD resulted in an increase in heart rate at 1 mg/L at 92 hours. An increase in generation of ROS was observed after 116 hours at 0.1 mg/L of β- and γ-HBCD and at 1 mg/L of α-HBCD. Activities of caspase-3 and caspase-9 enzymes, indicative of apoptosis, were increased after 116 hours at 0.1 mg/L of γ-HBCD and at 1 mg/L of α- and β-HBCD. The authors ranked the HBCD diastereomers in the following order for developmental toxicity to zebrafish: γ-HBCD > β HBCD > α-HBCD.

    Effects indicative of oxidative stress, as seen in the zebrafish embryo studies, were also found in clams. Zhang et al. (Ref. 74) measured parameters indicative of antioxidant defenses and oxidative stress after 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 days of exposure to low nominal concentrations of HBCD ranging from 0.000086 to 0.0086 mg/L in the clam Venerupis philippinarum. Increases in ethyoxyresorufin-o-deethylase (EROD) activity, glutathione (GSH) content, and DNA damage were observed in clams exposed to 0.00086 mg/L, while increased lipid peroxidation (LPO) was observed at 0.0086 mg/L. These same effects were observed at lower concentrations as the length of exposure increased.

    Anselmo et al. (Ref. 63) exposed sea urchin (Psammechinus miliaris) embryos to HBCD in an early life stage test. Newly-fertilized embryos were exposed to HBCD at nominal concentrations of 0, 9, 25, 50, and 100 nanomolar (nM) (0, 0.0058, 0.016, 0.032, and 0.064 mg/L, respectively) in dimethyl sulfoxide solvent and evaluated at 72 hours post-fertilization. A significant increase in morphological abnormalities was found at a nominal concentration of 100 nM HBCD (0.064 mg/L), the highest concentration tested. Observed malformations included short or deformed larval arms and slight edema around the larval body. The NOEC for this effect at 72 hours was 0.032 mg/L.

    2. Chronic aquatic toxicity. A measured MATC of 0.0042 mg/L, based on reduced size (length) of surviving young water fleas (Daphnia magna), indicates high chronic toxicity (Ref. 56). This study reported additional effects, including decreased reproductive rate and decreased mean weight of surviving young at 0.011 mg/L. Other effects reported following chronic exposure to HBCD included degenerative changes in the gills of clams (Macoma balthica), manifested by the increased frequency of nuclear and nucleolar abnormalities and the occurrence of dead cells, at nominal concentrations of ≥0.1 mg/L (50-day LOEC) (Ref. 71), a nominal MATC of 0.045 mg/L for increased morphological abnormalities in sea urchin (P. miliaris) embryos exposed to HBCD for up to 16 days in an early life stage test (Ref. 63), and a nominal MATC of 0.03 mg/L for increased malformation rate in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma) embryos exposed to HBCD for 17 days in an early life stage test (Ref. 66). The developmental abnormalities in medaka included yolk sac edema, pericardial edema, and spinal curvature (Ref. 66). Mechanistic findings in this study included increases in heart rate and sinus venosus-bulbus arteriosus (SV-BA) distance, which are markers for cardiac development, induction of oxidative stress and apoptosis, and suppression of nucleotide and protein synthesis.

    Thyroid effects were reported in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) following dietary exposure to HBCD (Refs. 68 and 69). Each of the diastereomers of HBCD (administered separately via diet at concentrations of 5 ng/g of α-, β-, or γ-HBCD for up to 56 days) disrupted thyroid homeostasis, as indicated by lower free circulating T3 and T4 levels.

    The mechanisms of the effects on fish and invertebrates following chronic exposure were similar to those found in acute studies. Effects observed in fish include increased formation of ROS resulting in oxidative damage to lipids, proteins, and DNA, decreased antioxidant capacities in fish tissue (e.g., brains, hepatocytes, or erythrocytes), and increasing levels of EROD (detoxification enzyme) and PentoxyResorufin-O-Deethylase (PROD, detoxification enzyme) levels in hepatocytes of fish exposed to the nominal concentration of ≥0.1 mg/L (corresponds to ~0.2 mg/g whole fish (wet weight)) for 42 days (Ref. 73). Ronisz et al. (Ref. 70) found a significant increase in hepatic cytosolic catalase activity in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 5 days after a single intraperitoneal injection of 50 mg/kg was administered. The same authors observed reductions in liver somatic index (LSI) and EROD activity in a 28-day study in which rainbow trout were injected intraperitoneally with HBCD on days 1 and 14 at a dose somewhat less than 500 mg/kg. Zhang et al. (Ref. 74) observed the following signs of oxidative stress in clams (V. philippinarum) after 15 days of exposure to HBCD: The activities of antioxidant enzymes (EROD, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione-S-transferase (GST)), as well as GSH content, were increased at 0.000086 mg/L, the lowest concentration tested. In addition, LPO was increased at 0.00086 mg/L and DNA damage was increased at 0.0086 mg/L.

    3. Terrestrial toxicity and phytotoxicity. Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) exposed for 6 weeks to an isomeric mixture of HBCD in the diet experienced a reduction in hatchability at all tested concentrations (12-1,000 ppm) (Ref. 57). Additional effects included a significant reduction in egg shell thickness starting at 125 ppm, decreases in egg weights and egg production rates starting at 500 ppm, increases in cracked eggs starting at 500 ppm, and adult mortality at 1,000 ppm. A subsequent test, conducted at lower dietary concentrations, determined LOAEL and NOAEL values of 15 and 5 ppm, respectively, based on significant reduction of survival of chicks hatched from eggs of quails fed HBCD (Ref. 57).

    Several studies have been conducted examining effects of HBCD on American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Kobiliris (Ref. 78) reported a reduced “corticosterone response” (where “corticosterone response” was defined as a stimulation of the adrenal cortex to produce and release corticosterone into the bloodstream), reduced flying activities of juvenile males during hunting behavior trials, and delayed response times of juvenile females during predator avoidance behavior trials in American kestrels exposed in ovo to 164.13 ng/g wet weight. Kestrels exposed via the diet to 0.51 mg/kg/day beginning 3 weeks prior to pairing and continuing until the first chick hatched began to lay eggs 6 days earlier than controls and laid larger clutches of smaller eggs (Ref. 59). Although the technical mixture of HBCD stereoisomers contained predominantly γ-HBCD (80% of the mixture), the main isomer found in eggs was α-HBCD (>90% of the total HBCD in eggs). In a subsequent study, Marteinson et al. (Ref. 61) exposed kestrels to dietary HBCD at the same dose (0.51 mg/kg/day) and found increased testes weight in unpaired males, a marginally significant effect on testis histology in unpaired males (increased number of seminiferous tubules containing elongated spermatids; p = 0.052), marginally increased testosterone levels in breeding males (increased at the time the first egg was laid; p = 0.054), and no significant effect on sperm counts. Plasma T4 levels were reduced in breeding males throughout the study, which the authors took to suggest that thyroid disruption that may have contributed to the observed increase in testes weight. Marteinson et al. (Ref. 62) found altered reproductive behavior in both sexes of kestrels fed 0.51 mg/kg/day, including reduced activity in both sexes during courtship and in males during brood rearing, which may have contributed to the observed reduction in incubation nest temperature and also to the reduced egg size reported previously by Fernie et al. (Ref. 58). In a 22-day study of chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) exposed to HBCD in ovo, reduced pipping success was observed at 100 ng/g egg (Ref. 79).

    The accumulation and toxicity of α-, β-, and γ-HBCDs in maize have been studied (Ref. 80). The order of accumulation in roots was β-HBCD > α-HBCD > γ-HBCD and in shoots it was β-HBCD > γ-HBCD > α-HBCD. In maize exposed to 2 μg/L HBCD, the inhibitory effect of the diastereomers on the early development of maize as well as the intensities of hydroxyl radical and histone H2AX phosphorylation followed the order α-HBCD > β-HBCD > γ-HBCD, which indicates diastereomer-specific oxidative stress and DNA damage in maize. The study confirmed that for maize exposed to HBCDs, the generation of reactive oxygen species was one, but not the only, mechanism for DNA damage.

    4. Conclusions regarding the ecological hazard potential of HBCD. HBCD has been shown to cause acute toxicity to aquatic organisms at concentrations as low as 0.009 mg/L and chronic toxicity at concentrations as low as 0.0042 mg/L. Toxicity to terrestrial species has been observed at doses as low as 0.51 mg/kg/day. The available evidence shows that HBCD is highly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial species.

    C. What is EPA's review of the bioaccumulation data for HBCD?

    HBCD has been shown in numerous studies to bioaccumulate in aquatic species and biomagnify in aquatic and terrestrial food chains (Ref. 1). BCFs for HBCD in fish in the peer-reviewed literature range as high as 18,100 (Refs. 81, 82, and 83). Some of the bioaccumulation values for fish species and a freshwater food web are shown in Table 1. The complete listing of the available bioaccumulation data and more details about the studies can be found in the ecological assessment (Ref. 1).

    Table 1—HBCD BCF and BAF Data for Fish and Freshwater Food Web Species Duration and test endpoint Value Reference Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 35-day BCF 8,974 and 13,085 Ref. 81. Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) 32-day BCF 18,100 Ref. 82. Mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio morpha noblis) 30-day exposure and 30-day depuration BCF α-HBCD: 5,570-11,500
  • β-HBCD: 187-642
  • γ-HBCD: 221-584
  • Ref. 83.
    Mud carp (Cirrhinus molitorella), nile tilapia (Tilapia nilotica), and suckermouth catfish (Hypostomus plecostomus) Log BAF 4.8-7.7 for HBCD isomers (α-HBCD had higher BAFs than β- and γ-HBCD) (BAFs ranged from ~63,000 to 50,000,000) Ref. 84. Freshwater food web Log BAF α-HBCD: 2.58-6.01
  • β-HBCD: 3.24-5.58
  • γ-HBCD: 3.44-5.98
  • ΣHBCDs: 2.85-5.98
  • (BAFs range from ~700 to 950,000)
  • Ref. 85.

    Drottar and Kruger (Ref. 81) provided strong evidence that HBCD bioaccumulates in a study conducted according to established guidelines (OECD Test Guideline (TG) 305 and Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) 850.1730). In this study, BCFs of 13,085 and 8,974 were reported in rainbow trout (O. mykiss) exposed to 0.18 and 1.8 µg/L, respectively. Concentrations of HBCD in tissue reached steady-state at day 14 for fish exposed to 1.8 µg/L and, during the subsequent depuration stage, a 50% reduction of HBCD from edible and non-edible tissue and whole fish was reported on days 19 and 20 post-exposure. In fish exposed to 0.18 µg/L, an apparent steady-state was reached on day 21, but on day 35, the tissue concentration of HBCD in fish increased noticeably; thus, steady-state was not achieved according to study authors, and BCF values (for the exposure concentration of 0.18 µg/L) were calculated based on day 35 tissue concentrations. Clearance of 50% HBCD from tissue of 0.18 µg/L exposed fish occurred 30-35 days post-exposure.

    Veith et al. (Ref. 82) further supports the conclusion that HBCD bioaccumulates in a study conducted prior to the establishment of standardized testing guidelines for bioconcentration studies. The study reported a BCF of 18,100 following exposure of fathead minnows to 6.2 µg/L; the BCF was identified as a steady-state BCF, but the report does not indicate the time when steady-state was reached. A depuration phase was not included in this study. Zhang et al. (Ref. 83) calculated BCFs for each HBCD diastereomer in mirror carp and found strong evidence that α-HBCD (BCF of 5,570-11,500) is much more bioaccumulative than β- and γ-HBCD (BCF of 187-642); BCF values that were normalized to lipid content were much higher (30,700-45,200 for α-HBCD, 1,030-1,900 for β-HBCD, and 950-1,730 for γ-HBCD) than non-normalized BCFs.

    BAFs, which capture accumulation of HBCD from diet as well as water and sediment, were calculated for freshwater food webs in industrialized areas of Southern China in two separate field studies. He et al. (Ref. 84) calculated log BAFs of 4.8-7.7 (corresponding to BAFs of 63,000-50,000,000) for HBCD isomers in carp, tilapia, and catfish, and found higher BAFs for α-HBCD than β- and γ-HBCD. In a pond near an e-waste recycling site, Wu et al. (Ref. 85) calculated log BAFs of 2.85-5.98 for HBCD (corresponding to BAFs of 700-950,000) in a freshwater food web. Log BAFs for each diastereomer in this study were comparable to one another (see Table 1). La Guardia et al. (Ref. 86) calculated log BAFs in bivalves and gastropods collected downstream of a textile manufacturing outfall; these ranged from 4.2 to 5.3 for α- and β-HBCD (BAFs of 16,000-200,000), and from 3.2 to 4.8 for γ-HBCD (BAFs of 1,600-63,000).

    In general, α-HBCD bioaccumulates in organisms and biomagnifies through food webs to a greater extent than the β- and γ- diastereomers. Uncertainty remains as to the balance of diastereomer accumulation in various species and the extent to which bioisomerization and biotransformation rates for each isomer affect bioaccumulation potential. Some authors (e.g., Law et al., Ref. 87) have proposed that γ-HBCD isomerizes to α-HBCD under physiological conditions, rather than uptake being diastereisomer-specific. To test this theory, Esslinger et al. (Ref. 88) exposed mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio morpha noblis) to only γ-HBCD and found no evidence of bioisomerization. In contrast, when Du et al. (Ref. 89) exposed zebrafish (Danio rerio) to only γ-HBCD, they found detectable levels of α-HBCD in fish tissue, suggesting that bioisomerization occurred. Marvin et al. (Ref. 90) hypothesized that differences in accumulation could also be due in part to a combination of differences in solubility, bioavailability, and uptake and depuration kinetics.

    Zhang et al. (Ref. 91) calculated diastereomer-specific BCFs in algae and cyanobacteria ranging from 174 to 469. For the cyanobacteria (Spirulina subsalsa), the BCF for α-HBCD (350) was higher than the BCFs for β-HBCD (270) and γ-HBCD (174). However, for the tested alga (Scenedesmus obliquus), the BCF for β-HBCD (469) was higher than that for the other isomers (390-407).

    In summary, HBCD has been shown in numerous studies to be highly bioaccumulative in aquatic species and biomagnify in aquatic and terrestrial food chains; however, diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific mechanisms of accumulation are still unclear.

    D. What is EPA's review of the persistence data for HBCD?

    There are limited data available on the degradation rates of HBCD under environmental conditions. A short summary of the environmental fate and persistence data for HBCD is presented in Table 2; additional details about this data can be found in the HBCD hazard assessment (Ref. 1).

    Table 2—Environmental Degradation of HBCD Property Value Reference Air Photodegradation Photo-induced isomerization of γ-HBCD to α-HBCD in indoor dust with a measured decrease in HBCD concentration concurrent with an increase of pentabromocyclododecenes (PBCDs) in indoor dust Ref. 9.2. Indirect photolysis half-life: 26 hours AOPWIN v1.92 (estimated) Ref. 93. Water Hydrolysis Not expected due to lack of functional groups that hydrolyze under environmental conditions and low water solubility (estimated) Ref. 44. Sediment Aerobic conditions No biodegradation observed in 28-day closed-bottle test Refs. 76 and 94. Half-life: 128, 92, and 72 days for α-, γ-, and β-HBCD, respectively (estimated), based on a 44% decrease in total initial radioactivity in viable freshwater sediment Ref. 95. Half-life: >120 days (estimated), based on a 15% decrease in total initial radioactivity in abiotic freshwater sediment Half-life: 11 and 32 days (estimated) in viable sediment collected from Schuylkill River and Neshaminy creek, respectively Ref. 96. Half-life: 190 and 30 days (estimated) in abiotic sediment collected from Schuylkill River and Neshaminy creek Anaerobic conditions Half-life: 92 days (estimated), based on a 61% decrease in total initial radioactivity in viable freshwater sediment Ref. 95. Half-life: >120 days (estimated), based on a 33% decrease in total initial radioactivity in abiotic freshwater sediment Half-life: 1.5 and 1.1 days (estimated) in viable sediment collected from Schuylkill River and Neshaminy creek Ref. 96. Half-life: 10 and 9.9 days (estimated) in abiotic sediment collected from Schuylkill River and Neshaminy creek Soil Aerobic conditions Half-life: >120 days (estimated), based on a 10% decrease in total initial radioactivity in viable soil Ref. 95. Half-life: >120 days (estimated), based on a 6% decrease in total initial radioactivity in abiotic soil Half-life: 63 days (estimated) in viable soil amended with activated sludge Ref. 96. Half-life: >120 days (estimated) in abiotic soil. Anaerobic conditions Half-life: 6.9 days (estimated) in viable soil amended with activated sludge Ref. 96. Half-life: 82 days (estimated) in abiotic soil using a nominal HBCD concentration of 0.025 mg/kg dry weight

    1. Abiotic degradation. HBCD is not expected to undergo significant direct photolysis since it does not absorb radiation in the environmentally available region of the electromagnetic spectrum that has the potential to cause molecular degradation (Ref. 97). Although HBCD is expected to exist primarily in the particulate phase in the atmosphere, a small percentage may also exist in the vapor phase based on its vapor pressure (Refs. 22, 90, 98, and 99). HBCD in the vapor phase will be degraded by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. An estimated rate constant of 5.01 × 10−12 cubic centimeters (cm3)/molecules-second at 25 °C for this reaction corresponds to a half-life of 26 hours, assuming an atmospheric hydroxyl radical concentration of 1.5 × 106 molecules/cm3 and a 12-hour day (Refs. 93 and 100).

    Photolytic isomerization of HBCD has been described in both indoor dust samples and in samples of HBCD standards dissolved in methanol using artificial light (Ref. 92). After 1 week in the presence of light, indoor dust containing predominantly γ-HBCD was found to decrease in γ-HBCD and increase in α-HBCD concentration. There was a measured decrease in HBCD concentration concurrent with an increase in PBCDs in the indoor dust exposed to artificial light. The three diastereomerically-pure HBCD standards (α-, β-, and γ-HBCD) that were dissolved in methanol also began to interconvert within 1 week, resulting in a decrease in γ-HBCD concentration and an increase in α-HBCD concentration.

    HBCD is not expected to undergo hydrolysis in environmental waters due to lack of functional groups that hydrolyze under environmental conditions and the low water solubility of HBCD (Ref. 44).

    Observed abiotic degradation of HBCD during simulation tests based on Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) methods 307 and 308 was approximately 33% in anaerobic freshwater sediment, 15% in aerobic freshwater sediment, and 6% in aerobic soil after 112-113 days (Refs. 44 and 95). The results from these studies correspond to estimated half-lives >120 days in soil and sediment due to minimal degradation being observed. Initial concentrations of 14C radiolabeled HBCD (α-, β-, and γ- 14C-HBCD in a ratio of 7.74:7.84:81.5) were 3.0-4.7 mg/kg dry weight in the sediment and soil systems. HBCD degradation observed under abiotic conditions was attributed to abiotic reductive dehalogenation (Refs. 44, 76, and 95). Degradation proceeded through a stepwise process to form tetrabromocyclododecene, dibromocyclododecadiene (DBCD), and 1,5,9-cyclododecatriene (Refs. 44 and 95). Further degradation of 1,5,9-cyclododecatriene was not observed. In this study, HBCD degradation occurred faster in sediment than in soil and faster under anaerobic conditions compared to aerobic conditions (Refs. 44 and 95).

    Previous OECD 308 and 307 based simulation tests from the same authors (Davis et al. 2005, Ref. 96) presented results suggesting faster abiotic degradation, particularly in sediment under anaerobic conditions, but were performed at much lower HBCD concentrations and measured only γ-HBCD (Refs. 44, 76, 90, 96, and 101). In this study, abiotic degradation half-lives in freshwater sediments were 30-190 days under aerobic conditions and 9.9-10 days under anaerobic conditions. Estimated half-lives in abiotic soil were >120 days under aerobic conditions and 82 days under anaerobic conditions. This study evaluated γ-HBCD only and did not address interconversion of HBCD isomers or α- and β-HBCD degradation. The initial concentrations of HBCD were 0.025-0.089 mg/kg dry weight in the sediment and soil systems, nearly 100 times less than the HBCD concentrations used in the subsequent Davis et al. 2006 study (Ref. 95). Higher concentrations of HBCD (3.0-4.7 mg/kg dry weight) in the Davis et al. 2006 study (Ref. 95) allowed for quantification of individual isomers, metabolite identification and mass balance evaluation (Refs. 95 and 101). Additionally, the Davis et al. 2005 study (Ref. 96) was considered to be of uncertain reliability for quantifying HBCD persistence because of concerns regarding potential contamination of sediment samples, an interfering peak corresponding to γ-HBCD in the liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) chromatograms, and poor extraction of HBCD leading to HBCD recoveries of 33-125% (Refs. 44 and 101).

    2. Biotic degradation. A few studies on the biodegradation of HBCD were located. A closed bottle screening-level test for ready biodegradability (OECD Guideline 301D, EPA OTS 796.3200) was performed using an initial HBCD concentration of 7.7 mg/L and an activated domestic sludge inoculum (Refs. 76 and 94). No biodegradation was observed (0% of the theoretical oxygen demand) over the test period of 28 days under the stringent guideline conditions of this test.

    Degradation of HBCD during simulation tests with viable microbes, based on OECD methods 307 and 308, was approximately 61% in anaerobic freshwater sediment, 44% in aerobic freshwater sediment, and 10% in aerobic soil after 112-113 days (Refs. 44 and 95). The results from this study correspond to estimated HBCD half-lives of 92 days in anaerobic freshwater sediment, 128, 92, and 72 days for α-, γ-, and β-HBCD, respectively in aerobic freshwater sediment, and >120 days in aerobic soil. An initial total 14C-HBCD concentration of 3.0-4.7 mg/kg dry weight in the sediment and soil systems was used, allowing for quantification of individual isomers, metabolite identification, and mass balance evaluation (Refs. 95 and 101). Although very high spiking rates can be toxic to microorganisms in biodegradation studies and lead to unrealistically long estimated half-lives, the results of this study did not suggest toxicity to microorganisms. Tests with viable microbes demonstrated increased HBCD degradation compared to the biologically-inhibited control studies. In combination, these studies suggest that HBCD will degrade slowly in the environment, although faster in sediment than in soil, faster under anaerobic conditions than aerobic conditions, faster with microbial action than without microbial action, and at different rates for individual HBCD diastereomers (slower for α-HBCD than for the γ- and β-stereoisomers).

    The same researchers (Ref. 76) previously conducted a water-sediment simulation test for commercial HBCD based on OECD guideline 308 using nominal HBCD concentrations of 0.034-0.089 mg/kg dry weight (Refs. 44, 76, and 102). Aerobic and anaerobic microcosms were pre-incubated at 20 °C for 49 days and at 23 °C for 43-44 days, respectively. HBCD was then added to 14-37 g dry weight freshwater sediment samples in 250 ml serum bottles (water:sediment ratio of 1.6-2.9) and the microcosms were sealed and incubated in the dark at 20 °C for up to 119 days. For the aerobic microcosms, the headspace oxygen concentration was kept above 10-15%. This study evaluated only γ-HBCD and did not address interconversion of HBCD isomers or α- and β-HBCD degradation. Disappearance half-lives of HBCD with sediment collected from Schuylkill River and Neshaminy creek were 11 and 32 days in viable aerobic sediments, respectively (compared to 190 and 30 days in abiotic aerobic controls, respectively), and 1.5 and 1.1 days in viable anaerobic sediments, respectively (compared to 10 and 9.9 days in abiotic anaerobic controls).

    Data from these tests suggest that anaerobic degradation is faster than aerobic degradation of HBCD in viable and abiotic sediments and that degradation is faster in viable conditions than abiotic conditions. While these findings are consistent with Davis et al. 2006 (Ref. 95), the actual degradation rates in this study are much faster. However, results from this study do not provide a reliable indication of HBCD persistence. A mass balance could not be established because only γ-HBCD was used to quantify HBCD concentrations, 14C-radiolabelled HBCD was not used, and degradation products were not identified; therefore, apparent disappearance of HBCD in this study may not reflect biodegradation. In addition, there were concerns that contaminated sediment may have been used, HBCD extraction was incomplete (HBCD recovery varied from 33 to 125%), and an interfering peak was observed in the LC/MS chromatograms corresponding to γ-HBCD (Refs. 44 and 101).

    Similarly, a soil simulation test was conducted based on OECD guideline 307 for commercial HBCD using 50 g dry weight sandy loam soil samples added to 250 ml serum bottles (Refs. 44, 76, 96, and 103). The moisture content was 20% by weight. Aerobic and anaerobic microcosms were pre-incubated at 20 °C for 35 days and at 23 °C for 43 days, respectively. Activated sludge was added to the soil at 5 mg/g, and HBCD was added to the soil to achieve a nominal concentration of 0.025 mg/kg dry weight. The microcosms were then incubated in the dark at 20 °C for up to 120 days. The disappearance half-lives were 63 days in viable aerobic soil (compared to >120 days in abiotic aerobic controls) and 6.9 days in viable anaerobic soil (compared to 82 days in abiotic anaerobic controls). As in the sediment studies, HBCD degradation in soil occurred faster under anaerobic conditions compared to aerobic conditions, and faster in viable conditions than abiotic conditions. The disappearance half-lives in soil were slower than those in sediment.

    Biological processes were suggested to be responsible for the increased degradation of HBCD in this study using viable conditions, relative to abiotic conditions; however, degradation was not adequately demonstrated in soil because no degradation products were detected and only γ-HBCD was used to quantify HBCD concentrations, making it impossible to calculate a mass balance. HBCD recoveries on day 0 of the experiment were well below (0.011-0.018 mg/kg dry weight) the nominal test concentrations (0.025 mg/kg dry weight), suggesting rapid adsorption of HBCD to soil and poor extraction methods (Refs. 44 and 101).

    In studies using 0.025-0.089 mg/kg HBCD (Davis et al. 2005, Ref. 96), the estimated half-life values were shorter than studies using 3.0-4.7 mg/kg HBCD (Davis et al. 2006, Ref. 95) by approximately one order of magnitude for aerobic viable sediment (11-32 days compared to72-128 days) and anaerobic viable sediment (1.1-1.5 days compared to 92 days). The viable aerobic soil half-life using lower concentrations of HBCD (Davis et al. 2005, Ref. 96) was less than half of the half-life based on the higher HBCD concentration (63 days compared to >120 days) (Davis et al. 2006, Ref. 95). Both Davis et al. studies (Refs. 95 and 96) suggest that HBCD degrades faster in sediment than in soil, faster under anaerobic conditions than aerobic conditions, and faster with microbial action than without microbial action. HBCD is poorly soluble, and it was suggested that at higher concentrations of HBCD, degradation is limited by mass transfer of HBCD into microbes. However, results from the Davis et al. 2005 study (Ref. 96) likely overestimate the rate of HBCD biodegradation, for the reasons noted previously (primarily, failure to use 14C-radiolabelled HBCD, quantify isomers other than γ-HBCD, identify degradation products, or establish a mass balance, but also procedural problems with contamination of sediment, incomplete HBCD extraction, and occurrence of an interfering peak in the LC/MS chromatograms corresponding to γ-HBCD).

    It is important to note that the rapid biodegradation rates from Davis et al. 2005 (Ref. 96) are not consistent with environmental observations. HBCD has been detected over large areas and in remote locations in environmental monitoring studies (Refs 1 and 104). Dated sediment core samples indicate slow environmental degradation rates (Refs. 44, 90, 96, and 101). For example, HBCD was found at concentrations ranging from 112 to 70,085 μg/kg dry weight in sediment samples collected at locations near a production site in Aycliffe, United Kingdom two years after the facility was closed down (Ref. 44). Monitoring data do not provide a complete, quantitative determination of persistence because HBCD emission sources, rates, and quantities are typically unknown, and all environmental compartments are not considered. However, the monitoring data do provide evidence in support of environmental persistence. In addition, the widespread presence of HBCD in numerous terrestrial and aquatic species indicates persistence in the environment sufficient for bioaccumulation to occur (Ref. 1).

    IV. Rationale for Listing HBCD and Lowering the Reporting Threshold A. What is EPA's rationale for listing the HBCD category?

    HBCD has been shown to cause developmental effects at doses as low as 146.3 mg/kg/day (LOAEL) in male rats. Developmental effects have also been observed with a BMDL of 0.056 mg/kg/day (BMD of 0.18 mg/kg/day) based on effects in female rats and a BMDL of 0.46 mg/kg/day (BMD of 1.45 mg/kg/day) based on effects in male rats. HBCD also causes reproductive toxicity at doses as low 138 mg/kg/day (LOAEL) in female rats. Based on the available developmental and reproductive toxicity, EPA believes that HBCD can be reasonably anticipated to cause moderately high to high chronic toxicity in humans. Therefore, EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing the HBCD category on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available developmental and reproductive toxicity data.

    HBCD has been shown to be highly toxic to both aquatic and terrestrial species with acute aquatic toxicity values as low as 0.009 mg/L and chronic aquatic toxicity values as low as 0.0042 mg/L. HBCD is highly toxic to terrestrial species as well with observed toxic doses as low as 0.51 and 2.1 mg/kg/day. In addition to being highly toxic, HBCD is also bioaccumulative and persistent in the environment, which further supports a high concern for the toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial species. EPA believes that HBCD meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) listing criteria on toxicity alone but also based on toxicity and bioaccumulation as well as toxicity and persistence in the environment. Therefore, EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing the HBCD category on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available ecological toxicity data as well as the bioaccumulation and persistence data.

    HBCD has the potential to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity at moderately low to low doses and is highly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms; thus, EPA considers HBCD to have moderately high to high chronic human health toxicity and high ecological toxicity. EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be added for chronic human health effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440-61442). EPA also does not believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that are highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be added for environmental effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) (see 59 FR 61440-61442). Therefore, in accordance with EPA's standard policy on the use of exposure assessments (See November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432, FRL-4922-2), EPA does not believe that an exposure assessment is necessary or appropriate for determining whether HBCD meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) or (C).

    B. What is EPA's rationale for lowering the reporting threshold for HBCD?

    EPA believes that the available bioaccumulation and persistence data for HBCD support a classification of HBCD as a PBT chemical. HBCD has been shown to be highly bioaccumulative in aquatic species and to also biomagnify in aquatic and terrestrial food chains. While there is limited data on the half-life of HBCD in soil and sediment, the best available data supports a determination that the half-life of HBCD in soil and sediment is at least 2 months. This determination is further supported by the data from environmental monitoring studies, which indicate that HBCD has significant persistence in the environment. The widespread presence of HBCD in numerous terrestrial and aquatic species also supports the conclusion that HBCD has significant persistence in the environment. Therefore, consistent with EPA's established policy for PBT chemicals (See 64 FR 58666, October 29, 1999) (FRL-6389-11) EPA is proposing to establish a 100-pound reporting threshold for the HBCD category.

    V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. USEPA, OEI. 2016. Technical Review of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) CAS Registry Numbers 3194-55-6 and 25637-99-4. January 25, 2016. 2. USEPA, OEI. 2014. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add HBCD to the List of TRI Reportable Chemicals. March 28, 2014. 3. Arita, R., Miyazaki, K., Mure, S. 1983. Metabolic test of HBCD. Test on chemical substances used in household items. Studies on pharmacodynamics of HBCD (unpublished). In: Toxicology summary: HBCD (HBCD), Albemarle, S.A. Department of Pharmacy, Hokkaido University Hospital, Japan. 4. Yu, C.C., Atallah, Y.H. 1980. Pharmacokinetics of HBCD in rats (unpublished). Vesicol Chemical Corporation, Rosemont, IL. 5. Szabo, D.T., Diliberto, J.J., Hakk, H. et al. 2010. Toxicokinetics of the flame retardant HBCD gamma: Effect of dose, timing, route, repeated exposure, and metabolism. Toxicol. Sci. 117(2):282-293. 6. Szabo, D.T., Diliberto, J.J., Hakk, H., Huwe, J.K., Birnbaum, L.S. 2011. Toxicokinetics of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane alpha: Effect of dose, timing, route, repeated Exposure, and metabolism. Toxicol. Sci. 121(2):234-244. 7. Reistad, T., Fonnum, F., Mariussen, E. 2006. Neurotoxicity of the pentabrominated diphenyl ether mixture, DE-71, and HBCD (HBCD) in rat cerebellar granule cells in vitro. Arch. Toxicol. 80(11):785-796. 8. van der Ven, L.T.M., Verhoef, A., van de Kuil, T., Slob, W., Leonards, P.E.G., Visser, T.J., Hamers, T., Herlin, M., Hakansson, H., Olausson, H., Piersma, A.H., Vos, J.G. 2006. A 28-day oral dose toxicity study enhanced to detect endocrine effects of hexabromocyclododecane in Wistar rats. Toxicological Sciences 94(2): 281-292. 9. van der Ven, L.T.M., van de Kuil, T., Leonards, P.E., et al. 2009. Endocrine effects of HBCD (HBCD) in a one-generation reproduction study in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett 185:51-62. Including supplementary tables. 10. Brandsma, S.H., van der Ven, L.T.M., De Boer, J. and Leonards, P.E. 2009. Identification of hydroxylated metabolites of hexabromocyclododecane in wildlife and 28-days exposed Wistar rats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6058-6063. 11. Hakk, H., Szabo, D.T., Huwe, J., Diliberto, J. and Birnbaum, L.S. 2012. Novel and distinct metabolites identified following a single oral dose of α- or γ-hexabromocyclododecane in mice. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:13494-13503. 12. Sanders, J.M., Knudsen, G.A. and Birnbaum, L.S. 2013. The fate of β-hexabromocyclododecane in female C57BL/6 mice. Toxicological Sciences 134(2): 251-257. 13. Antignac, J.P., Cariou, R., Maume, D., et al. 2008. Exposure assessment of fetus and newborn to brominated flame retardants in France: preliminary data. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 52(2):258-265. 14. Weiss, J., Wallin, E., Axmon, A., et al. 2006. Hydroxy-PCBs, PBDEs, and HBCDDs in serum from an elderly population of Swedish fishermen's wives and associations with bone density. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(20):6282-6289. 15. Kakimoto, K., Akutsu, K., Konishi, Y., et al. 2008. Time trend of HBCD in the breast milk of Japanese women. Chemosphere 71(6):1110-1114. 16. Rawn, D.F.K., Ryan, J.J., Sadler, A.R. et al. 2014. Brominated flame retardant concentrations in sera from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) from 2007 to 2009. Environment International 63: 26-34. 17. Abdallah, M. and Harrad, S. 2011. Tetrabromobisphenol-A, hexabromocyclododecane and its degradation products in UK human milk: Relationship to external exposure. Environment International, 37: 443-448. 18. Meijer, L., Weiss, J., Van Velzen, M., et al. 2008. Serum concentrations of neutral and phenolic organohalogens in pregnant women and some of their infants in The Netherlands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(9):3428-3433. 19. Thomsen, C., Molander, P., Daae, H.L., et al. 2007. Occupational exposure to HBCD at an industrial plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(15):5210-5216. 20. Fangstrom, B., Strid, A., Bergman, A. 2005. Temporal trends of brominated flame retardants in milk from Stockholm mothers, 1980-2004. Department of Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Available online at: http://www.imm.ki.se/Datavard/PDF/mj%C3%B6lk_poolade_NV%20rapport%202005%20modersmjolk.pdf. 21. Fangstrom, B., Athanassiadis, I., Odsjo, T., et al. 2008. Temporal trends of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and HBCD in milk from Stockholm mothers, 1980-2004. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 52(2):187-193. 22. Covaci, A., Gerecke, A.C., et al. 2006. Hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) in the Environment and Humans: A Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40: 3679-3688. 23. Johnson-Restrepo, B., Adams, D.H., et al. 2008. Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and Hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) in tissues of humans, dolphins, and sharks from the United States. Chemosphere 70: 1935-1944. 24. Toms, L-M.L., Guerra, P., Eljarrat, E., Barceló, D., Harden, F.A., Hobson, P., et al. 2012. Brominated flame retardants in the Australian population: 1993-2009. Chemosphere 89:398-403. 25. Schecter, A., Szabo, D.T., Miller, J., Gent, T.L., Malik-Bass, N., Petersen, M., Paepke, O., Colacino, J.A., Hynan L.S., Harris, T.R., Malla, S., Birnbaum, L.S. 2012. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) stereoisomers in U.S. food from Dallas, TX. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(9): 1260-1264. 26. IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation). 1977. Acute toxicity studies in rabbits and rats with HBCD with attachments. Submitted under TSCA Section 8E; EPA Document No. 88-7800065; NTIS No. OTS0200051. 27. IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation). 1978. Acute toxicity studies in rabbits and rats with residue of HBCD with attachments and cover letter dated 030178. Submitted under TSCA Section 8E; EPA Document No. 88-7800088; NTIS No. OTS0200466. 28. Pharmakon Research International Inc. 1990. Acute exposure oral toxicity study in rats (83 EPA/OECD) with attachments and cover letter dated 030890. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000166; NTIS No. OTS0522237. 29. Gulf South Research Institute. 1988. Initial submission: Letter from Ethyl Corp to USEPA regarding technical and toxicity data on brominated flame retardants including HBCD. EPA Document No. FYI-OTS-0794-0947; NTIS No. OTS0000947. 30. BASF. 1990. Report on the study of the acute oral toxicity of HBCD in the mouse with cover letter dated 03-12-90. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000383; NTIS No. OTS0522946. 31. Lewis, A.C., Palanker, A.L. 1978. A dermal LD50 study in albino rabbits and an inhalation LC50 study in albino rats. Test material GLS-S6-41A (unpublished). Consumer Product Testing, Fairfield, NJ; Experiment Reference No. 78385-2. Client: Saytech Inc. 32. Momma, J., Kaniwa, M., Sekiguchi, H., Ohno, K., Kawasaki, Y., Tsuda, M., Nakamura, A., Kurokawa, Y. 1993. Dermatological evaluation of a flame retardant, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) on guinea pig by using the primary irritation, sensitization, phototoxicity, and photosensitization of skin. (Article in Japanese; English abstract). Eisei Shikenjo Hokoku 111:18-24. 33. Chengelis, C. 1997. A 28-day repeated dose oral toxicity study of HBCD in rats. Study No. WIL-186004. WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. Ashland, OH. 34. Chengelis, C. 2001. An oral (gavage) 90-day toxicity study of HBCD in rats. Study No. WIL-186012. WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. Ashland, Ohio. 35. Chengelis, C. 2002. Amendment to the Final Report for: An oral (gavage) 90-day toxicity study of HBCD in rats. Study No. WIL-186012. WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. Ashland, Ohio. 36. Hill, R.N., Crisp, T.M., Hurley, P.M., Rosenthal, S.L., and Singh, D.V. 1998. Risk assessment of thyroid follicular cell tumors. Environ. Health Perspect. 106, 447-457. 37. Zeller, H. and Kirsch, P. 1969. Hexabromocyclododecane: 28-day feeding trials with rats. BASF unpublished laboratory study. As cited in USEPA. 2001. High Production Volume (HPV) data summary and test plan for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) CAS No. 3194-55-6. Prepared by the American Chemistry Council's Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel (BFRIP), Arlington, VA. 38. Zeller, H. and Kirsch, P. 1970. Hexabromocyclododecane: 90-day feeding trials with rats. BASF unpublished laboratory study. As cited in USEPA. 2001. High Production Volume (HPV) data summary and test plan for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) CAS No. 3194-55-6. Prepared by the American Chemistry Council's Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel (BFRIP), Arlington, VA. 39. Kurokawa, Y., Inoue, T., Uchida, Y., et al. 1984. Carcinogenesis test of flame retarder hexabromocyclododecane in mice. Hardy, M.; Albemarle Corporation, personal communication, Department of Toxicology, National Public Health Research Institute, Biological Safety Test Research Center. Unpublished, translated from Japanese. As cited in reference 40. 40. USEPA. 2014. Flame Retardant Alternatives for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): Final Report. 41. Saegusa, Y., Fujimoto, H., Woo, G., et al. 2009. Developmental toxicity of brominated flame retardants, tetrabromobisphenol A and 1,2,5,6,9,10-HBCD, in rat offspring after maternal exposure from mid-gestation through lactation. Reprod. Toxicol. 28(4):456-67. 42. Ema, M., Fujii, S., Hirata-Koizumi, M., et al. 2008. Two-generation reproductive toxicity study of the flame retardant HBCD in rats. Reprod. Toxicol. 25(3):335-351. 43. Murai, T., Kawasaki, H., Kanoh, S. 1985. Studies on the toxicity of insecticides and food additives in pregnant rats (7). Fetal toxicity of HBCD. Oyo Yakuri (Pharmacometrics) 29:981-986 (in Japanese with English abstract). 44. European Commission. 2008. Risk Assessment: Hexabromocyclododecane CAS-No.: 25637-99-4 EINECS No.: 247-148-4, Final Report May 2008. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 45. Eriksson, P., Fischer, C., Wallin, M., et al. 2006. Impaired behaviour, learning and memory, in adult mice neonatally exposed to HBCD (HBCDD). Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 21(3):317-322. 46. USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Risk Assessment Form. Federal Register. 63 FR 26926, May 14, 1998 (FRL-6011-3). 47. Industrial Bio-Test Labs. 1990. Mutagenicity of two lots of FM-100 lot 53 and residue of lot 3322 in the absence and presence of metabolic activation with test data and cover letter. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000267; NTIS No. OTS0523259. 48. Litton Bionetics Inc. 1990. Mutagenicity evaluation of 421-32b (Final report) with test data and cover letter. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000265; NTIS No. OTS0523257. 49. SRI Research Institute. 1990. In vitro microbiological mutagenicity studies of four CIBA-GEIGY corporation compounds (Final report) with test data and cover letter. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000262; NTIS No. OTS0523254. 50. Zeiger, E., Anderson, B., Haworth, S., et al. 1987. Salmonella mutagenicity tests: III. Results from the testing of 255 chemicals. Environ. Mutagen. 9 (Suppl. 9):1-110. 51. Huntingdon Research Center. 1978. Ames metabolic activation test to assess the potential mutagenic effect of compound no. 49 with cover letter dated 031290. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000385; NTIS No. OTS0522948. 52. Pharmakologisches Institute. 1978. Ames test with hexabromides with cover letter dated 031290. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000379; NTIS No. OTS0522942. 53. Ethyl Corporation. 1985. Genetic toxicology Salmonella/microsomal assay on HBCD with cover letter dated 030890. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86-900000164; NTIS No. OTS0522235. 54. Microbiological Associates Inc. 1996. HBCD (HBCD): chromosome aberrations in human peripheral blood lymphocytes with cover letter dated 12/12/1996. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86970000358; NTIS No. OTS0573552. 55. Walsh, G.E., Yoder, M.J., McLaughlin, L.L., et al. 1987. Responses of marine unicellular algae to brominated organic compounds in six growth media. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 14:215-222. 56. Drottar, K.R., Krueger, H.O. 1998. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A flow-through life-cycle toxicity test with the cladoceran (Daphnia magna). Report #439A-108. Wildlife International Ltd, Easton, MD, pp 78. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D; EPA Document No. 86980000152; OTS0559490. 57. MOEJ (Ministry of the Environment, Japan). 2009. 6-Week administration study of 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane for avian reproduction toxicity under long-day conditions using Japanese quail. Report. Ministry of the Environment, Japan. Research Institute for Animal Science in Biochemistry & Toxicology (as cited in Ref. 58). 58. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program). 2010. Hexabromocyclododecane draft risk profile. United Nations Environmental Program, Stockholm Convention. 59. Fernie, K.J., Marteinson, S.C., Bird, D.M., et al. 2011. Reproductive changes in American kestrels (Falco sparverius) in relation to exposure to technical hexabromocyclododecane flame retardant. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30:2570-2575. 60. Marteinson, S.C., Bird, D.M., Shutt, J.L., et al. 2010. Multi-generational effects of polybrominated diphenylethers exposure: Embryonic exposure of male American kestrels (Falco sparverius) to DE-71 alters reproductive success and behaviors. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29: 1740-1747. 61. Marteinson, S.C., Kimmins, S., Letcher, R.J., et al. 2011. Diet exposure to technical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) affects testes and circulating testosterone and thyroxine levels in American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Environ. Res. 111:1116-1123. 62. Marteinson, S.C., Bird, D.M., Letcher, R.J., et al. 2012. Dietary exposure to technical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) alters courtship, incubation and parental behaviors in American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Chemosphere 89:1077-1083. 63. Anselmo, H.M.R., Koerting, L., Devito, S., et al. 2011. Early life developmental effects of marine persistent organic pollutants on the sea urchin Psammechinus miliaris. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 74:2182-2192. 64. Deng, J., Yu, L., Liu, C., et al. 2009. Hexabromocyclododecane-induced developmental toxicity and apoptosis in zebrafish embryos. Aquat. Toxicol. 93(1):29-36. 65. Du, M., Zhang, D., Yan, C., et al. 2012. Developmental toxicity evaluation of three hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers on zebrafish embryos. Aquat. Toxicol. 112-113:1-10. 66. Hong, H., Li, D., Shen, R., et al. 2014. Mechanisms of hexabromocyclododecanes induced developmental toxicity in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma) embryos. Aquat. Toxicol. 152:173-185. 67. Hu, J., Liang, Y., Chen, M., et al. 2009. Assessing the toxicity of TBBPA and HBCD by zebrafish embryo toxicity assay and biomarker analysis. Environ. Toxicol. 24:334-342. 68. Palace, V.P., Pleskach, K., Halldorson, T., et al. 2008. Biotransformation enzymes and thyroid axis disruption in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(6):1967-1972. 69. Palace, V., Park, B., Pleskach, K., et al. 2010. Altered thyroxine metabolism in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Chemosphere 80(2):165-169. 70. Ronisz, D., Farmen Finne, E., Karlsson, H., et al. 2004. Effects of the brominated flame retardants hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), on hepatic enzymes and other biomarkers in juvenile rainbow trout and feral eelpout. Aquat. Toxicol. 69:229-245. 71. Smolarz, K. and Berger, A. 2009. Long-term toxicity of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) to the benthic clam Macoma balthica (L.) from the Baltic Sea. Aquat. Toxicol. 95(3):239-247. 72. Wu, M., Zuo, Z., Li, B., et al. 2013. Effects of low-level hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) exposure on cardiac development in zebrafish embryos. Ecotoxicology 22:1200-1207. 73. Zhang, X., Yang, F., Zhang, X., et al. 2008. Induction of hepatic enzymes and oxidative stress in Chinese rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus) exposed to waterborne hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD). Aquat. Toxicol. 86(1):4-11. 74. Zhang, H., Pan, L., Tao, Y. 2014. Antioxidant responses in clam Venerupis philippinarum exposed to environmental pollutant hexabromocyclododecane. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21:8206-8215. 75. Desjardins, D., MacGregor, J.A., Krueger, H.O. 2004. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A 72 hour toxicity test with the marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum), Final report. Wildlife Internation Ltd, Easton, MD, pp 66. As cited in Refs. 44 and 76. 76. IUCLID. 2005. Hexabromocyclododecane IUCLID dataset. Submitted to U.S. EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Program. 77. Desjardins, D., MacGregor, J.A., Krueger, H.O. 2005. Final report. Chapter 1, Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A 72-hour toxicity test with the marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) using a co-solvent. Chapter 2, Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A 72-hour toxicity test with the marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) using generator column saturated media. Wildlife International Ltd, Easton, MD, pp19. As cited in Ref. 44. 78. Kobiliris, D. 2010. Influence of embryonic exposure to hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) on the corticosterone response and “fight or flight” behaviors of captive American kestrels. Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masters of Science. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 79. Crump, D., Egloff, C., Chiu, S., et al. 2010. Pipping success, isomer-specific accumulation, and hepatic mRNA expression in chicken embryos exposed to HBCD. Toxicol. Sci. 115:492-500. 80. Wu, T., Wang, S., Huang, H., et al. 2012. Diastereomer-specific uptake, translocation, and toxicity of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers to maize. J. Agr. Food Chem. 60:8528-8534. 81. Drottar, K.R. and Krueger, H.O. 2000. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A flow-through bioconcentration test with the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Report# 439A-111. Wildlife International Ltd, Easton, MD, pp 1-137. Submitted under TSCA Section FYI; EPA Document No. 84010000001; OTS0001392. 82. Veith, G.D., Defoe, D.L., Bergstedt, B.V. 1979. Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 36:1040-1048. 83. Zhang, Y., Sun, H., Ruan, Y. 2014. Enantiomer-specific accumulation, depuration, metabolization and isomerization of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) diastereomers in mirror carp from water. J. Haz. Mater. 264:8-15. 84. He, M., Luo, X., Yu, L., et al. 2013. Diasteroisomer and enantiomer-specific profiles of hexabromocyclododecane and tetrabromobisphenol A in an aquatic environment in a highly industrialized area, South China: Vertical profile, phase partition, and bioaccumulation. Environ. Poll. 179:105-110. 85. Wu, J., Guan, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. 2011. Several current-use, non-PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: Evidence from field determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ. Int. 37:210-215. 86. La Guardia, M.J., Hale, R.C., Harvey, E., et al. 2012. In situ accumulation of HBCD, PBDEs, and several alternative flame-retardants in the bivalve (Corbicula fluminea) and gastropod (Elimia proxima). Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:5798-5805. 87. Law, K., Palace, V.P., Halldorson, T., et al. 2006. Dietary accumulation of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) I: Bioaccumulation parameters and evidence of bioisomerization. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25(7):1757-1761. 88. Esslinger, S., Becker, R., Müller-Belecke, A., et al. 2010. HBCD stereoisomer pattern in mirror carps following dietary exposure to pure γ-HBCD enantiomers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58:9705-9710. 89. Du, M., Lin, L., Yan, C., et al. 2012. Diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific accumulation, depuration, and bioisomerization of hexabromocyclododecanes in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:11040-11046. 90. Marvin, C.H., Tomy, G.T., Armitage, J.M., et al. 2011. Hexabromocyclododecane: Current understanding of chemistry, environmental fate and toxicology and implications for global management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:8613-8623. Including supporting information document. 91. Zhang, Y., Sun, H., Zhu, H., et al. 2014. Accumulation of hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers and enantiomers in two microalgae, Spirulina subsalsa and Scenedesmus obliquus. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 104:136-142. 92. Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Covaci, A. (2009a) Causes of variability in concentrations and diastereomer patterns of Hexabromocyclododecanes in indoor dust. Environment International 35:573-579. 93. USEPA. 2011. EPI Suite results for CAS 003194-55-6. Download EPI SuiteTM v4.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm (see section 2, attachment A in Ref. 1). 94. Schaefer, E.C. and Haberlein, D. 1996. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): Closed bottle test. 439E-102, Wildlife International Ltd, Easton, MD, USA (as cited in Ref. 44). 95. Davis, J.W., Gonsior, S.J., Markham, D.A., et al. 2006. Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:5395-5401. Including supporting information document. 96. Davis, J.W., Gonsior, S.J., Marty, G.T., et al. 2005. The transformation of hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water Res. 39:1075-1084. 97. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. 2011. 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. Part of the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET7). Bethesda, MD. Available online at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB (accessed May 31, 2011). 98. Bidleman, T.F. 1988. Atmospheric processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22(4):361-367. 99. Stenzel, J.I., Nixon, W.B. 1997. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): Determination of the vapor pressure using a spinning rotor gauge with cover letter dated 08/15/1997. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Submitted under TSCA Section 8D. OTS0573702. 100. USEPA. 1993. Determination of rates of reaction in the gas-phase in the troposphere. 5. Rate of indirect photoreaction: Evaluation of the atmospheric oxidation computer program of Syracuse Research Corporation for estimating the second-order rate constant for the reaction of an organic chemical with hydroxyl radicals. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA744R93001. 101. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. 2012. Hexabromocyclododecane. Priority existing chemical assessment report. Volume 34. Commonwealth of Australia: Australia. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. PEC34. 102. Davis, J.W., Gonsior, S.J., Marty, G.T. 2003. Evaluation of aerobic and anaerobic transformation of hexabromocyclododecane in aquatic sediment systems. Project Study ID 021081, 87 pp. DOW Chemical Company: Midland, MI, USA. Submitted under TSCA Section FYI; EPA Document No. 84040000010; FYI-1103-01472, pg. 440. 103. Davis, J.W., Gonsior, S.J., Marty, G.T. 2003. Evaluation of aerobic and anaerobic transformation of hexabromocyclododecane in soil. Project Study ID 021082, 61 pp. DOW Chemical Company: Midland, MI, USA. Submitted under TSCA Section FYI; EPA Document No. 84040000010; FYI-1103-01472, pg. 379. 104. USEPA. 2010. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) action plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 18, 2010. VI. What are the Statutory and Executive Orders reviews associated with this action?

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not contain any new information collection requirements that require additional approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2025-0009 and 2050-0078. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350- 2). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. Since the HBCD category would be classified a PBT category, it is designated as a chemical of special concern, for which Form A reporting is not allowed. In addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322, 42 U.S.C. 11042, 40 CFR part 350.

    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 or 48 CFR chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection instruments (e.g., forms, instructions).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small manufacturing facilities. The Agency has determined that of the 55 entities estimated to be impacted by this action, 42 are small businesses; no small governments or small organizations are expected to be affected by this action. All 42 small businesses affected by this action are estimated to incur annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Thus, this action is not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small entities is located in EPA's economic analysis (Ref. 2).

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments are not subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the total cost of this action is estimated to be $372,973 in the first year of reporting (Ref. 2).

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards and is therefore not subject to considerations under section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not address any human health or environmental risks and does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action adds an additional chemical to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. By adding a chemical to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, EPA would be providing communities across the United States (including minority populations and low income populations) with access to data which they may use to seek lower exposures and consequently reductions in chemical risks for themselves and their children. This information can also be used by government agencies and others to identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential risks to human health and the environment. Therefore, the informational benefits of the action will have positive human health and environmental impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and children.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

    PART 372—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

    2. In § 372.28, amend the table in paragraph (a)(2) as follows: a. Revise the heading for the second column, and b. Alphabetically add the category “Hexabromocyclododecane (This category includes only those chemicals covered by the CAS numbers listed here)” and list “3194-55-6 (1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane)” and “25637-99-4 (Hexabromocyclododecane)”

    The additions to read as follows:

    § 372.28 Lower thresholds for chemicals of special concern.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Category name Reporting
  • threshold
  • (in pounds unless otherwise noted)
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hexabromocyclododecane (This category includes only those chemicals covered by the CAS numbers listed here) 100 3194-55-6 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane 25637-99-4 Hexabromocyclododecane *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. In § 372.65, paragraph (c) is amended by adding alphabetically an entry for “Hexabromocyclododecane (This category includes only those chemicals covered by the CAS numbers listed here)” to the table to read as follows:
    § 372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part applies.

    (c) * * *

    Category name Effective date *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hexabromocyclododecane (This category includes only those chemicals covered by the CAS numbers listed here) 1/1/17 3194-55-6 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane 25637-99-4 Hexabromocyclododecane *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-12464 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 150316270-5270-01] RIN 0648-XE520 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 Through #5 AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces five inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial salmon fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, OR to Point Arena, CA.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Actions. Comments will be accepted through June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0007, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0007, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA. 98115-6349.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the 2015 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015), NMFS announced the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2015, and 2016 salmon fisheries opening earlier than May 1, 2016. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

    Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: north of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason actions reported in this document affected fisheries south of Cape Falcon. Within the south of Cape Falcon area, the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) extends from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Humboldt South Jetty, CA, and is divided at the Oregon/California border into the Oregon KMZ to the north and California KMZ to the south. All times mentioned refer to Pacific daylight time.

    Inseason Actions Inseason Action #1

    Description of action: Inseason action #1 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain, previously scheduled to open March 15, 2016, to remain closed through March 31, 2016.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #1 took effect on March 15, 2016, and remained in effect until superseded by inseason action #4 on April 1, 2016.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the Klamath River fall Chinook stock (KRFC). The Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) presented stock abundance forecasts for 2016. On the basis of these forecasts, the Regional Administrator (RA) determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be constrained in 2016 to meet conservation objectives specified in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for KRFC, as well as ESA consultation standards for California coastal Chinook for which KRFC is used as a proxy. Inseason action to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #1 occurred on March 10, 2016. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #2

    Description of action: Inseason action #2 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon/California Border (Oregon KMZ), previously scheduled to open March 15, 2016, to remain closed through March 31, 2016.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #2 took effect on March 15, 2016, and remained in effect until superseded by inseason action #4 on April 1, 2016.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the KRFC. The STT presented stock abundance forecasts for 2016. On the basis of these forecasts, the RA determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be constrained in 2016 to meet conservation objectives specified in the FMP for KRFC, as well as ESA consultation standards for California coastal Chinook for which KRFC is used as a proxy. Inseason action to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #2 occurred on March 10, 2016. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #3

    Description of action: Inseason action #3 cancelled the commercial salmon fishery from Horse Mountain, CA to Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area), previously scheduled to open April 16-30.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #3 took effect on April 16, 2016, and remained in effect through April 30, 2016.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on the KRFC. The STT presented stock abundance forecasts for 2016. On the basis of these forecasts, the RA determined that fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be constrained in 2016 to meet conservation objectives specified in the FMP for KRFC, as well as ESA consultation standards for California coastal Chinook for which KRFC is used as a proxy. Inseason action to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #3 occurred on March 10, 2016. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #4

    Description of action: Inseason action #4 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, to remain closed April 1-7, 2016, and open April 8-30, 2016. Seven days per week. All salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length. All vessels fishing in the area must land their fish in the state of Oregon. Gear restrictions same as in 2015.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #4 superseded inseason action #1 on April 1, 2016, and remained in effect through April 30, 2016.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on KRFC while allowing access to more abundant stocks. Inseason action to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #4 occurred on March 13, 2016. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    Inseason Action #5

    Description of action: Inseason action #5 modified the commercial salmon fishery from Humbug Mountain, OR, to the Oregon/California Border (Oregon KMZ), to remain closed April 1-7, 2016, and open April 8-30, 2016. Seven days per week. All salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length. All vessels fishing in the area must land their fish in the state of Oregon. Gear restrictions same as in 2015.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #5 superseded inseason action #2 on April 1, 2016, and remained in effect through April 30, 2016.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to conserve fishery impacts on KRFC while allowing access to more abundant stocks. Inseason action to modify quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #5 occurred on March 13, 2016. Participants in this consultation were staff from NMFS, CDFW, and ODFW. Council staff was unavailable to participate in the consultation, but was advised of the RA's decision after the consultation concluded.

    All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2015 ocean salmon fisheries and 2016 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2016 (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015) and as modified by prior inseason actions.

    The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and expected fishery effort supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Oregon and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (80 FR 25611, May 5, 2015), the FMP, and regulations implementing the FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon catch and effort projections were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and ESA consultation standards are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.

    These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13035 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 106 Thursday, June 2, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document No. AMS-SC-16-0027] Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request for an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection for Specialty Crops Market News Division. (This information collection was previously known as Fruit and Vegetable Market News Division. The Agency re-named the Division to Specialty Crops to more accurately reflect the range of commodities reported).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or to Specialty Crops Market News Division, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1529 South, Stop 0238, Washington, DC 20250-0238. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Terry C. Long, Director; Specialty Crops Market News Division, (202) 720-2175, Fax: (202) 720-0011.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Specialty Crops Market News Division.

    OMB Number: 0581-0006.

    Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Collection and dissemination of information for specialty crops production and to facilitate trading by providing a price base used by producers, wholesalers, and retailers to market product.

    The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), section 203(g) directs and authorizes the collection and dissemination of marketing information including adequate outlook information, on a market area basis, for the purpose of anticipating and meeting consumer requirements, aiding in the maintenance of farm income and to bring about a balance between production and utilization.

    The specialty crops industry provides information on a voluntary basis that is gathered through confidential telephone and face-to-face interviews by market reporters. Reporters request supply, demand, and price information of over 330 fresh fruit, vegetable, nut, ornamental, and other specialty crops, such as honey. The information is collected, compiled, and disseminated by Specialty Crops Market News Division in its critical role as an impartial third party. It is collected and reported in a manner which protects the confidentiality of the respondent and their operations.

    The Specialty Crops Market News Division reports are used by academia and various government agencies for regulatory and other purposes, but are primarily used by the specialty crops trade, which includes packers, processors, brokers, retailers, producers, and associated industries. Members of the specialty crops industry regularly make it clear that they need and expect the Department of Agriculture to issue price and supply market reports for commodities of regional, national and international significance in order to assist in making immediate production and marketing decisions and as a guide to the amount of product in the supply channel. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service buys hundreds of millions of dollars of specialty crops products each year for domestic feeding programs, and Specialty Crops Market News Division data is a critical component of the decision making process.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .098 hours per response.

    Respondents: Specialty crops industry, or other for-profit businesses, individuals or households, farms.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,359.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 197.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 84,155 hours.

    Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 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.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12987 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 26, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 5, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Almonds Grown in California (7 CFR part 981).

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0242.

    Summary of Collection: Marketing Order No. 981 (7 CFR part 981) regulates the handling of almonds grown in California and emanates from the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, (Act) Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the California almond marketing order program. The board has developed forms as a means for persons to file required information with the board relating to the treatment of almonds to reduce the potential for Salmonella bacteria prior to shipment.

    Need and Use of the Information: Almond handlers are required to submit annual treatment plans to the board and inspection agency to ensure such plans are complete and auditable regarding how they plan to treat their almonds to reduce the potential for Salmonella. The plan will be approved by the Board and must address specific parameters for the handler to ship almonds. The Board also gathers information from entities interested in being almond process authorities that validate technologies, to accept and further process untreated almonds and entities interested in being auditors. The information collected would be used only by authorized representatives of USDA, including the Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs' regional and headquarters' staff, and authorized employees and agents of the board.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Individuals.

    Number of Respondents: 175.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually; On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,200.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12991 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-LPS-16-0035] Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of a currently approved information collection 0581-0263: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (NSIIC).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 1, 2016.

    Additional Information or Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection document. Comments should be submitted online at www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. All comments should reference docket number AMS-LPS-16-0035 and note the date of submission and the page number of this issue in the Federal Register. Comments may also be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Director, Research and Promotion Division, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2610-S, STOP 0249, Washington, DC 20250-0249; or by telephone (202) 720-5705 or fax: (202) 720-1125. Comments will be made available for public inspection at the above address during regular business hours or via the Web site at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth R. Payne, Research and Promotion Division, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS, USDA; 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2610-S, STOP 0249, Washington, DC 20250-0249; or by telephone to (202) 720-5705 or fax to (202) 720-1125.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.

    OMB Number: 0581-0263.

    Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the NSIIC. The NSIIC was initially authorized under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act), whose primary objective was to assist the U.S. sheep industry by strengthening and enhancing the production and marketing of sheep and their products in the United States. The information collection requirements in the request are essential to carry out the intent of the enabling legislation. The Act, as amended, was passed as part of the 1996 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 888). The initial legislation included a provision that privatized the NSIIC 10 years after its ratification or once the full appropriation of $50 million was disbursed. Subsequently, the NSIIC was privatized on September 30, 2006, and the NSIIC's office was closed in early 2007.

    In 2008, the NSIIC was re-established under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246), also known as the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill repealed the requirement in section 375(e)(6) of the Act to privatize the NSIIC. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided for $1 million in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2008 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the NSIIC to remain available until expended. NSIIC has expended the $1 million authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill.

    On October 7, 2014, as provided under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, NSIIC was awarded $1.475 million under the Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program.

    Currently, NSIIC awards funds annually to organizations designed to strengthen and enhance the production and marketing of sheep and sheep products in the United States including the improvement of infrastructure business, resource development, and the development of innovative approaches to solve long-term needs.

    AMS accepts nominations for membership on the NSIIC Board of Directors (Board) from national organizations that (1) consist primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the United States, and (2) have the primary interest of sheep or goat production in the United States.

    The forms used in this collection are: Nominations for Appointments; AD-755 Background Information Form (OMB No. 0505-0001); and Nominee's Agreement to Serve.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.21 hour per response.

    Respondents: National organizations submitting nominations to the Board who (1) consist primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the United States, and (2) have the primary interest of sheep or goat production in the United States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 per year per form.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 30.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6.25 hours.

    Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13019 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection; Online Registration for FSA-Hosted Events and Conferences AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with a revision of the information collection associated with online registration for FSA-hosted events and conferences. The information collection is needed for FSA to obtain information from the respondents who register on the Internet to make payment and reservations to attend any FSA-hosted conferences and events.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on the notice. In your comments, include date, OMB control number, volume, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Farm Service Agency, USDA, Stakeholder Engagement Specialist, Shayla Watson, 1400 Independence Avenue, Mail Stop 0539, SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Shayla Watson at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shayla Watson; (202) 690-2350. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Description of Information Collection

    Title: Online Registration for FSA-hosted Events and Conferences.

    OMB Number: 0560-0226.

    Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension with a Revision.

    Abstract: The collection of information is necessary for people to register online to make payment and reservations to attend conferences and events. They can register on FSA's Online Registration site on the Internet. Respondents who do not have access to the Internet can register by mail or fax. The information is collected by the FSA employees who host the conferences and events. FSA is collecting common elements from interested respondents such as name, organization, address, country, phone number, email address, State, city or town, payment options (credit card, check), special accommodations requests and how the respondent learned of the conference. The information collection element also include race, ethnicity, gender and veteran status. The respondents are mainly individuals who will attend the FSA-hosted conferences or events. The information is used to collect payment, if applicable, from the respondents and make hotel reservations and other special arrangements as necessary. There are no changes to the burden hours since the last OMB approval. FSA is adding new elements in the online registration format to assist individuals and to gather information to provide an appropriate FSA-hosted conference and events. The new elements include: Specifying a request for a type of disability services, identifying how they learned about the event, providing additional names to invite to the event, waiver for liability, and demographic information including gender, race, and ethnicity. The new elements will not increase the burden hours because it is all self-explanatory for the respondent to complete the online format.

    The formula used to calculate the total burden hour is estimated average time per responses hours times total responses.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 15 minutes.

    Type of Respondents: Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 900.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Number of Responses: 900.

    Estimated Average Time per Responses: 0.25.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 225 hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (4) 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.

    All responses to this notice, including name and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12947 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 26, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to 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.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 5, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Vegetable Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0037.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics (NASS) is to prepare and issue current official state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices and disposition. The Vegetable Surveys Program obtains basic agricultural statistics for fresh market and processing vegetables in major producing States. The vegetable program has two types of utilization: Some crops are processing only, some are fresh market only, and others are dual crops (both processing and fresh market). Vegetable processors are surveyed in August for acreage contracted and estimated yield. In late November, processors are asked for final acreage harvested, production, and value. The fresh market vegetable program consists of specialized growers who are surveyed at the conclusion of the growing season for estimates of crop production. Producers of onions, strawberries, and asparagus are surveyed in August to obtain forecasted acreage and production. NASS will collect information using surveys.

    Need and Use of the Information: NASS will collect information to estimate acreage intended to plant, acreage planted, acreage harvested, yield/production, price, and utilization for the various crops. The estimates provide vital statistics for growers, processors, and marketers to use in making production and marketing decisions.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 19,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually; Other (seasonally).

    Total Burden Hours: 5,838.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12989 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business Cooperative Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 26, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 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.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 5, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Business Service

    Title: 7 CFR 4287-B, Servicing Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans.

    OMB Control Number: 0570-0016.

    Summary of Collection: The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (the Act). The purpose of the B&I program, as authorized by the Act, is to improve economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement and control. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans, which will provide lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the Rural Business Service (RBS) through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each State. RBS will collect information using various forms from the lender and the borrower. This information is vital for making prudent financial decisions.

    Need and Use of the Information: RBS will collect information to monitor the guaranteed loan portfolio to ensure that the lenders are adequately servicing the loans. RBS through its respective Business Programs Divisions in Washington, DC and its 47 State Offices throughout the United States will be the primary users of the information collected. If the information is not collected, RBS would not be able to make prudent credit decisions nor would the Agency be able to effectively monitor the lender's servicing activities and thus minimize losses under the program.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 4,126.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 25,997.

    Rural Business Service

    Title: 7 CFR 4279-B, Guaranteed Loan Making—Business and Industry Loans.

    OMB Control Number: 0570-0017.

    Summary of Collection: The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended. The purpose of the program is to improve, develop, or finance businesses, industries, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans made by lending institutions, thereby providing lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the Rural Business Service (RBS) through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each State.

    Need and Use of the Information: RBS will collect information needed by the Agency including completed forms, financial statements and various other documents used by the lender, borrower and Agency to determine program eligibility and creditworthiness of the loan proposal. The information is used by RBS loan officers and approved officials to determine program eligibility and for program monitoring.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 450.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 14,730.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12988 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-75-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 154—Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Geismar, Louisiana

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 154, requesting subzone status for the facility of Westlake Chemical Corporation located in Geismar, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 25, 2016.

    The proposed subzone (185 acres) is located at 36045 Highway 30 in Geismar and would include four pipelines totaling 4.9 miles in length. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 154. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 27, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12961 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-38-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 87—Lake Charles, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Sulphur, Louisiana

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, grantee of FTZ 87, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Westlake Chemical Corporation located in Sulphur, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 25, 2016.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (583.88 acres)—Petro Operations, 900 Highway 108, Sulphur; Site 2 (70.83 acres)—Poly Operations, 3525 Cities Services Highway, Sulphur; and, Site 3 (691.78 acres)—Marine Terminal Operations, 1820 PAK Tank Road, Sulphur. The proposed subzone would also include several pipelines. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 27, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12958 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-8-2016] Approval of Subzone Status; Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C.; Houma and Lockport, Louisiana

    On January 28, 2016, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Houma-Terrebonne Airport Commission, grantee of FTZ 279, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 279 on behalf of Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C., in Houma and Lockport, Louisiana.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 5707, February 3, 2016). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 279A is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 279's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12960 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-37-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 261—Alexandria, Louisiana; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the England Economic & Industrial Development District, grantee of FTZ 261, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 25, 2016.

    FTZ 261 was approved by the FTZ Board on April 21, 2004 (Board Order 1325, 69 FR 26066, May 11, 2004). The current zone includes the following sites: Site 1 (1,594 acres)—England Airpark complex, 1611 Arnold Drive, Alexandria; Site 2 (124 acres)—Port of Alexandria, 600 Port Road, Alexandria; and, Site 3 (110 acres)—Central Louisiana Eco Business Park, 7636 Highway 1 South, Alexandria.

    The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Rapides Parish, Louisiana, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is adjacent to the Morgan City Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include existing Sites 1 and 2 as “magnet” sites. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. The applicant is also requesting to remove Site 3 from the zone. No subzones/usage-driven sites are being requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 1, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 16, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12954 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-583-857] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from Taiwan.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joy Zhang or Cindy Robinson, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168 and (202) 482-3797, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Petitioners in this investigation are the United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., California Steel Industries, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, and AK Steel Corporation. This investigation covers 26 alleged government subsidy programs. The mandatory respondents in this investigation are (1) Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. (PT), and its crossed-own affiliates: Hong-Ye Steel Co., Ltd. (HY), Prosperity Did Enterprise Co., Ltd. (PD), and Chan Lin Enterprise Co., Ltd. (CL) (collectively the Prosperity Companies) and (2) Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui), and its crossed-own affiliates: Yieh Corporation Limited (YCL); Shin Yang Steel Co., Ltd. (Shin Yang); and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd (Synn) (collectively the Yieh Phui Companies).

    On November 6, 2015, the Department published its Preliminary Determination. 1 For a description of the events that have occurred since the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 80 FR 68852 (November 6, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,2 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    2See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted on the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.3

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice.4 A list of subsidy programs and the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    4See Issue and Decision Memorandum.

    We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Producer/Exporter Subsidy rate Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. (PT); Hong-Ye Steel Co., Ltd. (HY); Prosperity Did Enterprise Co., Ltd. (PD); and Chan Lin Enterprise Co., Ltd. (CL) (collectively Prosperity Companies) 0.00 percent ad valorem. Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui); Yieh Corporation Limited (YCL); Shin Yang Steel Co., Ltd. (Shin Yang); and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd (Synn) (collectively Yieh Phui Companies) 0.00 percent ad valorem.

    Because the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates are zero, we determine that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers or exporters of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan. We have not calculated an all-others rate pursuant to sections 705(c)(1)(B) and (c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) because we have not reached an affirmative final determination. Because our final determination is negative, this proceeding is terminated in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act.

    In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were zero and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation of entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan.5 Because the estimated subsidy rates for both examined companies are zero in this final determination, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan.

    5See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR 68852.

    United States International Trade Commission (USITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the USITC of our final determination. Because our final determination is negative, this investigation is terminated.

    Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I I. Summary II. Background A. Case History B. Period of Investigation III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances VI. Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Denominators VII. Benchmarks and Interest Rates VIII. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable 1. Provision of Cold-Rolled Steel and Hot-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) 2. Tariff Exemption for Imported Equipment Program 3. Income Tax Credit for Upgraded Equipment B. Programs Determined Not To Confer a Benefit During the POI 1. Loan Financing by the National Development Fund (NDF) 2. Provision of Land for LTAR for Eligible Firms Located in the Pingtung Industrial Park—a New Subsidy Allegation C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether CSC Is a Government Authority Capable of Providing a Financial Contribution Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Use A “Tier Two” Benchmark To Measure the Benefit for Cold-Rolled Steel and Hot-Rolled Steel Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Further Investigate and Collect the Information Requested by AK Steel X. Conclusion Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12977 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after June 2016, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of June 2016,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in June for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of
  • review
  • Antidumping Duty Proceedings Japan: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe, A-588-850 (Over 41/2 Inches) 6/1/15-5/31/16 Japan: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe, A-588-851 (Under 41/2 Inches) 6/1/15-5/31/16 Mexico: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-201-843 6/1/15-5/31/16 Spain: Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-469-814 6/1/15-5/31/16 Taiwan: Helical Spring Lock Washers, A-583-820 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Artist Canvas, A-570-899 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-570-898 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Furfuryl Alcohol, A-570-835 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: High Pressure Steel Cylinders, A-570-977 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Polyester Staple Fiber, A-570-905 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-570-990 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, A-570-945 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Silicon Metal, A-570-806 6/1/15-5/31/16 The People's Republic of China: Tapered Roller Bearings, A-570-601 6/1/15-5/31/16 Countervailing Duty Proceedings The People's Republic of China: High Pressure Steel Cylinders, C-570-978 1/1/15-12/31/15
    Suspension Agreements

    None.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov.4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of June 2016. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of June 2016, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12953 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-878] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elfi Blum or Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-2316, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the preliminary determination on January 4, 2016.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.2

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 78 (January 4, 2016) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China,” (Final Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.3 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.

    3See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the Republic of Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,4 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    4See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted on the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Final Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January, February, and April 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd./Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk/Union Steel), pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by respondents.

    Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Hyundai and Dongkuk/Union Steel. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    Prior to the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea produced or exported by Hyundai and “all-others.” 7 As discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum, we no longer find critical circumstances with respect to Hyundai. We continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to “all-others” companies.8 Thus, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act, we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports produced or exported by all other producers/exporters, but do not exist for Hyundai and Dongkuk/Union Steel.

    7See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015).

    8 For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Consistent with sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Where the rates for investigated companies are zero or de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an “all others” rate using “any reasonable method.”

    In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai and Dongkuk/Union, that are above de minimis and which are not based on total facts available. We calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents.9

    9 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple average of the two calculated margins.

    Final Determination Margins

    The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    10See Footnote 9.

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate
  • (percent)
  • Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd./Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 8.75 8.75 Hyundai Steel Company 47.80 47.79 All Others 10 28.28 28.27
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 6, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist) or on or after January 4, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination (for all entities for which we did not find critical circumstances exist). Because we find in this final determination that critical circumstances do not exist for Hyundai, we will terminate the retroactive suspension of liquidation ordered at the Preliminary Determination and release any cash deposits that were required during that period, consistent with section 735(c)(3) of the Act.

    As noted above, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies. Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel from the Korea, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the weighted-average margin column in the rate chart, above.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APO”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available VII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist for Hyundai and for POSCO, as Part of “all other producers/exporters” Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Exclude Hyundai's Sales of TWBs and Auto Parts Pursuant to Section 772(e) of the Act Comment 3: Whether the Department Erred in Applying Facts Otherwise Available and Surreptitiously Used an Adverse Inference With Respect to its Sales of TWBs and Auto Parts in the Preliminary Determination Comment 4: Whether the FMG Data Submitted by Hyundai for its Sales of TWBs, Auto Parts, Sheet, Skelp and Blanks Should Be Used in the Final Determination Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available to Calculate the Final Dumping Margin for Hyundai Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Adjust Hyundai's G&A Expenses for Subject Merchandise Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Adjust Hyundai's Costs to Account for Non-Prime Merchandise Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Adjust' Ocean Freight Expenses to Reflect Arm's Length Comment 9: The Department Should Disallow Certain Billing Adjustments for Home Market and U.S. Sales Comment 10: Whether the Department's Adjustment to Marine Insurance is Unwarranted Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Adjust HSA's Indirect Spelling Expense Ratio Comment 12: Whether the Department Failed to Deduct Further Manufacturing Resulting in Overstating CEP Profit Comment 13: Use of the Average-to-Transaction Method With Zeroing Comment 14: Whether the Major Input Rule Analysis Should Be Conducted Comment 15: Whether Application of AFA Is Warranted With Regard to Home Market Sales and Production Cost of Processed CORE Comment 16: Whether to Recalculate Home Market Credit Expense Comment 17: Whether to Adjust Inland Freight in Korea for U.S. Sales Comment 18: Whether to Adjust Inland Freight in Korea for Home Market Sales Comment 19: Whether Application of AFA Is Warranted With Regard to U.S. Warranty Expenses Comment 20: Whether the Application of AFA Is Warranted for Dongkuk's Failure to Report Home Market Sales by an Affiliate Comment 21: Application of the Average-to-Transaction Method to all U.S. Sales VIII. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12979 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The NSR covers one exporter and producer of subject merchandise, Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd (“Qingdao Barry”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. The Department preliminarily determines that Qingdao Barry's sale to the United States is not bona fide, as required by section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).1 Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this NSR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review.

    1 On February 24, 2016, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-125 (Feb. 24, 2016), which made amendments to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. These amendments apply to this determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 26, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on MLWF from the PRC.2 The Department subsequently issued an antidumping duty questionnaire, and supplemental questionnaires, to Qingdao Barry and received timely responses thereto. Also, Qingdao Barry submitted comments on surrogate country and surrogate value selection.3 No other party submitted comments. The Department extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results of this review until May 20, 2016.4

    2See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 80 FR 65200 (October 26, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”). In that notice, we explained that the review was being initiated in accordance with an order entered by the U.S. Court of International Trade, wherein the Court authorized the Department to initiate and conduct this new shipper review based on Qingdao Barry's December 19, 2014, review request.

    3See “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Submission of Comparable Surrogate Country Comments,” dated February 16, 2016; see also “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Submission of Surrogate Value Information,” dated February 23, 2016.

    4See the memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Maisha Cryor, Office IV, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review” dated April 14, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is multilayered wood flooring, which is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneers 5 in combination with a core.6 Merchandise covered by this review is classifiable under subheadings 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    5 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply when assembled.

    6 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Preliminary Rescission of the 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China” issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Rescission of the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Qingdao Barry

    As discussed in the Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum,7 the Department preliminarily finds that the sale made by Qingdao Barry to the United States is not a bona fide sale. The Department reached this conclusion based on the totality of circumstances surrounding the reported sale, including, among other things, the price of the sale and Qingdao Barry's failure to provide evidence that the subject merchandise was resold at a profit. Because the non-bona fide sale was the only reported sale of subject merchandise during the POR, and thus there are no reviewable transactions on this record, we are preliminarily rescinding the instant NSR. Because much of the factual information used in our analysis of Qingdao Barry's sale involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary determination is set forth in the Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum, which is on the record of this proceeding.

    7See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Office IV AD/CVD Operations, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Enforcement and Compliance, Office IV entitled “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Bona Fide Sale Analysis for Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (“Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum”).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 14 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review.8 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than five days after the briefs are filed.9 All rebuttal comments must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs.10

    8 Note that the Department is altering the time limit for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.11 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral argument presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.12 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    11See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    12See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.13

    13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this NSR, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs received, no later than 90 days after the date these preliminary results of review are issued pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of Qingdao Barry's NSR, the assessment rate to which Qingdao Barry's shipments will be subject will remain unchanged. However, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on MLWF from the PRC covering numerous exporters, including Qingdao Barry, and the period December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014, which encompasses the POR of this NSR.14 Thus, if the Department proceeds to a final rescission, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend entries during the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014 of subject merchandise exported by Qingdao Barry until CBP receives instructions relating to the administrative review of this order covering the period December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014.

    14See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 6041, 6044-45 (February 4, 2015).

    If the Department does not proceed to a final rescission of this new shipper review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate an importer-specific (or customer) assessment rate based on the final results of this review. However, pursuant to the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by Qingdao Barry, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.15

    15 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission or the final results of this NSR, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Qingdao Barry. If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of this new shipper review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate for Qingdao Barry because the Department will not have determined an individual margin of dumping for Qingdao Barry. If the Department issues final results for this new shipper review, the Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Scope 2. Bona Fide Sales Analysis
    [FR Doc. 2016-12951 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-027] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Halle or David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0176 or (202) 482-3870, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 6, 2015.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Final Decision Memorandum.2 The Final Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68843 (November 6, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China,” (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Final Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    The Department, in making these findings, relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability, we made adverse inferences.5 For the final determination, we are basing the countervailing duty (CVD) rates for Angang Group Hong Kong Company Ltd. (Angang), Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Baoshan), Duferco S.A. (Duferco), Changshu Everbright Material Technology (Everbright), and Handan Iron & Steel Group (Handan) on facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, because Angang, Baoshan, Duferco, Everbright and Handan did not cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation, we also determine that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences,” in the Final Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Decision Memorandum and the Final Analysis Memorandum.6

    6See Final Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum, “Final Determination Analysis for Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    Prior to the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC for Angang, Baoshan, Duferco, Everbright and Handan.7 Upon further analysis of the data and comments submitted by interested parties following the Preliminary Determination, we are not modifying our findings for the Final Determination. 8 Specifically, in accordance with section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports from Angang, Baoshan, Duferco, Everbright and Handan, but do not exist for Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. (YPC) and all other producers or exporters.

    7See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015).

    8 For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Final Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we established rates for YPC (the only individually investigated exporter/producer of the subject merchandise that participated in this investigation), and for Angang, Baoshan, Duferco, Everbright and Handan (which were assigned a rate based on adverse facts available (AFA)).

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weight averaging the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected for individual examination with those companies' export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, excluding any zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Consistent with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we therefore have excluded the AFA rate assigned to Angang, Baoshan, Duferco, Everbright, and Handan from the all-others rate.

    Because the only individually calculated rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for YPC, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the rate calculated for YPC is assigned as the “all-others” rate. The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are summarized in the table below.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd 39.05 Angang Group Hong Kong Company Ltd 241.07 Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd 241.07 Duferco S.A., Hebei Iron & Steel Group, and Tangshan Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd 241.07 Changshu Everbright Material Technology 241.07 Handan Iron & Steel Group 241.07 All-Others 39.05
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise under consideration from the PRC that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after August 8, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist) or on or after November 6, 2015, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register (for all entities for which we did not find critical circumstances exist). In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 4, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 8, 2015, or November 6, 2015, as the case may be, through March 3, 2016.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC VI. Subsidies Valuation Information VII. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IX. Analysis of Programs X. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Respondent's Producers of Inputs Are “Authorities” Comment 2: Whether Inputs for LTAR Are Specific Comment 3: Whether To Use a Tier One Benchmark To Determine the Adequacy of Remuneration for Inputs for LTAR Comment 4: Whether the Provision of Electricity for LTAR Is Countervailable Comment 5: Whether the GOC Provided Policy Loans to YPC During the POI Comment 6: Whether the Export Buyer's Credit Program Was Used by Respondent Comment 7: Correcting VAT in the Hot-Rolled Steel and Primary Aluminum Benchmarks Comment 8: Whether To Apply AFA to YCL's Sales From Other PRC Producers of Corrosion-Resistant Steel XI. Recommendation Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12962 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-879] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Myrna Lobo or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2371 or (202) 482-1396, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 6, 2015.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Final Decision Memorandum.2 The Final Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68842 (November 6, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea,” (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Final Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Final Decision Memorandum.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    Prior to the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea for all other companies, excepting mandatory respondents Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd./Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (Union/Dongkuk) and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd./Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu).6 Upon further analysis of the data following the Preliminary Determination, we are not modifying our findings for the Final Determination. 7 Specifically, in accordance with section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect imports from all other producers or exporters, but do not exist for Union/Dongkuk and Dongbu.

    6See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015). Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu Incheon) is not listed in this notice; however, we preliminarily determined that Dongbu Incheon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. and calculated a single countervailing duty rate for both companies. Thus, we stated that the suspension of liquidation for both companies would begin on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 68842.

    7 For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Final Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Union/Dongkuk and Dongbu, the two exporters/producers of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation.

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents with those companies' export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We therefore have excluded the rate for Union/Dongkuk from the all-others rate.

    Because the only individually calculated rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Dongbu, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the rate calculated for Dongbu is assigned as the “all-others” rate. The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows:

    Company Subsidy rate Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd./Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd 0.72 percent (de minimis). Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd./Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd 1.19 percent. All-Others 1.19 percent. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Korea, other than subject merchandise produced/exported by Union/Dongkuk which received a de minimis countervailable subsidy rate in the Preliminary.

    Determination

    Pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we subsequently instructed CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise under consideration from Korea, with the exception of Union/Dongkuk, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after August 8, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist) or on or after November 6, 2015, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register (for those entities for which we did not find critical circumstances exist). In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 4, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 8, 2015, or November 6, 2015, as the case may be, through March 3, 2016.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above that are not de minimis. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Subsidies Valuation Information VI. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Find the Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Countervailable Based on Adverse Facts Available Comment 2: Whether the Provision of Electricity Provides a Benefit Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Use Other Submitted Data to Measure the Adequacy of Remuneration for Electricity Comment 4: Whether Benefits Received From Dongbu's Voluntary Debt Restructuring are Countervailable Comment 5: Whether Benefits Should Be Calculated for Loans and Bonds Which Were Issued to Dongbu by GOK-Owned Banks Prior to Its Voluntary Restructuring Comment 6: Whether Dongbu was Creditworthy in 2014 and Whether the Department Should Recalculate Benefits Using Creditworthy Benchmarks Comment 7: Whether Nonghyup Bank is an “Authority” and Loans Received From Nonghyup Bank are Countervailable Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Find That the Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR is Countervailable IX. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12978 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-856] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shanah Lee or Paul Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386 or (202) 482-4474, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 4, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation and invited parties to comment.1 As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January and April 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“PT”), Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“YP”), and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Synn”). In April 2016, Petitioner,2 YP, and PT submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs. For a complete discussion of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 72 (January 4, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”). See also Antidumping Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Antidumping Determinations, 81 FR 6236 (February 5, 2016) (“Scope Correction Notice”).

    2 Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, Inc. AK Steel Corporation was the only Petitioner to file comments in this case.

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.4 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.

    4See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,5 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    5See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    6See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated by reference and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    Final Determination of Affiliation and Collapsing

    We continue to find that YP and Synn are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act and should be collapsed together and treated as a single company, pursuant to the criteria laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f).7 Additionally, for these final results, we have determined that PT is also affiliated with Synn, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act 8 and the three companies should be collapsed together and treated as a single company (collectively, “PT/YP/Synn”), pursuant to the criteria laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f).9

    7See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 73 and Memorandum to Erin Begnal, Director, Office III, “Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Preliminary Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum for Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd.,” dated December 21, 2015. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

    8 We have also determined that PT and YP are affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of the Act.

    9See Memorandum to Eric Greynolds, Acting Director, Office III, “Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Final Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this notice. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this case, we found the mandatory respondents to be collapsed as a single company, PT/YP/Synn, whose margin is calculated from its own sales and production data and which is not zero or de minimis or based entirely on facts available. Therefore, we are assigning PT/YP/Synn's calculated margin as the all-others rate in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd., Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd., and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively, “PT/YP/Synn”) 3.77 All-Others 3.77
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the publication of this notice to interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    On October 29, 2015, the Department found that critical circumstances do not exist for merchandise exported by PT and YP, but do exist for “all others.” 10 Based on the final sales data submitted by PT/YP/Synn and further analysis following the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, we are not modifying our findings for the final determination.11 We continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for PT/YP/Synn, but that critical circumstances do exist for the “all others.” For a complete discussion of this issue, see the “Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504, (November 5, 2015) (“Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination”).

    11 As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, however, YP did not report sales for December 2015. We have used the highest total reported export figure for a single month for YP and PT as adverse facts available for December 2015. Even with this adverse facts assumption, we still find that PT/YP/Synn, which are collapsed together, did not have massive imports in the comparison period.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan, as described in Appendix II of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final determination. Because of our affirmative determination of critical circumstances for “all others,” in accordance with section 735(a)(3) and (c)(4)(C) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, shall apply, for “all others,” to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice, the date suspension of liquidation is first ordered for “all others.”

    Further, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as follows: (1) For the exporters/producers listed in the table above, the cash deposit rates will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; 12 (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 3.77 percent. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    12 Because the Department is making a negative determination in the companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan, we are not adjusting the cash deposit rate for export subsidies given that there will be no cash deposit rates collected in the companion CVD investigation. See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Taiwan no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APO”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part V. List of Comments VI. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether To Apply AFA to PT's and Synn's Misclassified Sales Comment 2: Whether To Disregard YP/Synn's Home-Market Rebates Comment 3: Whether To Continue to Collapse YP and Synn for the Final Determination and Whether to Also Collapse YP/Synn with PT Comment 4: Whether To Adjust YP's Coil Costs Comment 5: Whether To Offset YP's G&A Expenses for Insurance Proceeds Comment 6: Whether To Offset PT's G&A Expense Ratio by Including Additional Non-operating Income Items VII. Recommendation Attachment II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12975 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

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

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for July 2016

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in July 2016 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium (A-423-808) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Heavy Forged Hand Tools, With or Without Handles from China (A-570-803) (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan (A-588-845) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea (A-580-834) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Ammonium Nitrate from Russia (A-821-811) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from South Africa (A-791-805) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan (A-583-830) (3rd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan (A-583-831) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Countervailing Duty Proceedings Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea (C-580-835) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from South Africa (C-791-806) (3rd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Suspended Investigations No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in July 2016

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12952 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-026] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. The period of investigation is October 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015.

    DATED:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on January 4, 2016.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Final Decision Memorandum.2 The Final Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Final Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 75 (January 4, 2016) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China,” (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues raised and to which the Department responded is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the mandatory respondent Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui), pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by respondents.

    Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on the Department's analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Final Decision Memorandum.

    Combination Rates

    As stated in the Initiation Notice, 6 the Department calculated combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.7

    6See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy, India, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 37228 (June 30, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    7See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    Prior to the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC produced or exported by the PRC-wide entity (which, as noted below, includes Hebei Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Tangshan Branch) (Tangshan) and Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Baoshan)).8 We are not modifying our findings for this final determination.9 Thus, pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1)-(2), we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by the PRC-wide entity, but do not exist for Yieh Phui and the other producers/exporters entitled to a separate rate.

    8See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015).

    9 For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Final Decision Memorandum.

    Separate Rate

    Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the rate for all other companies that have not been individually examined is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available. In this final determination, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Yieh Phui (the only cooperating mandatory respondent) which is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Accordingly, we determine to use Yieh Phui's weighted-average dumping margin as the margin for the separate rate companies.

    PRC-Wide Rate

    In our Preliminary Determination, we found that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Baoshan, Tangshan, and other PRC exporters and/or producers that did not respond to the Department's requests for information, failed to provide necessary information, withheld information requested by the Department, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not submitting the requested information. As a result, we preliminarily determined to calculate the PRC-wide rate on the basis of adverse facts available (AFA). We examined whether the highest petition margin was less than or equal to the highest calculated margin, and determined that the highest calculated margin of 255.80 percent was the higher of the two. Thus, for the Preliminary Determination, we assigned to the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 255.80 percent, the highest calculated margin. This rate was Yieh Phui's preliminary calculated margin. For this final determination, Yieh Phui's calculated margin changed to 209.97 percent, and it is still the highest calculated margin. Consistent with our practice, the Department selected Yieh Phui's highest calculated margin, as AFA, because this rate is higher than the highest petition rate in this investigation and therefore, sufficiently adverse to serve the purposes of facts available.10 Therefore, we assigned this rate to the PRC-wide entity for this final determination. Furthermore, there is no need to corroborate the selected margin because it is based on information submitted by Yieh Phui in the course of this investigation, i.e., it is not secondary information.11

    Final Determination Margins

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins, and cash deposit rates reflecting adjustments to the weighted-average dumping margins to account for export subsidies exist:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash
  • deposit
  • rate
  • (percent) 12
  • Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. 209.97 199.43 Jiangyin Zongcheng Steel Co. Ltd. Jiangyin Zongcheng Steel Co. Ltd. 209.97 199.43 Union Steel China Union Steel China 209.97 199.43 PRC-Wide Entity 209.97 199.43

    As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Baoshan and Tangshan, mandatory respondents in this investigation, did not respond to our questionnaire and, thus, did not demonstrate that they were entitled to separate rates. We continue to find these companies to be part of the PRC-Wide Entity. Furthermore, because we did not receive quantity and value questionnaire responses or separate rate applications from numerous companies, the PRC-wide entity also includes these non-responsive companies.13

    10See Final Decision Memorandum for a detailed discussion.

    11See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the Act.

    12See “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section below.

    13See Memorandum to the File, “Quantity and Value Questionnaire Recipients” (July 16, 2015).

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 6, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist) or on or after January 4, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination (for all entities for which we did not find critical circumstances exist). Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 14 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies,15 as follows: (1) For the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    14See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    15See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

    As noted above, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies.16 Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the weighted-average margin column in the rate chart, above.

    16 In the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, the Department preliminarily found that Yieh Phu did not receive export subsidies. As a result, we did not adjust any of the companies' AD cash deposit rates for export subsidies. In the concurrent final CVD investigation, we determined that the Yieh Phui did receive export subsidies. In addition, pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, we normally adjust preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. However, in this case in the Preliminary Determination, we did not grant a domestic subsidy pass-through adjustment. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. We received no comments on this issues, and we have not changed this decision for this final determination.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Scope Comments V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Changes Since the Preliminary Determinations VII. Use of Adverse Facts Available VIII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Ocean Freight Surrogate Value Comment 2: Byproduct Offset Comment 3: Hot-Rolled Steel Surrogate Value Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios IX. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (terne plate), or both chromium and chromium oxides (tin free steel), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12965 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-832] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Italy is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-4031, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 4, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation.1 The following events occurred since the Preliminary Determination was issued.

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 69 (January 4, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    Between January and April 2016, the Department received supplemental questionnaire responses and revised databases from Acciaieria Arvedi SPA (“Arvedi”) and Marcegaglia SpA (“Marcegaglia”), the mandatory respondents in this investigation.

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.2

    2See Memorandum for the Record, from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    Between April 19, and April 20, 2016, Petitioners 3 submitted timely, properly filed case briefs.4 Between April 25, and April 28, 2016, Arvedi, and Petitioners submitted timely, properly filed rebuttal briefs.5 Additionally, on April 27, 2016, Marcegaglia submitted a timely, properly filed case brief.6 Moreover, on May 2, 2016, Marcegaglia submitted a timely, properly filed rebuttal brief.7

    3 United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, Inc., (collectively “Petitioners”).

    4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners “Case Brief Submitted on behalf of Petitioners: Brief on Arvedi,” (April 19, 2016) (“Petitioners' Case Brief on Arvedi”); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners “Case Brief Submitted on Behalf of Petitioners: Brief on Marcegaglia,” (April 20, 2016) (“Petitioners' Case Brief on Marcegaglia”).

    5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners “Rebuttal Brief on Marcegaglia Submitted on behalf of Petitioners,” (April 28, 2016) (“Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief on Marcegaglia”); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Arvedi “Arvedi's Rebuttal Brief,” (April 25, 2016) (“Arvedi's Rebuttal Brief”); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Marcegaglia, “Marcegaglia's Rebuttal Brief,” (April 28, 2016) (“Marcegaglia's Rebuttal Brief”)..

    6See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Marcegaglia, “Revised Case Brief of Marcegaglia,” (April 27, 2016) (“Marcegaglia's Revised Case Brief”). We note that this is a refiled and redacted case brief. See Letter to Marcegaglia from Paul Walker, Program Manager, Office V, Re: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Rejection of New Factual Information, (April 26, 2016); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Marcegaglia, “Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Objection to the Department's Rejection of Marcegaglia's Case Brief,” (April 27, 2016).

    7See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Marcegaglia, “Revised Rebuttal Brief of Marcegaglia,” (May 2, 2016) (“Marcegaglia's Revised Rebuttal Brief”). We note that this is a refiled and redacted rebuttal brief. See Letter to Marcegaglia from Paul Walker, Program Manager, Office V, Re: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Rejection of New Factual Information in Rebuttal Brief, (April 29, 2016).

    Additionally, on May 3, 2016, the Department held a public hearing on this antidumping duty investigation.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,8 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    8See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.9 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    9See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice.10 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    10See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy” (May 24, 2016) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, between January and March 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Arvedi and Marcegaglia.11

    11See Memorandum to the File, through Paul Walker, Program Manager, Office V, from Julia Hancock and Susan Pulongbarit, Senior International Trade Analysts, and Omar Qureshi, International Trade Analyst, “Verification of Home Market Sales of Arvedi in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy,” (March 29, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Paul Walker, Program Manager, Office V, from Susan Pulongbarit and Julia Hancock, Senior International Trade Analysts, and Omar Qureshi, International Trade Analyst, “Verification of Home Market Sales of Marcegaglia in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy,” (April 8, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Paul Walker, Program Manager, Office V, from Susan Pulongbarit and Julia Hancock, Senior International Trade Analysts, “Verification of U.S. Sales of Marcegaglia in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy,” (April 7, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from Christopher Zimpo and James Balog, Accountants, ” Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Arvedi in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy” (April 7, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from James Balog, Accountant, “Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Marcegaglia in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy” (April 12, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from James Balog, Accountant, “Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Marcegaglia in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy” (April 12, 2016) ; Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from James Balog, Accountant, “Verification of the Further Manufacturing Data Submitted by Marcegaglia in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy” (April 12, 2016).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination and Use of Adverse Facts Available

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we revised the margin for Marcegaglia to reflect the application of facts available with an adverse inference, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(D) and 776(b) of the the Act. Additionally, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Arvedi and applied partial facts available with an adverse inference to Arvedi for its non-prime sales in the home market and affiliated prime sales in the home market, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(D) and 776(b) of the Act. We have also revised the all-others rate. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section and Comments 1-11 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Because Arvedi is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department calculated a company-specific rate which is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Arvedi as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.12

    12 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A 12.63 Marcegaglia S.p.A 92.12 All-Others 12.63
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    On November 5, 2015, the Department issued its preliminary critical circumstances determination. Pursuant to this determination, the Department determined that critical circumstances did not exist for imports of subject merchandise from Arvedi, Marcegaglia, and “all-others.” 13 Based on Arvedi's and Marcegaglia's final dumping margins, and further analysis following the Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, we are modifying our findings for the final determination and finding critical circumstances exist for Marcegaglia. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the “Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances, In Part” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015) (“Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances”).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 8, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. However, because prior to this final determination provisional measures were not in effect for Marcegaglia, the Department reached a negative critical circumstances determination at the Preliminary Determination, and has reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination with respect to Marcegaglia for this final determination, pursuant to section 735(c)(4)(C) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy from Marcegaglia which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90-days prior to the date of publication of this final determination in the Federal Register, and require a cash deposit for such entries as noted above.

    Further, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondents listed above will be the respondent-specific weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 12.63 percent. The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,14 adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies.15 The Department has determined in its companion countervailing duty investigation of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy that subject merchandise exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia did not benefit from export subsidies.16 As a result, the Department will make no adjustment to Arvedi's or Marcegaglia's cash deposit rates. The rate for all other producers or exporters when adjusted for export subsidies is 12.48 percent.

    14See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    15See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    16See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Final Affirmative Determination, dated concurrently with this notice.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APO”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Application of Total Adverse Facts Available With Regard to Marcegaglia VI. Selection of AFA Rate and Corroboration VII. Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances, In Part VIII. List of Comments IX. Discussion of Comments Comment 1: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) to Marcegaglia A. Misclassified Export Price (“EP”) Sales Comment 2: Corporate Name Change of Marcegaglia Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) to Arvedi's Non-Prime Sales Comment 4: Application of AFA to Arvedi's Packing Revenue Comment 5: Treatment of Arvedi's Cost of Manufacturing (“COM”) A. Other Operating Costs B. Net Extraordinary Charges C. Bad Debt Expenses D. Offset of Electricity Sales to COM E. Adjust Variable Manufacturing Cost Based on Sales Quantities F. Disallow Insurance Claim as “Indirect Damages” As An Offset to Fixed Overhead Costs Comment 6: Programming Errors in Arvedi's Margin Program A. Net U.S. Price Variable B. Marine Insurance Comment 7: Revised U.S. Sales Data for Arvedi Comment 8: Adjustments to Arvedi's Cost Data Based on Verification
    [FR Doc. 2016-12969 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-864] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Affirmative Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). For information on the subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Devine, Paul Walker, or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-0238, 202-482-0413, or 202-482-2312, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 6, 2015,1 and placed the Post-Preliminary Memorandum on the record of this investigation on March 9, 2016.2 A summary of the events that occurred since the post-preliminary analysis, as well verification and a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memo.3 The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68854 (November 6, 2015) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, re: “Post-Preliminary Analysis for the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from India,” dated March 9, 2016 (“Post-Preliminary Memorandum”).

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from India,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memo”).

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.4

    4See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are corrosion-resistant steel products from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II. The Department did not receive comments regarding the scope of this investigation.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,5 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    5See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    6See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memo.

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memo, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because JSW Steel Limited did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo.

    8See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to the subsidy program rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memo.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Where the rates for the individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an all-others rate using “any reasonable method.” Where the countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated respondents are zero or de minimis or are based on total AFA, the Department's practice, pursuant to 705(c)(5)(A)(ii), is to calculate the all others rate based on a simple average of the zero or de minimis margins and the margins based on total AFA. Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, and consistent with the Department's practice, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' rates.9

    9See, e.g., Countervailing Duty Investigation of Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 5089 (January 30, 2015), unchanged in Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 64745 (October 24, 2015).

    Exporter/Producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited 29.46 Uttam Galva Steels Limited and Uttam Value Steels Limited 8.00 All Others 18.73
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of entries of merchandise under consideration from India that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after November 6, 2015, which is the publication date in the Federal Register of the Preliminary Determination. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 5, 2016.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. List of Issues V. Subsidies Valuation VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the AAP Is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 2: Whether the DFIA Program Is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 3: Whether the DDB Program Is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 4: Whether the EPCGS Is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 5: Whether the Various State Government of Maharashtra Programs Are Countervailable Subsidies Comment 6: Whether Status Holder Incentive Scrips (“SHIS”) Purchased From Third Parties Confer a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 7: Double-Counting of the Status Certificate Program (“SCP”) and SHIS Comment 8: Whether UVSL Was Required To File a Questionnaire Response Comment 9: Treatment of Indrajit Power Private Ltd. (“IPPL”) Comment 10: UGSL's Use of the EPCGS (Unreported License) Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available to JSWSL Based on Failure To Report Information About Subsidiaries Comment 12: Whether JSWSL Used the DFIA Program or the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme Comment 13: JCPSL's Use of the Focus Market Scheme Comment 14: JSWSL's Use of the EPCGS (Unreported License) X. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) Where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12967 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-833] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Italy as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Palmer, Irene Gorelik, and Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.9068, 202.482.6905, and 202.482.7906, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 6, 2015,1 published the Preliminary Critical Circumstances on November 5, 2015,2 and placed the Post-Preliminary Analysis on the record of this investigation on April 13, 2016.3 A summary of the events that occurred since the post-preliminary analysis, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memo.4 The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68839 (November 6, 2015) (“Preliminary Determination”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (“Prelim Decision Memo”).

    2See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015) (“Preliminary Critical Circumstances”).

    3See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, re: “Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from Italy,” dated April 13, 2016 (“Post-Preliminary Analysis”).

    4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from Italy,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memo”).

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.5

    5See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are corrosion-resistant steel products from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,6 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    6See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.7 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memo.

    8See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memo, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.

    In this case, the Department twice requested information with respect to the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92, Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, Certain Social Security Reductions and Exemptions (“Sgravi” Benefits), and Equalization Fund from the Government of Italy. The Government of Italy withheld necessary information with respect to each of these programs, failed to provide information in the form and manner requested, and did not provide requested information by the deadlines for submission of the information, as explained in more detail in the Prelim Decision Memo and the Issues and Decisions Memo. Furthermore, the Department has concluded that the Government of Italy did not cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we have determined that for each of these programs, the application of adverse facts available is warranted. For the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92 and Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, and Equalization Fund programs, we have determined as adverse facts available that these programs are de facto specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. For the Sgravi Benefits, we have determined that the reduced tax revenue due to the Government of Italy under these provisions constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act as revenue forgone. We have also determined that the revenue forgone under the Sgravi Benefits, is either de facto specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act, or regionally specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. More specifically, we find that Laws 53/2000 and 167/2011 are de facto specific accordance with 771(5A)(iii) of the Act, and that Law 223/91 is regionally specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv).9

    9See Prelim Decision Memo.

    In addition, one company selected as a mandatory respondent, Ilva S.p.A. (“Ilva”), did not respond to the Department's questionnaires or participate in the investigation. Accordingly, as adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b), we have determined that Ilva benefitted from certain countervailable programs during the POI and calculated a rate for Ilva based on those programs.10 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo.

    10See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Ilva's subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. Additionally we have modified our analysis of the Equalization Fund and now determine that an adverse inference is warranted in determining whether the program is specific. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memo.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    On July 23, 2015, Petitioners 11 filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy.12 We preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A. (“Arvedi”), Marcegaglia S.p.A. (“Marcegaglia”), and the all-others companies, but did exist for Ilva. That determination remains unchanged and a discussion of our final critical circumstances determination can be found in the Issues and Decision Memo at the section, “Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part.”

    11 United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., California Steel Industries, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, and AK Steel Corporation (collectively, “Petitioners”).

    12See Letter from Petitioners, “Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Critical Circumstances Allegations,” July 23, 2015.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Where the rates for the individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an all-others rate using “any reasonable method.” Where the countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated respondents are zero or de minimis or are based on AFA, the Department's practice, pursuant to 705(c)(5)(A)(ii), is to calculate the all others rate based on a simple average of the zero or de minimis margins and the margins based on AFA. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents and the rate based on AFA, because Ilva failed to report volume data that would enable the Department to determine the all-others rate based on a weighted-average. Therefore, and consistent with the Department's practice, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' de minimis rates and the AFA rate for the non-responsive company.13

    13See, e.g., Countervailing Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 10097 (February 24, 2014); see also, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 61602 (October 14, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at VIII. Calculation of the All Others Rate.

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-Trade S.p.A., and Siderurgica Triestina Srl., collectively, the Arvedi Group 0.48 (de minimis). Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A., the Marcegaglia Group 0.07 (de minimis). Ilva S.p.A 38.51 All Others 13.02
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of appropriate entries of merchandise under consideration from Italy 14 that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on November 6, 2015, or after August 7, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist), which is 90 days before the publication date in the Federal Register of the Preliminary Determination. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 5, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 7, 2015 or November 6, 2015, as relevant, through March 4, 2016.

    14 Other than entries produced and/or exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia for which we calculated de minimis rates in the Preliminary Determination.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, other than those produced and/or exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia because those companies rates are de minimis. Because Arvedi and Marcegaglia were found to receive de minimis subsidies, they would be excluded from the CVD order. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Scope of the Investigation V. List of Issues VI. Subsidies Valuation VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Calculation of the All-Others Rate X. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether White Certificates Are Countervailable Comment 2: Whether the Program To Purchase Ferriera Di Servola Is Not Countervailable or Not Used During the POI Comment 3: Whether To Include Countervailable Programs From the Post-Preliminary Memo in Ilva's AFA Rate XI. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12971 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-863] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kabir Archuletta or Ryan Mullen, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593 or (202) 482-5260, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 4, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation.1 The following events occurred since the Preliminary Determination was issued.

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 63 (January 4, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    In April 2016, the Department received revised databases from JSW 2 and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. (“Uttam Galva”), the mandatory respondents in this investigation.

    2 We refer to JSW Steel Ltd. (“JSWSL”) and its wholly-owned affiliate JSW Steel Coated Products Limited (“JSCPL”) collectively as “JSW.”

    Additionally, in April 2016, Petitioners,3 JSW, and Uttam Galva submitted case briefs 4 and rebuttal briefs.5 A hearing was held on May 4, 2016.

    3 Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, Inc.

    4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners, “Case Brief of Petitioners” (April 18, 2016); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from JSW, “JSW's Resubmitted Case Brief” (April 21, 2016); and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Uttam Galva, “Uttam Galva Steels Limited's Case Brief” (April 19, 2016).

    5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners, “Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief” (April 25, 2016); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from JSW, “JSW's Rebuttal Brief” (April 25, 2016); and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Uttam Galva, “Uttam Galva Steels Limited's Rebuttal Brief” (April 25, 2016) .

    Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.6 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results is now May 24, 2016.

    6See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,7 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    7See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”). See also Memorandum to the File, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,” dated January 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.8 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    8See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.9 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    9See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India” (May 24, 2016) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January, February, and March 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the mandatory respondents, pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Respondents.10

    10See Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Office Director, and Peter Scholl, Lead Accountant, from Ji Young Oh, Senior Accountant, “Verification of the Cost Response of JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from India” (April 7, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Neal Halper, Office Director, and Peter Scholl, Lead Accountant, from Alma Sepulveda, Senior Accountant, and Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, “Verification of the Cost Response of Uttam Galva Steels Limited in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from India” (March 23, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Kabir Archuletta, Senior International Trade Analyst, Ryan Mullen, International Trade Analyst, and Jessica Weeks, International Trade Analyst, “Verification of JSW Steel Ltd. and JSW Coated Steel Products in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel from India” (April 7, 2016); Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Ryan Mullen, International Trade Analyst, “Verification of Home Market and U.S. Sales of Uttam Galva Steels Limited in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India” (April 7, 2016); and Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Ryan Mullen, International Trade Analyst, “Verification of U.S. Sales of Uttam Galva North America in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India” (April 7, 2016).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for JSW and Uttam Galva. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” and “Comparisons to Fair Value” sections of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, we calculated the all-others rate based on a weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration.11

    11 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • JSW: 12 4.44 JSW Steel Ltd JSW Coated Products Limited Uttam Galva: 13 3.05 Uttam Galva Steels Limited Uttam Value Steels Limited Atlantis International Services Company Ltd Uttam Galva Steels, Netherlands, B.V Uttam Galva Steels (BVI) Limited All-Others 3.86
    Disclosure

    12 We find JSWSL and its wholly-owned affiliated JSCPL, (collectively “JSW”) are affiliated and have met the criteria to be collapsed. See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, from Kabir Archuletta, Senior International Trade Analyst, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from India: JSW Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this determination. Therefore, we will assign one rate to these companies.

    13 We find Uttam Galva to be affiliated with these companies and that they have met the criteria to be treated as a single entity. For further discussion of this issue, which includes business proprietary information, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office V, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Ryan Mullen, International Trade Analyst, Office V, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from India: Uttam Galva Affiliation and Single Entity Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this determination. Therefore, we will assign one rate to these companies.

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On October 29, 2015, the Department found that critical circumstances do not exist for imports exported by JSW, Uttam Galva, and “all others.” 14 Based on the final dumping margins of JSW and Uttam Galva and further analysis following the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, we are not modifying our findings for the final determination. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the “Negative Finding of Critical Circumstances” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    14See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504, (November 5, 2015).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of corrosion-resistant steel from India, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 4, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as follows: (1) For the exporters/producers listed in the table above, the cash deposit rates will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 4.03 percent. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Pursuant to section 733 (d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,15 adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies,16 as follows: (1) The rate for JSW, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 0.49 percent; (2) the rate for Uttam Galva, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 0.00 percent; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters, when adjusted for export subsidies, is 0.00 percent.

    15See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    16See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from India no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APO”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Margin Calculations 5. Comparisons to Fair Value 6. List of Comments 7. Discussion of Comments Comment 1: Duty Drawback Comment 2: Date of Sale Comment 3: Revision of Uttam Galva's Yield Strength Product Characteristics Comment 4: JSW's Sales Below Cost Comment 5: Export Subsidy Offset Deduction for Duty Drawback Subsidy Rates Comment 6: JSW's Forward Exchange Rate Contracts Comment 7: Treatment of JSW's Domestic Brokerage and Handling Comment 8: Adjustments for JSW Verification Findings Comment 9: JSW's POI Material Costs Comment 10: Uttam Galva's Cost of Production Minor Corrections Comment 11: JSW Royalty Expense Comment 12: Ministerial Errors Comment 13: Uttam Galva's Differential Pricing Analysis 8. Negative Finding of Critical Circumstances 9. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-12986 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-040] Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun or Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-2201, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 18, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of truck and bus tires from the People's Republic of China.1 The Initiation Notice stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determination for this investigation no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed.2

    1See Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 81 FR 9434 (February 25, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2Id., 81 FR at 9438.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    Section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it receives a timely request from the petitioner for postponement. The Department may postpone the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1) of the Act no later than 190 days after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation.

    On May 20, 2016, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the petitioner) made a timely request under 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation.3 The petitioner states that a postponement is necessary given a very large number of separate rate applications and the need for additional time to analyze responses from the two selected respondents.4

    3See Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China (A-570-040): Petitioner's Request to Extend the Preliminary Determination dated May 20, 2016.

    4Id.

    For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioner's request, the Department is fully postponing the preliminary determination of this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) to August 26, 2016. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary For Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13044 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Quantitative Assessment of Spatially-Explicit Social Values Relative to Wind Energy Areas: Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 3,225 (300 for a pretest; 2,925 for the final survey).

    Average Hours per Response: 20 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 1,075.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection.

    Pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act, this request is for a new data collection to benefit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and policy-makers on the state and local level in North Carolina. BOEM has identified three wind energy areas for potential development on the outer continental shelf of North Carolina. The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect data on the knowledge, beliefs, social values, and attitudes of North Carolina and South Carolina residents relative to marine and coastal landscapes, alternative energy production options, and offshore wind energy development. Respondents will be sampled from households in eight to ten coastal counties.

    The required information will be used to objectively assess the level of support and/or opposition for offshore wind energy development in the region, as well as identify the relevant issues and concerns most salient to residents. The information will be used by BOEM, NOAA, and others to improve agency understanding about the beliefs, social values, attitudes, and concerns of people potentially affected by offshore wind energy development. Such information will be used to ascertain the possible sociocultural outcomes of offshore wind energy development in the region, such as an enhancement or reduction in enjoyment of the coastal landscape/seascape. Additionally, information collected will be used to improve communication efforts targeted to residents, enabling agencies to more effectively and efficiently direct outreach and community inclusion activities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12912 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE661 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Whiting Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 775-2311; fax: (207) 772-4017.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The committee will receive a Plan Development Team report on analyses of whiting fleet history data for developing Amendment 22 limited access qualification alternatives. The committee will also consider whether to continue work on developing limited access alternatives for Amendment 22 to meet the purpose and need in the public scoping document. The committee will review and consider law enforcement priorities as they pertain to the whiting fishery. They will also address other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13016 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Paperwork Submissions Under the Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Requirements AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David Kaiser, 603-862-2719 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    A number of paperwork submissions are required by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) federal consistency provision, 16 U.S.C. 1456, and by NOAA to provide a reasonable, efficient and predictable means of complying with CZMA requirements. The requirements are detailed in 15 CFR part 930. The information will be used by coastal states with federally- approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to determine if Federal agency activities, Federal license or permit activities, and Federal assistance activities that affect a state's coastal zone are consistent with the states' programs. Information will also be used by NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce for appeals to the Secretary by non-federal applicants regarding State CZMA objections to federal license or permit activities.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0411.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,334.

    Estimated Time per Response: Applications/certifications and state preparation of objection or concurrence letters, 8 hours each; state requests for review of unlisted activities, 4 hours; public notices, 1 hours; remedial action and supplemental review, 6 hours; listing notices, 1 hour; interstate listing notices, 30 hours; mediation, 2 hours; appeals to the Secretary of Commerce, 210 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 35,799.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $9,024 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13034 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE659 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council); Public Meetings AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.

    DATES:

    The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet June 21-28, 2016. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Tuesday, June 28, 2016. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Thursday, June 23 and 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Tuesday, June 28 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meetings of the Council and its advisory entities will be held at the Hotel Murano, 1320 Broadway Plaza, Tacoma, WA 98402; telephone: (253) 238-8000.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. Instructions for attending the meeting via live stream broadcast are given under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Chuck Tracy, Acting Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820-2280 or (866) 806-7204 toll-free; or access the Pacific Council Web site, http://www.pcouncil.org for the current meeting location, proposed agenda, and meeting briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The June 23-28, 2016 meeting of the Pacific Council will be streamed live on the Internet. The broadcasts begin initially at 1 p.m. Pacific Time (PT) Thursday, June 23, 2016 and continue at 8 a.m. daily through Tuesday, June 28, 2016. Broadcasts end daily at 6 p.m. PT or when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion and presentations displayed on the screen at the Pacific Council meeting will be broadcast. The audio portion is listen-only; you will be unable to speak to the Pacific Council via the broadcast. To access the meeting online please use the following link: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar and enter the June Webinar ID, 157-423-659 and your email address. You can attend the webinar online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, using the GoToMeeting application. It is recommended that you use a computer headset to listen to the meeting, but you may use your telephone for the audio portion only of the meeting. The audio portion may be attended using a telephone by dialing the toll number 1-562-247-8422 (not a toll-free number), audio access code 409-877-303, and enter the audio pin shown after joining the webinar.

    The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions requiring the Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the Secretary of Commerce, under sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, advisory entity meeting times, and meeting rooms are described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance June 2016 briefing materials and posted on the Council Web site at www.pcouncil.org.

    A. Call to Order 1. Opening Remarks 2. Roll Call 3. Acting Executive Director's Report 4. Approve Agenda B. Open Comment Period 1. Comments on Non-Agenda Items C. Habitat 1. Current Habitat Issues D. Highly Migratory Species Management 1. National Marine Fisheries Service Report 2. International Issues Including Eastern Pacific Ocean Swordfish Status, Report of the North Pacific Albacore Management Strategy Evaluation Workshop, and Recommendations for the 12th Northern Committee Meeting 3. Preliminary Approval of New Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) 4. Initial Scoping of Biennial Specifications Including Management Reference Points and Management Measures 5. Deep-Set Buoy Gear and Federal Permit Update E. Pacific Halibut Management 1. Scoping of Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan Allocation Changes F. Administrative Matters 1. Legislative Matters 2. Western Region Climate Change Action Plan 3. Fiscal Matters 4. Approval of Council Meeting Record 5. Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures 6. Future Council Meeting Agenda and Workload Planning G. Groundfish Management 1. National Marine Fisheries Service Report 2. Amendment 21 At-Sea Sector Allocation Revisions 3. Final Action on Exempted Fishing Permit Approval for 2017-2018 4. Final Action To Adopt Management Measures for 2017-2018 Fisheries 5. Preliminary Plans for Review of the West Coast Trawl Catch Share Program and Intersector Allocations Including Comments on Draft Guidance for Catch Share Program Revisions 6. Omnibus Groundfish Workload Planning 7. Final Action on Inseason Adjustments 8. Final Action on Stock Assessment Plans and Terms of Reference (TOR) for Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species 9. Final Action on Trawl Catch Share Program Gear Use Regulations for Fishing and Multiple Management Areas H. Salmon Management 1. Sacramento River Winter Chinook Harvest Control Rule Update Advisory Body Agendas

    Advisory body agendas will include discussions of relevant issues that are on the Council agenda for this meeting, and may also include issues that may be relevant to future Council meetings. Proposed advisory body agendas for this meeting will be available on the Council Web site http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/current-briefing-book/ no later than Thursday, June 9, 2016.

    Schedule of Ancillary Meetings Day 1—Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Day 2—Wednesday, June 22, 2016 Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 a.m. Habitat Committee 8:30 a.m. Budget Committee 1 p.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 1 p.m. Legislative Committee 2:30 p.m. Day 3—Thursday, June 23, 2016 California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Highly Migratory Species Management Team 8 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants 3 p.m. Day 4—Friday, June 24, 2016 California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants Ad hoc Day 5—Saturday, June 25, 2016 California State Delegation  7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants Ad hoc Day 6—Sunday, June 26, 2016 California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants Ad hoc Day 7—Monday, June 27, 2016 California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. Enforcement Consultants Ad hoc Day 8—Tuesday, June 28, 2016 California State Delegation 7 a.m. Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. Washington State Delegation 7 a.m.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13018 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE660 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a five-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Monday, June 20 through Friday, June 24, 2016, starting at 8:30 a.m. daily.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Clearwater Beach hotel, located at 400 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33767; telephone: (727) 461-3222.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, June 20, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    The Gulf Council will begin with updates and presentations from administrative and management committees. The Data Collection Administrative Committee will discuss the Commercial Electronic Reporting Pilot Program and Timeline Update; and review recommendations for the For-Hire Electronic Reporting Program from the Technical Committee. They will also discuss the 2016 Appropriations for Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Research. The Outreach and Education Administrative Committee will receive a report from the Outreach and Education Technical Committee's meeting. The Gulf SEDAR Administrative Committee will review the SEDAR Steering Committee Report; the Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC) review and recommendations on Research Track; and the SEDAR Schedule Review. After lunch, the Spiny Lobster Management Committee will review the Panel Summary; receive a summary from the Joint South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Spiny Lobster Advisory Panel (AP) meeting; and a summary from the Special and Standing SSC recommendations. The Shrimp Management Committee will give an overview of Modifications to the Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) Testing Manual; review Options in Shrimp Amendment 17B Options Document; and review of the Special and Standing SSC Recommendations. The Reef Fish Management Committee will review Draft Amendment 36A: Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Modifications; Draft Amendment 46: Modify Gray Triggerfish Rebuilding Plan; and, Framework Action Options Paper: Mutton Snapper Acceptable Catch Limits (ACL) and Management Measures, and Commercial Gag Minimum Size Limit.

    Tuesday, June 21, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    The Reef Fish Management Committee will continue to review and discuss Draft Amendment 41: Red Snapper Management for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels; Draft Amendment 42: Federal Reef Fish Headboat Management. The Committee will review the Ad Hoc Reef Fish Headboat Advisory Panel Summary. The Committee will also discuss Final Action—Amendment 43: Hogfish Stock Definition, Status Determination Criteria (SDC), Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and Minimum Size Limit. The Committee will review Final Action—Amendment 45: Extend or Eliminate the Sunset Provision on Sector Separation. The Committee will discuss implementing an Ad Hoc Advisory Panel for Recreational Red Snapper Management; and review of Standing and Special SSC recommendations.

    During lunch break Tuesday, June 21, 2016; 12 p.m.-1:25 p.m. the Personnel Committee will meet in Closed Session.

    Wednesday, June 22, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Joint Habitat/Coral Committee will receive and update on Gulf Activities Supported by NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program; receive reports from the Deep-sea Coral Workshop, and 5-year Review Essential Fish Habitat Status. The Committee will receive updates on Recommended Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and receive an update on the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Mackerel Management Committee will review Options Paper—CMP Amendment 29: Allocation Sharing and Accountability Measures for Gulf King Mackerel, and Options Paper—Framework Amendment 5: Modifications to Commercial King Mackerel Permit Restrictions in the Gulf.

    The Full Council will convene after lunch (1:15 p.m.) with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes; and will review Exempt Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications, if any. The Council will receive public testimony from 1:45 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Agenda Testimony Items: Final Action—Reef Fish Amendment 43: Hogfish Stock Definition, Status Determination Criteria, Annual Catch Limit, and Minimum Size Limit; Final Action—Reef Fish Amendment 45: Extend or Eliminate the Sunset Provision; and hold an open public testimony period regarding any other fishery issues or concern. Anyone wishing to speak during public comment should sign in at the registration station located at the entrance to the meeting room.

    Thursday, June 23, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Council will receive presentations on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Foundation Restoration Activities; the Florida RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence Program; Joint Law Enforcement; Draft Gulf of Mexico Climate Science Action Plan and Draft Comment Letter and, NMFS-SERO Landing Summaries. The Council will also receive a summary from the Council Coordination Committee meeting.

    The Council will receive committee reports from the Shrimp and Spiny Lobster Management Committees. After lunch, the Council will receive committee reports from the Data Collection, Outreach and Education, Joint Habitat/Coral, Reef Fish Management Committees.

    Friday, June 24, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

    The Council will continue to review and discuss committee reports as follows: Mackerel, Gulf SEDAR, and Personnel Committee; and, vote on Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP) applications, if any. The Council will receive Supporting Agencies Summary Reports from the South Atlantic Council; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, the Department of State.

    Lastly, Other Business, if any.

    Meeting Adjourns

    The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on FTP Server under Quick Links. For meeting materials, select the “Briefing Books/Briefing Book 2016-06” folder on Gulf Council file server. The username and password are both “gulfguest”. The meetings will be webcast over the Internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13017 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Notice of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on a Proposal To Exempt, Pursuant to the Authority in Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Federal Reserve Banks From Sections 4d and 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed order and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is proposing to permit Federal Reserve Banks to hold money, securities, and property deposited into a customer account by a systemically important derivatives clearing organization in accordance with the standards to which Federal Reserve Banks are held, as specified below. Thus, the Commission is proposing to exempt Federal Reserve Banks that provide customer accounts and other services to systemically important derivatives clearing organizations from Sections 4d and 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or the “Act”).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the established procedures in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of this action will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen A. Donovan, Deputy Director, 202-418-5096, [email protected]; M. Laura Astrada, Associate Director, 202-418-7622, [email protected]; or Parisa Abadi, Attorney-Advisor, 202-418-6620, [email protected], in each case, at the Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; or Joe Opron, Special Counsel, 312-596-0653, [email protected], Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60661.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background A. Customer Protection B. Designation of Financial Market Utilities Under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act C. Access to Federal Reserve Bank Accounts and Services III. Standards of Depository Liability A. Depository Liability Under Section 4d of the CEA B. Federal Reserve Bank Liability Under Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents IV. Features Specific to the Federal Reserve Banks V. Section 4(c) of the CEA VI. Proposed Exemption From Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA VII. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Cost and Benefit Considerations VIII. Request for Comment IX. Proposed Order of Exemption I. Introduction

    In 2013, in response to significant segregated account shortfalls experienced by futures customers, the Commission adopted rules that aimed to improve the protection of customer funds.1 Recognizing that such protection is critical to the sound functioning of the futures and swaps markets, the Commission reiterated that money, securities, and other property deposited by customers must be carefully safeguarded and segregated at all times.

    1 Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68506 (Nov. 14, 2013).

    That same year, the Commission adopted enhanced risk management standards 2 and additional requirements for compliance with the derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) core principles set forth in the CEA 3 for DCOs that are designated as systemically important (“SIDCOs”) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.4 The Commission adopted these requirements in part because of the critical role SIDCOs play in fostering financial stability 5 and because the “failure of a SIDCO to complete core clearing and settlement functions within a rapid period could create systemic liquidity and credit dislocations on a global scale.” 6 Accordingly, these additional requirements were designed to promote a SIDCO's financial strength, operational integrity, security, and reliability.7 By requiring a SIDCO's liquidity arrangements to be highly reliable in stressed market conditions, the Commission sought to bolster a SIDCO's ability to promptly meet its cash obligations to its members in order to help avoid the loss of market confidence and cascading defaults.8

    2 Enhanced Risk Management Standards for Systemically Important Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 49663 (Aug. 15, 2013).

    3See Section 5b(c)(2) of the CEA; see also Derivatives Clearing Organizations and International Standards, 78 FR 72476 (Dec. 2, 2013).

    4 Under Commission Regulation 39.2, a SIDCO is defined as a financial market utility that is a registered DCO under Section 5b of the Act, which has been designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to be systemically important and for which the Commission acts as the Supervisory Agency pursuant to Section 803(8) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). 17 CFR 39.2. “Supervisory Agency” is defined as the Federal agency that has primary jurisdiction over a designated financial market utility under Federal banking, securities, or commodity futures laws. Section 803(8)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act is available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/hr4173_enrolledbill.pdf.

    5See, e.g., 78 FR at 49672.

    6Id. at 49674.

    7See id. at 49668-49669; see also 78 FR at 72509.

    8See 78 FR at 72509.

    Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act, entitled “Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010,” 9 also included provisions aimed at safeguarding the U.S. financial system. One example of this is Section 806(a), which expressly permits the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) to authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to establish and maintain a deposit account for a SIDCO and provide certain services to the SIDCO, subject to any applicable rules, orders, standards, or guidelines prescribed by the Board.10

    9 Section 801 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    10See Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    The Commission believes that establishing SIDCO segregated customer accounts at a Federal Reserve Bank and enabling SIDCOs to access related services there would both augment a SIDCO's liquidity arrangements and enhance the protection of customer funds.11 The Commission recognizes, however, that Section 4d of the CEA was not developed with a particular focus on the Federal Reserve Banks.12 As a result, the unique role that the Federal Reserve Banks play in the financial system was not expressly taken into account when the Commission's standard of liability was developed for depositories. The Commission notes that Federal Reserve financial services provided by the Federal Reserve Banks are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in various federal rules, Federal Reserve Board policies, and Federal Reserve Bank operating circulars, which have been carefully developed over several decades. The Commission further recognizes that the Federal Reserve Banks could be exposed to liability under Sections 4d and 22 13 of the CEA, which could have disparate impact on the treatment of deposits at the Federal Reserve Banks and ultimately harm U.S. taxpayers. Accordingly, to facilitate SIDCOs' use of Federal Reserve Banks as depositories for customer funds, the Commission is proposing, pursuant to its authority under Section 4(c) of the CEA, to exempt Federal Reserve Banks that provide customer accounts and other services to SIDCOs from Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA.14 The exemption would enable the Federal Reserve Banks to maintain SIDCO customer accounts in accordance with the standards set forth in the relevant Federal Reserve Bank governing documents, as specified below.

    11See discussion infra Part VI.

    12 Section 4d of the CEA permits customer funds to be deposited with a bank, trust company, or DCO. 7 U.S.C. 6d.

    13 As discussed in further detail below, Section 22 of the CEA would typically provide for private rights of action for damages against persons who violate Section 4d, or persons who willfully aid, abet, counsel, induce, or procure the commission of a violation of Section 4d. See discussion supra Part VI.

    14 7 U.S.C. 6(c); 7 U.S.C. 25.

    II. Background A. Customer Protection

    The protection of customers—and the safeguarding of money, securities, or other property deposited by customers—is a fundamental component of the regulatory and oversight framework of the futures and swaps markets. Section 4d of the CEA requires a futures commission merchant (“FCM”) to segregate from its own assets all money, securities, and other property deposited by futures or cleared swaps customers to margin, secure, or guarantee futures contracts and options on futures contracts traded on designated contract markets, and cleared swaps. Section 4d further requires an FCM to treat customer funds as belonging to the customer, and prohibits an FCM from using the funds deposited by a customer to margin or extend credit to any person other than the customer that deposited the funds. Similarly, Section 4d of the CEA prohibits a DCO and any depository that has received such funds from holding, disposing of, or using such funds as belonging to the depositing FCM or any person other than the customers of such FCM.

    The importance of this statutory mandate to protect customer funds—to treat them as belonging to customers and not use the funds inappropriately—was reinforced in light of the FCM insolvency proceedings involving MF Global, Inc. (“MF Global”) and Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (“Peregrine”). In October 2011, MF Global, which was dually-registered as an FCM with the Commission and as a securities broker-dealer with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was placed into a liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. At the time, the trustee appointed to oversee the liquidation of MF Global reported a potential $900 million shortfall of funds necessary to repay the account balances due to customers trading futures on designated contract markets, and an approximately $700 million shortfall in funds immediately available to repay the account balances of customers trading on foreign futures markets. The shortfall in customer segregated accounts was attributed by the MF Global trustee to significant transfers of funds out of the customer accounts that were used by MF Global, Inc. for various purposes other than to meet obligations to or on behalf of customers.15

    15See Report of the Trustee's Investigation and Recommendations, In. re MF Global, Inc., No. 11-2790 (MG) SIPA (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jun. 4, 2012). Customer claims were eventually paid in full after customer funds were recovered through bankruptcy proceedings and the Commission's enforcement action.

    Shortly thereafter, in 2012, the Commission filed a civil injunctive complaint in federal district court against Peregrine and its Chief Executive Officer and sole owner, Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. (“Wasendorf”), alleging that Peregrine and Wasendorf misappropriated customer funds, violated customer fund segregation laws, and made false statements regarding the amount of funds in customer segregated accounts in financial statements filed with the Commission. According to the complaint, Peregrine falsely represented that it held in excess of $220 million of customer funds, when it actually held only approximately $5.1 million.16 Spurred in part by these shocking failures, the Commission promulgated several rules aimed at strengthening the protection of customer funds and the U.S. financial markets.17

    16See Complaint, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., and Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr., No. 12-cv-5383 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2012).

    17See discussion supra Part I; see also, e.g., Investment of Customer Funds and Funds Held in an Account for Foreign Futures and Foreign Options Transactions, 76 FR 78776 (Dec. 19, 2011) (revising the types of investments that an FCM or DCO could make with customer funds under Regulation 1.25 to minimize the exposure of such funds to liquidity, credit, and market risks).

    In an effort to further strengthen customer protection, the Commission has also examined the current regulatory framework through a series of roundtables and other public meetings. The Commission held a public roundtable to solicit input on customer protection issues from a broad cross-section of the derivatives industry, including market participants, FCMs, DCOs, self-regulatory organizations, securities regulators, and academics.18 The Commission also hosted a public meeting of the Technology Advisory Committee to discuss potential technological solutions directed at enhancing the protection of customer funds.19

    18 Further information on the public roundtable, including video recordings and transcripts of the discussions, are available on the Commission's Web site. See http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff022912 (relating to Feb. 29, 2012); http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff030112 (relating to Mar. 1, 2012).

    19 Additional information, including documents submitted by meeting participants, is available on the Commission's Web site. See http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_tac072612.

    Customer protection continues to be a bedrock guiding principle for the Commission, as the protection of customer funds is paramount to a trusted marketplace.

    B. Designation of Financial Market Utilities Under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act

    Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to mitigate risk in the financial system and promote financial stability.20 Accordingly, Section 804 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“Council”) 21 to designate those financial market utilities (“FMUs”) that the Council determines are, or are likely to become, systemically important.22 An FMU includes any person that manages or operates a multilateral system for the purpose of transferring, clearing, or settling payments, securities, or other financial transactions among financial institutions or between financial institutions and the person.23 As noted by the Council, FMUs are vital to the nation's financial infrastructure, and “their smooth operation is integral to the soundness of the financial system and the overall economy.” 24

    20See Section 802(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    21 The Council was established by Section 111 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In general, the Council is tasked with identifying risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the material financial distress or failure, or ongoing activities, of large, interconnected bank holding companies or nonbank financial companies, or that could arise outside the financial services marketplace, promoting market discipline, by eliminating expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties of such companies that the Government will shield them from losses in the event of failure, and responding to emerging threats to the stability of the United States financial system. Section 112(a)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    22See Section 804(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The term “systemically important” means a situation where the failure of or a disruption to the functioning of a financial market utility could create, or increase, the risk of significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among financial institutions or markets and thereby threaten the stability of the financial system of the United States. Section 803(9) of the Dodd-Frank Act; see also Authority to Designate Financial Market Utilities as Systemically Important, 76 FR 44763, 44774 (July 27, 2011).

    23 Section 803(6)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    24 76 FR at 44763.

    In determining whether an FMU is systemically important, the Council follows a detailed two-stage designation process, using statutory considerations 25 and other metrics to assess, among other things, “whether possible disruptions [to the functioning of an FMU] are potentially severe, not necessarily in the sense that they themselves might trigger damage to the U.S. economy, but because such disruptions might reduce the ability of financial institutions or markets to perform their normal intermediation functions.” 26 Thus, if a systemically important FMU fails to perform, this failure could pose significant risk to its participants and to the U.S. financial system more broadly. For example, if a systemically important FMU fails to complete timely settlement, there could be significant credit and/or liquidity problems for its participants and participants' customers. On July 18, 2012, the Council designated eight FMUs as systemically important under Title VIII.27 Two of these designated FMUs, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and ICE Clear Credit LLC, are SIDCOs.

    25 Under Section 804(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, in determining whether an FMU is or is likely to become systemically important, the Council must take into consideration the following: (A) The aggregate monetary value of transactions processed by the FMU; (B) the aggregate exposure of the FMU to its counterparties; (C) the relationship, interdependencies, or other interactions of the FMU with other FMUs or payment, clearing, or settlement activities; (D) the effect that the failure of or a disruption to the FMU would have on critical markets, financial institutions, or the broader financial system; and (E) any other factors the Council deems appropriate.

    26 76 FR at 44766.

    27See Press Release, Financial Stability Oversight Council, Financial Stability Oversight Council Makes First Designations in Effort to Protect Against Future Financial Crises (July 18, 2012), available at http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1645.aspx.

    C. Access to Federal Reserve Bank Accounts and Services

    As noted above, Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act permits the Board to authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to establish and maintain an account for a SIDCO and provide to the SIDCO the services listed in Section 11A(b) of the Federal Reserve Act, subject to any applicable rules, orders, standards, or guidelines prescribed by the Board.28 In adopting regulations pursuant to Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board noted that the “terms and conditions for access to Federal Reserve Bank accounts and services are intended to facilitate the use of [Federal] Reserve Bank accounts and services by a designated FMU in order to reduce settlement risk and strengthen settlement processes, while limiting the risk presented by the designated FMU to the [Federal] Reserve Banks.” 29 Accordingly, the Board “expects that [Federal] Reserve Banks would provide services that are consistent with a designated FMU's need for safe and sound settlement processes under account and service agreements generally consistent with the provisions of existing [Federal] Reserve Bank operating circulars for such services.” 30 Highlighting the importance of Federal Reserve Bank operating circulars in this regard, the Board further requires that designated FMUs be in compliance with existing operating circulars.31

    28 The services listed in Section 11A(b) of the Federal Reserve Act include wire transfers, settlement, and securities safekeeping, as well as services regarding currency and coin, check clearing and collection, and automated clearing house transactions. See 12 U.S.C. 248a(b). Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act also permits the Board to authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to establish deposit accounts under the first undesignated paragraph of Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 342.

    29 Financial Market Utilities (Regulation HH), 78 FR 14024, 14025 (Mar. 4, 2013).

    30Id.

    31See 12 CFR 234.5(b)(2) (setting forth rules to govern Federal Reserve Bank accounts held by designated FMUs).

    III. Standards of Depository Liability A. Depository Liability Under Section 4d of the CEA

    Under Section 4d of the CEA, a depository, which may be a bank, trust company, or a DCO, will be held liable for the improper transfers of customer funds by an FCM or DCO if it knew or should have known that the transfer was improper.32 While a depository has no affirmative obligation to police or monitor an FCM or DCO account holder's compliance with the CEA or Commission regulations, a depository cannot ignore signs of wrongdoing.33

    32See CFTC Interpretative Letter No. 79-1, [1977-1980 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 20,835 (May 29, 1979). Section 4d of the CEA covers customer funds only; it does not relate to proprietary funds of clearing members.

    33See 78 FR at 68539.

    To ensure that a depository that holds customer funds has been informed that the deposited funds are those of customers being held in accordance with Section 4d of the CEA, the Commission requires an FCM or DCO to obtain from each depository with which it deposits customer funds a written acknowledgment in this regard.34 Commission regulations require FCMs and DCOs to use a template acknowledgment letter in order to promote a uniform understanding among FCMs, DCOs, and depositories as to their obligations under the CEA and Commission regulations with respect to the proper treatment of customer funds. The template acknowledgment letter contains a provision that reflects the Commission's expectation that a depository will engage in its customary practices and will be held liable for a violation of Section 4d if it knew or should have known of the violation.35

    34See 17 CFR 1.20, Appendices A and B.

    35See 78 FR at 68535; see also 17 CFR 1.20(g)(4)(ii).

    It is important to note that as the aforementioned standard of liability was developed, the unique nature of the Federal Reserve Banks was not taken into account. Indeed, until recently, there was no statutory authority permitting a SIDCO to hold customer funds at a Federal Reserve Bank. However, and as discussed below, the standard of liability for Federal Reserve Banks acting as depositories has been carefully developed by the Board and not the Commission.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank Liability Under Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents

    The Federal Reserve System, which serves as the nation's central bank, was created by an act of Congress in 1913. The Federal Reserve System consists of a seven member Board, and twelve Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks operate under the general supervision of the Board, although each Bank has a Board of Directors that oversees its operations. Federal Reserve Banks generate their own income, which is generally from interest earned on U.S. government securities that are acquired in the course of Federal Reserve monetary policy actions and from the provision of priced services to depository institutions. Federal Reserve Banks do not, however, operate for a profit. Indeed, each year they return to the U.S. Department of Treasury all earnings in excess of Federal Reserve Bank operating and other expenses. Federal Reserve Banks are, in essence, the operating arms of the United States' central banking system. In addition to their many responsibilities, Federal Reserve Banks operate as a bank for depository institutions and the U.S. government.36

    36 For example, Federal Reserve Banks provide checking accounts for the U.S. Department of Treasury, issue and redeem U.S. government securities, and act in other ways as a fiscal agent for the U.S. government. See Federal Reserve Board, The Structure of the Federal Reserve System (Apr. 17, 2009), http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm.

    Some of the services provided by Federal Reserve Banks include the provision of funds and book-entry securities accounts, as well as certain financial services, such as wire transfers, book-entry securities transfers, and multilateral settlement services. These accounts and services are governed by account agreements, operating circulars issued by Federal Reserve Banks for each service, the Federal Reserve Act, and Federal Reserve regulations and policies, and, with respect to book-entry securities services, the regulations of the domestic issuer of the securities or the issuer's regulator (“Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents”).37 Additionally, one or more Federal Reserve Banks have established proprietary accounts for SIDCOs 38 pursuant to Section 806 of the Dodd-Frank Act. These proprietary accounts are also governed by the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents.

    37See, e.g., Federal Reserve Bank Operating Circular No. 6 (governing funds transfers through the Fedwire Funds Service); Federal Reserve Bank Operating Circular No. 7 (governing the maintenance of and transfer services for book-entry securities accounts); 12 CFR part 210, subpart B (governing funds transfers through the Fedwire Funds Service); 31 CFR part 357, subpart B (setting forth the Department of the Treasury's regulations governing book-entry treasury bonds, notes, and bills).

    38 A SIDCO's proprietary account holds the proprietary funds of its clearing members.

    The Federal Reserve Banks' standard of liability for the financial services it offers to depository institutions has been developed over the 100-plus years of Federal Reserve Bank operations, in many cases hand-in-hand with the development of federal and state statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as common law governing securities transfers, funds transfers, and other payment mechanisms. The operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks began having uniform terms and conditions across Federal Reserve Bank districts as of January 2, 1998. The 1998 version of the uniform Operating Circular 1 (Account Relationships) sets out the Federal Reserve Banks' standard and scope of liability that limits a Federal Reserve Bank's liability to only damages suffered by the account holder that are caused by the Federal Reserve Bank's failure to exercise ordinary care, and does not include lost profits, claims by third parties, or consequential or incidental damages.39

    39See Federal Reserve Board, Financial Services, https://web.archive.org/web/19990125095428/http:/www.frbservices.org/ (last visited Apr. 28, 2016). Prior to 1998, each Federal Reserve Bank had its own system with different numbered operating circulars; as a result, the circular language was not necessarily uniform.

    The Commission understands that, in accordance with the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, the Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to act on the instructions received through the use of procedures agreed upon with the account holders, without any liability or obligation to inquire as to the legitimacy or accuracy of the instruction or the transaction. By agreement with the respective account holders, the procedures for accepting an instruction are not used to detect an error in the transmission or content of the instruction, or compliance by the account holder with its legal obligations. In addition to limiting the areas of liability, the Commission understands that the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents limit a Federal Reserve Bank's liability in maintaining an account or acting on such an instruction to actual damages that are incurred solely by the account holder 40 and that are proximately caused by the Federal Reserve Bank's failure to exercise ordinary care or act in good faith in accordance with the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents.

    40 Under the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, the Federal Reserve Banks are not liable to third parties.

    IV. Features Specific to the Federal Reserve Banks

    As noted above, Federal Reserve Banks play a unique role in the U.S. banking and payment system as compared to commercial banks and other depositories and payment service providers.41 The standards set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents are reflective of this unique role and have been developed over the years to capture the distinctive nature of the Federal Reserve Banks. In addition to the accounts and services that Federal Reserve Banks provide to the government and to other depository institutions, the Federal Reserve Banks supervise and examine member banks for safety and soundness. They also participate in the setting of U.S. monetary policy, an activity that is the primary responsibility of the Federal Reserve System. Moreover, in an effort to reduce U.S. taxpayer burden, Congress requires that the residual earnings of each Federal Reserve Bank be distributed to the U.S. Treasury's general fund.42 In fact, the Federal Reserve Banks have sent to the U.S. Treasury approximately $98.7 billion in residual earnings in 2014 and about $500 billion on a cumulative basis since 2008.43

    41 Federal Reserve Banks “ `are not operated for the profit of shareholders;' rather, they `were created and are operated in furtherance of the national fiscal policy.' ” See Starr Int'l Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, 742 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. Reserve Bank of Bos. v. Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation of the Commonwealth of Mass., 499 F.2d 60, 62 (1st Cir. 1974)). “Because Federal Reserve Banks `conduct important governmental functions regarding' matters including the `general fiscal duties of the United States,' they are `instrumentalities of the federal government.' ” See id. (quoting Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement Dist. #1, 657 F.2d 183, 185-186 (8th Cir. 1981)).

    42 The current congressional mandate requires that Federal Reserve Banks transfer their residual earnings in excess of $10 billion to the U.S. Treasury. See FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). For prior congressional mandates in this regard, see, e.g., District of Columbia Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999) (requiring that, in fiscal year 2000, Federal Reserve Banks transfer their residual earnings in the amount of $3,752,000,000 to the U.S. Treasury's general fund); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312 (requiring that, during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Federal Reserve Banks transfer their residual earnings in excess of 3 percent of the total paid-in capital and surplus to the U.S. Treasury's general fund).

    43See Press Release, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Reserve Bank Income and Expense Data and Transfers to the Treasury for 2014 (Jan. 9, 2015), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20150109a.htm; Annual Report, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2014), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report/files/2014-annual-report.pdf.

    Federal Reserve Banks also do not provide financial services to businesses generally; rather, they serve only account holders authorized by statute, such as depository institutions and the U.S. government.44 In addition, Federal Reserve Banks may engage in a set range of services and only with the respective account holder. As such, Federal Reserve Banks do not provide the range of related account services that a commercial bank might provide, such as offering services to executives of the account holder as an additional incentive to do business with the bank. Therefore, the Commission believes that the Federal Reserve Banks do not have the potential conflict of interest that may arise when a commercial bank provides such services.

    44See, e.g., Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Consumer Issues and Information, available at https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/consumer/ (last visited Feb. 26, 2016) (stating that “Federal Reserve Banks are not authorized to open accounts for individuals[; rather, o]nly depository institutions and certain other financial entities may open an account at a Federal Reserve Bank”); see also Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (authorizing accounts at a Federal Reserve Bank for designated FMUs).

    Moreover, Federal Reserve Banks play a distinctive, dual role with respect to SIDCOs, as they may be both account service providers and participants in the supervision of SIDCOs. Under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board may participate in any Commission examination of a SIDCO and otherwise consult and share information with the Commission regarding SIDCOs. Federal Reserve Banks may be delegated authority to assist the Board in fulfilling this function.45

    45See Federal Reserve Board, The Structure of the Federal Reserve System (Apr. 17, 2009), http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm (noting that some supervisory responsibilities are delegated to the Federal Reserve Banks by the Board).

    Further, Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act expressly permits the Commission and the Board to provide confidential supervisory information to, among others, the Federal Reserve Banks.46 Although a Federal Reserve Bank may have access to confidential supervisory information regarding a particular SIDCO, Board staff has represented that it has a long-standing “Wall Policy” that generally prohibits, subject to the limitations contained therein, the sharing of confidential supervisory information with Federal Reserve Bank account services staff, and requires that care be exercised to avoid actual or apparent conflict between a Federal Reserve Bank's role as a provider of financial services and its role as a regulator, supervisor, and lender.47 The Board has adopted certain standards regarding the organization, operations, and business practices of Federal Reserve Bank financial services which, among other things, generally prohibit Federal Reserve Bank personnel involved in day-to-day monetary policy, bank supervision, or the lending function from providing confidential information obtained in the course of their duties to Federal Reserve Bank personnel involved in day-to-day account services. In addition, the Wall Policy would generally prohibit Board supervisory staff from sharing any confidential supervisory information they receive about a SIDCO with the Federal Reserve Bank staff responsible for managing the SIDCO's account and financial services. Accordingly, given the unique role that Federal Reserve Banks play in the U.S. financial system, Federal Reserve Bank account services staff are unlikely to face conflicts of interest that would motivate them to overlook information that would otherwise raise suspicion of wrongdoing.

    46See Section 809(e)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    47 Federal Reserve's Key Policies for the Provision of Financial Services: Standards Related to Priced-Service Activities of the Federal Reserve Banks (1984), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/pfs_standards.htm. The policy permits certain limited exceptions in cases where such disclosure fulfills an important supervisory objective, preserves the integrity of the payment mechanism, or protects the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks. In such cases, information will be provided on a need-to-know basis and only with the approval of senior management.

    V. Section 4(c) of the CEA

    Section 4(c) of the CEA provides that, in order to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition, the Commission, by rule, regulation, or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may exempt any agreement, contract, or transaction, or class thereof, including any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice, or rendering other services with respect to, the agreement, contract, or transaction, from the contract market designation requirements of Section 4(a) of the CEA, or any other provision of the CEA other than certain enumerated provisions, if the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest.48

    48 7 U.S.C. 6(c).

    VI. Proposed Exemption From Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA

    The Commission proposes to exempt Federal Reserve Banks that provide customer accounts and other services to SIDCOs from Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA. The Commission further proposes to permit SIDCOs to maintain customer accounts with a Federal Reserve Bank pursuant to the standard of liability set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents. The proposed exemption would, however, require a Federal Reserve Bank to segregate customer funds deposited by a SIDCO from the proprietary funds deposited by a SIDCO, and to reply to any request from Commission staff for confirmation of account balances or for provision of any other information regarding the SIDCO account.

    As discussed above, Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act supports Federal Reserve Banks acting as depositories for SIDCOs. A Federal Reserve Bank, in its capacity as an instrument of the U.S. central bank, does not present the same types of risks as traditional commercial banks. Federal Reserve Banks are an integral part of the Federal Reserve System, serving the public interest and helping to maintain stability in the U.S. financial markets. Further, deposits at a Federal Reserve Bank have the lowest credit risk. The Board and, through their role in the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Banks are also the source of liquidity with regard to U.S. dollar deposits. A SIDCO would, therefore, face much lower credit and liquidity risk with a deposit at a Federal Reserve Bank than it would with a deposit at a commercial bank.

    Moreover, customer funds held at a Federal Reserve Bank would not be exposed to the risks associated with a commercial bank insolvency. As a result, the Commission believes that customer funds would be protected in an account held by a Federal Reserve Bank and would continue to be required to be segregated from the funds deposited in the SIDCO's proprietary account. The Commission notes that the standard of liability as set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents appears to be appropriate in the context of Federal Reserve Banks because this standard has been developed over the years to more appropriately reflect the unique nature of the Federal Reserve Banks. At this time, the Commission does not have any reason to believe that holding a Federal Reserve Bank to this standard would have the potential to harm futures and cleared swaps customers.

    The Federal Reserve Banks would also be exempt from liability under Section 22 of the CEA. Section 22 of the CEA provides for private rights of action for damages against persons who violate the CEA, or persons who willfully aid, abet, counsel, induce, or procure the commission of a violation of the CEA.49 The proposed exemption would preclude a third party from succeeding in a private right of action under Section 22 for a violation of Section 4d.50 The Commission believes that an exemption from Section 22 is appropriate because, for those requirements from which the Federal Reserve Banks are exempt, it follows that there should be no claim under Section 22 of the CEA with respect to those requirements. The Commission further notes that under the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, the Federal Reserve Banks are currently insulated from third-party claims. While the Commission continues to believe that private claims empower injured parties to seek compensation for damages where the Commission lacks the resources to do so on their behalf, and the prospect of such claims serves the public interest in deterring misconduct, the Commission believes that, for the reasons discussed herein, exempting the Federal Reserve Banks from liability under Section 22 of the CEA would also serve the public interest.

    49 7 U.S.C. 25. By enacting Section 22, Congress provided private rights of action as a means for addressing violations of the Act as an alternative or supplement to Commission enforcement action. Specifically, Congress found that private damages actions are “critical to protecting the public and fundamental to maintaining the credibility of the futures market.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-565, at 57 (1982).

    50Cf. Effective Date for Swap Regulation, 76 FR 42508, 42517 (July 19, 2011) (stating that “exemptive relief would, in effect, preclude a person from succeeding in a private right of action under CEA section 22(a)”). However, for the avoidance of doubt, the Commission believes that an express exemption from Section 22 of the CEA for the Federal Reserve Banks is appropriate.

    Federal Reserve Banks were created and are operated in furtherance of the national interest; they are not for-profit enterprises. Moreover, as discussed above, Federal Reserve Banks return all earnings in excess of operating and other expenses to the U.S. Treasury. All such amounts transferred to the U.S. Treasury's general fund inure to the benefit of U.S. taxpayers. In this case, private claims against a Federal Reserve Bank would reduce the amount of excess earnings that could be returned to the U.S. Treasury. In the Commission's view, the benefits afforded customers by holding SIDCO customer funds at a Federal Reserve Bank exceed the benefits of preserving the ability to bring any private claims under Section 22 of the CEA.

    Furthermore, the Commission recognizes that Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act permits a Federal Reserve Bank to have access to confidential supervisory information. Specifically, Section 809(e)(2) provides that the Board of Governors or any Supervisory Agency may provide confidential supervisory information and other information obtained under Title VIII to each other and to the Federal Reserve Banks, State financial institution supervisory agencies, and foreign financial supervisors, provided, however, that no person or entity receiving information pursuant to this section may disseminate such information to entities or persons other than those listed in this paragraph without complying with applicable law, including section 8 of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 12). By permitting the Federal Reserve Banks to receive confidential supervisory information, Congress recognized the unique role of Federal Reserve Banks in the U.S. financial system, as distinguished from the role of commercial banks and other depository institutions. The Commission further recognizes, however, that the fact that Board supervisory staff may have access to confidential supervisory information about a SIDCO could create the false perception that Federal Reserve Bank staff responsible for managing the SIDCO's account and financial services would gain special knowledge about the SIDCO. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the Wall Policy described above, the Commission recognizes that a Federal Reserve Bank acting as a depository for customer funds could face greater scrutiny than a commercial bank acting as such. As a result, the proposed exemption would specify that: (1) Pursuant to the Wall Policy, information obtained by the Board supervisory staff during the course of supervising SIDCOs or any counterparty to a SIDCO will not be attributed by the Commission to any Federal Reserve Bank providing accounts and financial services to SIDCO account holders; and (2) a Federal Reserve Bank acting as a depository for SIDCO customer funds or otherwise providing account services to a SIDCO would continue to be held to the standard of liability set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents.

    Finally, the unique role that the Federal Reserve Banks play in the Federal Reserve System was not expressly taken into account when the Commission's standard of liability was developed for depositories. In fact, as described above, it was the Dodd-Frank Act that, for the first time, authorized designated FMUs (including SIDCOs) that are not banks or trust companies to open deposit accounts with a Federal Reserve Bank. However, while the Federal Reserve Banks may establish deposit accounts for SIDCOs, such accounts are subject to any applicable rules, orders, standards, or guidelines prescribed by the Board.51 The Commission notes that the Board has prescribed detailed rules and standards that govern account services provided to SIDCOs by the Federal Reserve Banks.52 These rules and standards have been carefully developed to provide clarity surrounding the provision of Federal Reserve financial services and to promote consistency in the treatment of deposit accounts at the Federal Reserve Banks for the benefit of the U.S. financial system. The Commission is concerned that exposing the Federal Reserve Banks to the standard of liability set forth in Section 4d of the CEA, as well as to potential third-party claims under Section 22 of the CEA, could disrupt these goals and ultimately harm the U.S. financial system and, by extension, U.S. taxpayers.

    51See Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    52See 12 CFR 234.5 (setting forth the conditions and requirements for Federal Reserve Banks to open and maintain accounts for and provide financial services to designated FMUs); see also discussion supra Part III.B (discussing the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents).

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed exemption would promote the safeguarding of futures and cleared swaps customer funds in a manner that would also benefit U.S. taxpayers. In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes the proposed exemption would promote responsible economic and financial innovation and fair competition, and would be consistent with the “public interest,” as that term is used in Section 4(c) of the CEA.

    VII. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) 53 requires that agencies consider whether the proposed exemption will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, provide a regulatory flexibility analysis respecting the impact. The Commission believes that the proposed exemption will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The exemption proposed by the Commission will impact SIDCOs and Federal Reserve Banks. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its actions on small entities in accordance with the RFA.54 The Commission has previously determined that DCOs, including SIDCOs, are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.55 Similarly, the Commission believes that Federal Reserve Banks are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.

    53 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    54See 47 FR 18618, 18618-21 (Apr. 30, 1982).

    55See New Regulatory Framework for Clearing Organizations, 66 FR 45604, 45609 (Aug. 29, 2001).

    Accordingly, the Commission does not expect the proposed exemption to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the proposed exemption would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission invites the public to comment on whether the entities covered by this proposed exemption should be considered small entities for purposes of the RFA, and, if so, whether there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 56 are, among other things, to minimize the paperwork burden to the private sector, ensure that any collection of information by a government agency is put to the greatest possible uses, and minimize duplicative information collections across the government. The PRA applies to all information, “regardless of form or format,” whenever the government is “obtaining, causing to be obtained [or] soliciting” information, and requires “disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions,” when the information collection calls for “answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons.” The PRA would not apply in this case given that the exemption would not impose any new recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or other collections of information on ten or more persons that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

    56 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    C. Cost and Benefit Considerations 1. Costs

    The proposed exemption would exempt the Federal Reserve Banks from Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA. The Commission recognizes that such relief could represent a cost to a SIDCO, its FCM clearing members, and the FCMs' customers in the event of a loss of the deposited customer funds. For instance, if customer funds were lost due to the fault of a Federal Reserve Bank, the SIDCO, FCM clearing member, or customer would not have a cause of action under the CEA. Rather, as discussed above, the Federal Reserve Banks would be held to the standard of liability set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents.57 This cost, however, will never be realized if an incident does not occur. Therefore, given the resilience of the Federal Reserve Banks and the standards set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, the Commission estimates that the circumstances that may give rise to such costs would be remote. Similarly, as discussed above, while the Commission continues to believe that private claims empower injured parties to seek compensation for damages where the Commission lacks the resources to do so on their behalf, and the prospect of such claims serves the public interest in deterring misconduct, the Commission believes that, for the reasons discussed herein, exempting the Federal Reserve Banks from liability under Section 22 of the CEA would also serve the public interest. The Commission further believes that the condition in the proposed exemption that would require Federal Reserve Banks to segregate customer funds deposited by a SIDCO from the proprietary funds deposited by a SIDCO and the benefits of facilitating SIDCOs' use of these accounts mitigate any costs that would flow from the loss of protection under Section 4d of the CEA.

    57 For a more detailed discussion of the standard of liability set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, see discussion supra Part IV.

    As described above, the Commission has reinforced and enhanced the provisions of Section 4d of the CEA in order to further protect customer funds, and this proposal represents a limited exception to those provisions.

    2. Benefits

    The proposed exemption would benefit market participants by permitting SIDCOs to deposit customer funds at the Federal Reserve Banks. Whereas commercial banks present credit and liquidity risks to a SIDCO, its FCM clearing members, and the FCMs' customers, the Federal Reserve Banks are substantially insulated from such risks. As discussed in greater detail above, Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and to promote financial stability, in part, through an enhanced supervisory framework for SIDCOs. In addition to this framework, Title VIII, and more specifically, Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, permits the Board to authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to establish and maintain an account for a SIDCO and provide to the SIDCO certain financial services. By enacting Title VIII in general, and Section 806(a) in particular, Congress recognized the importance of reducing systemic risk and providing SIDCOs with a potential safeguard during an extraordinary liquidity event. The proposed exemption would therefore help promote Congress's goal of better preparing the U.S. financial system for potential future liquidity events. A SIDCO's access to Federal Reserve Bank deposit accounts is also consistent with the international standards set forth in the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (“PFMIs”), which acknowledge the protections afforded by central banks from such credit and liquidity risks.58

    58See, e.g., CPSS-IOSCO, PFMIs, ¶ 3.9.3 (noting that “[c]entral banks have the lowest credit risk and are the source of liquidity with regard to their currency of issue”); see also PFMIs, Key Consideration 8 (specifying that a financial market infrastructure “with access to central bank accounts, payment services, or securities services should use these services, where practical, to enhance its management of liquidity risk”).

    Moreover, the Federal Reserve Banks' standard of liability, as set forth in the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, is better suited for the Federal Reserve Banks than Section 4d of the CEA, which was designed to govern customer funds deposited with a commercial bank, trust company, or DCO. Unlike commercial banks, Federal Reserve Banks do not operate for profit and serve only account holders authorized by statute, such as depository institutions and the U.S. government. Indeed, each year they return to the U.S. Department of Treasury all earnings in excess of Federal Reserve Bank operating and other expenses, such as litigation expenses. By exempting the Federal Reserve Banks from certain potential enforcement actions and private suits, the proposed exemption would reduce the Federal Reserve Banks' exposure to litigation. Because the Federal Reserve Banks return their earnings to the U.S. Department of Treasury's general fund, U.S. taxpayers may benefit from the proposed exemption. Therefore, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to apply the Federal Reserve Bank's standard of liability in order to facilitate the use of these accounts.

    3. Section 15(a) Factors

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing an order under the CEA.59 By its terms, Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the benefits of the order outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action.

    59 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    Section 15(a) of the CEA further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission may in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA.

    a. Protection of Market Participants and the Public

    The proposed exemption would serve to facilitate SIDCOs' use of Federal Reserve Banks as depositories for customer funds. As the Federal Reserve System is the nation's central bank, such accounts would provide SIDCOs with the lowest possible credit risk in the event of a market disruption. Moreover, as Federal Reserve Banks are the source of liquidity with regard to U.S. dollar deposits, SIDCOs with access to a deposit account at a Federal Reserve Bank would also be better equipped to handle a liquidity event. As SIDCOs have been so designated because of their importance to the broader financial system, reducing these risks would protect market participants and the public.

    b. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity

    A temporary or permanent disruption to the operations of a SIDCO could cause wide-spread and significant damage to the financial integrity of derivatives markets as a whole. Therefore, by facilitating a SIDCO's use of Federal Reserve Banks as depositories for customer funds, the proposed exemption would reduce liquidity and credit risk to the SIDCO, which would, in turn, promote the financial integrity of the derivatives markets.

    The Commission does not anticipate the proposed exemption to have a significant impact on the efficiency and competitiveness of the derivatives markets.

    c. Price Discovery

    The Commission does not anticipate the proposed exemption to have an impact on the price discovery process.

    d. Sound Risk Management Practices

    The Commission believes that establishing SIDCO segregated customer accounts and enabling SIDCOs to access related services at a Federal Reserve Bank would improve a SIDCO's ability to manage liquidity risk and protect customer funds. Additionally, the Commission believes that the availability of a Federal Reserve Bank account could allow a SIDCO to reduce its concentration risk by adding an additional creditworthy depository in which to diversify funds. Accordingly, the proposed exemption promotes sound risk management practices.

    The Commission further notes that, notwithstanding the proposed exemption from Section 4d of the CEA, the Federal Reserve Banks would still be required to segregate customer funds deposited by a SIDCO from the proprietary funds deposited by a SIDCO and adhere to the longstanding standards of liability that govern the Federal Reserve Banks.

    e. Other Public Interest Considerations

    The Commission believes that facilitating a SIDCO's access to Federal Reserve Bank accounts will promote the public interest by bolstering a SIDCO's ability to conduct settlements with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of stress scenarios, thereby increasing the likelihood of the SIDCO being able to provide its customers with access to their funds in times of market distress.

    VIII. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed exemption, including, without limitation, the Commission's determination that the proposed exemption is consistent with the public interest, and the Commission's consideration of the costs and benefits of the proposed exemption.

    The Commission requests comment regarding whether the proposed exemption should be expanded to include those customer accounts that are established pursuant to the CEA and that are held at Federal Reserve Banks by designated FMUs for which the Commission is not the Supervisory Agency.

    IX. Proposed Order of Exemption

    After considering the above factors, the Commission proposes to issue the following:

    Proposed Order

    Pursuant to Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is the supervisory agency for certain derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”) that have been designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council as systemically important. Under Section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board of Governors (“Board”) of the Federal Reserve System is permitted to authorize a Federal Reserve Bank to establish and maintain a deposit account for a systemically important DCO (“SIDCO”) and provide certain services to the SIDCO, subject to any applicable rules, orders, standards, or guidelines prescribed by the Board.

    DCOs, including SIDCOs, are required to hold funds belonging to customers of their clearing members in accounts subject to Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). In addition, Section 22 of the CEA would typically provide for private rights of action for damages against persons who violate Section 4d, or persons who willfully aid, abet, counsel, induce, or procure the commission of a violation of Section 4d. However, the Commission understands that deposit accounts maintained by any Federal Reserve Bank would also be governed by applicable account agreements, operating circulars issued by Federal Reserve Banks for each service, the Federal Reserve Act, and Federal Reserve regulations and policies, and, with respect to book-entry securities services, the regulations of the domestic issuer of the securities or the issuer's regulator (“Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents”). The Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, as may be amended from time to time, include, but are not limited to, Federal Reserve Bank Operating Circular No. 6 (governing funds transfers through the Fedwire Funds Service); Federal Reserve Bank Operating Circular No. 7 (governing the maintenance of and transfer services for book-entry securities accounts); 12 CFR part 210, subpart B (governing funds transfers through the Fedwire Funds Service); and 31 CFR part 357, subpart B (setting forth the U.S. Department of the Treasury's regulations governing book-entry treasury bonds, notes, and bills).

    The Commission understands that under the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, a Federal Reserve Bank has no requirement or obligation to inquire as to the legitimacy or accuracy of the instructions, or the transactions related to those instructions, or compliance by the SIDCO with its obligations under the CEA. To the extent that liability may accrue under the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents, the Commission understands that the Federal Reserve Bank may be held liable only for actual damages that are (i) incurred solely by the SIDCO account holder, and (ii) proximately caused by the Federal Reserve Bank's failure to exercise ordinary care or act in good faith in accordance with the Federal Reserve Bank Governing Documents. The Commission proposes to exempt the Federal Reserve Banks in order to facilitate Federal Reserve Banks' ability to accept SIDCO customer accounts.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 4(c) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c), that the Federal Reserve Banks are granted an exemption from Sections 4d and 22 of the CEA, subject to the terms and conditions specified herein:

    1. Segregation. Money, securities, and property deposited into a customer account established pursuant to the CEA by a SIDCO with a Federal Reserve Bank shall be separately accounted for and segregated from the money, securities, and property deposited into a proprietary account of the SIDCO depositing such funds and from the money, securities, and property deposited into the account of any person other than the customers for whom the money, securities, or property is held.

    2. Information Requests. Federal Reserve Banks must reply promptly and directly to any request for confirmation of account balances or provision of any other information regarding or related to the SIDCO customer account(s) that are established pursuant to the CEA from the director of the Division of Clearing and Risk of the Commission, or any successor division, or such director's designees.

    3. Applicability to Federal Reserve Banks. Subject to the conditions contained herein, the order applies to all Federal Reserve Banks that provide customer accounts and other services to SIDCOs. In addition, pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Key Policies for the Provision of Financial Services: Standards Related to Priced-Service Activities of the Federal Reserve Banks, information obtained by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or its designees during the course of supervising SIDCOs, pursuant to Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act, or any counterparty to a SIDCO under any authority, shall not be attributed by the Commission to any Federal Reserve Bank providing accounts and financial services to SIDCO account holders.

    4. Reservation of Rights. This order is based upon the analysis set forth above. Any material change in law or circumstances pursuant to which this order is granted might require the Commission to reconsider its finding that the exemption contained herein is appropriate and/or consistent with the public interest and purposes of the CEA. Further, the Commission reserves the right, in its discretion, to revisit any of the terms and conditions of the relief provided herein, including but not limited to, making a determination that certain entities described herein should be subject to the Commission's full jurisdiction, and to condition, suspend, terminate, or otherwise modify or restrict the exemption granted in this order, as appropriate, upon its own motion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2016, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Appendix to Notice of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on a Proposal To Exempt, Pursuant to the Authority in Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Federal Reserve Banks From Sections 4d and 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13055 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled National Service Trust Voucher and Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Nahid Jarrett, at 202-606-6753 or email to [email protected]. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to 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.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2016, at 81 FR 7512. This comment period ended April 12, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection request.

    After an AmeriCorps member completes a period of national service, the individual receives an education award that can be used to pay against qualified student loans or pay for current post-secondary educational expenses. The National Service Trust Voucher and Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form is the document that a member uses to access his or her account in the National Service Trust.

    The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: National Service Trust Voucher & Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form.

    OMB Number: 3045-0014.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Individuals using a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award, authorized school officials and qualified student loan holders.

    Total Respondents: 162,000.

    Frequency: One or more per education award.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 13,500.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Maggie Taylor-Coates, Chief of Trust Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13047 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled CNCS Forbearance Request for National Service Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Nahid Jarrett, at 202-606-6753 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to 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.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2016, at 81 FR 12719. This comment period ended May 9, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection request CNCS Forbearance Request for National Service Form, which certifies that AmeriCorps members are eligible for forbearance based on their enrollment in a national service position. AmeriCorps members use the form to request forbearance from their loan servicer. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: CNCS Forbearance Request for National Service Form.

    OMB Number: 3045-0030.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: AmeriCorps members and alumni that wish to request forbearance on qualified student loans and qualified loan servicers.

    Total Respondents: 69,300.

    Frequency: One or more per education award.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,775.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Maggie Taylor-Coates, Chief of Trust Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13046 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Interest Payment Form/AmeriCorps—Manual Interest Payment Request Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Nahid Jarrett, at 202-606-6753 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to 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.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2016, at 81 FR 12719. This comment period ended May 9, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection request. After an AmeriCorps member completes a period of national and community service, the individual receives an education award that can be used to pay against qualified student loans or pay for current post-secondary educational expenses. AmeriCorps members use the AmeriCorps Interest Payment Form/AmeriCorps—Manual Interest Payment Request Form to request a payment of accrued interest on qualified student loans and to authorize the release of loan information to the National Service Trust; schools and lenders verify eligibility for the payments; and both parties verify certain legal requirements.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps Interest Payment Form/AmeriCorps—Manual Interest Payment Request Form.

    OMB Number: 3045-0053.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: AmeriCorps Members/Alum that have completed a term of national service who seek to have the interest that has accrued on their qualified student loans during their service term repaid and qualified loan servicers.

    Total Respondents: 13,200.

    Frequency: One or more per education award.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,100.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Maggie Taylor-Coates, Chief of Trust Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13048 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Requests To Exhume and Repatriate Native American Burials From Carlisle Indian Industrial School Cemetery; Public Listening Sessions AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public listening sessions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Army National Military Cemeteries (ANMC) announces that it will hold two public listening sessions to solicit information on tribal requests for exhumation of Native American human remains from the former Carlisle Indian Industrial School Cemetery located on Carlisle Barracks, PA. ANMC has received requests from two tribes to disinter and repatriate the remains of tribal children buried at this cemetery. The listening sessions will be held in conjunction with the National Council of the American Indian mid-year conference in Spokane, WA and the United South and Eastern Tribes annual meeting in Cherokee, NC. The listening sessions are intended to provide any tribe that may have tribal members buried in this cemetery with an opportunity to share their views on this topic with Agency representatives, along with any data or analysis they may have. All comments will be transcribed and available upon request from Mr. Art Smith, whose contact information is listed below in this notice. We encourage tribes to participate in these listening sessions.

    DATES:

    The listening sessions will be held on Monday, June 27, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., Local Time, and on Wednesday, October 26, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Local Time. If all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment, the sessions may conclude early.

    ADDRESSES:

    The June 27th listening session will be held at the Spokane Convention Center, Room 301, 334 West Spokane Falls Blvd., Spokane, WA 99201. The October 26th session will be held at the Harrah's Cherokee Hotel and Casino, 777 Casino Dr., Cherokee, NC 28719. In addition to attending the session in person, the Agency offers several ways to provide comments, as enumerated below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Arthur Smith, Army National Military Cemeteries at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Submitting Comments: ANMC is accepting public comments through October 30, 2016. You may submit your comments and material by mail, or email, but please use only one of these means. ANMC recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that ANMC can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as a representative of a known individual buried at Carlisle cemetery or as a representative of a tribal government and then submit.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period, October 30, 2016.

    You may submit comments identified by:

    Mail: Army National Military Cemeteries, 1 Memorial Drive, Arlington, VA 22211.

    Email: [email protected]

    Background: In January 2016, Army received requests from two tribes to exhume the remains of tribal individuals buried in the Carlisle Indian Industrial School cemetery and repatriate those remains to the tribe. Historic records indicate that the School and cemetery were operated from 1879 until 1918, under the direction of the Indian Bureau. In 1918, the Army regained control of the property and established a hospital to care for the large number of wounded returning from the European battlefield. The exact number of Native Americans interred in the cemetery is uncertain as the cemetery includes a number of non-Natives and unknown burials. Army is working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to obtain school records which may provide additional details on those buried in this cemetery.

    Army Regulation 210-190 requires specific documentation to establish the identity of the living relatives with closest familial ties and the legal authority to represent the family. The Army recognizes that since the deceased were children and it is unlikely that there are direct descendants, tracing other relatives may be a more involved process.

    Meeting Participation and Information ANMC seeks from the public: ANMC would like to know the views of the affected tribes and families on the issue of disinterment from the Carlisle cemetery. The listening session is open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes. No preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to the ANMC staff at the session or through other means provided above.

    Patrick K. Hallinan, Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12910 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Intelligence Agency National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Intelligence University, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors has been scheduled. The meeting is closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, June 14, 2016 (7:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) and Wednesday, June 15, 2016 (7:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.).

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Intelligence Agency, 7400 Pentagon, ATTN: NIU, Washington, DC 20301-7400.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. David R. Ellison, President, DIA National Intelligence University, Washington, DC 20340-5100, Phone: (202) 231-3344.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors is unable to provide public notification, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a), for its meeting scheduled for June 14 through June 15, 2016. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose: The Board will discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the National Intelligence University.

    Agenda: The following topics are listed on the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors meeting agenda: Welcome/Plan of Action; Faculty Conversation; Bethesda Campus Update; Strategic Implementation Plan Update; BOV Succession Planning Update; Academic Program Review; Faculty Workload; Accreditation Update; Program/Budget Rationalization; Executive Session; Alumni .edu address; Analytic Methodologies and Tools; Faculty Senate; Research Update/Presentations; Working Lunch with IC Senior Leaders; and Executive Session. The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and therefore will be closed. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12957 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Annual and Final Performance Report Data Collection for Arts in Education Grantees AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0028. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 2E-115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Doug Herbert, 202-401-3813.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Annual and Final Performance Report Data Collection for Arts in Education Grantees.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 98.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,920.

    Abstract: The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires all federally funded agencies to develop and implement an accountability system based on performance measurement. This regulation applies to grantees receiving funds from the Dept. of ED's Office of Innovation and Improvement Arts in Education—Model Development and Dissemination (AEMDD), Professional Development for Arts Educators (PDAE), and Arts in Education National Program (AENP) programs. Each grantee is required to report on performance and progress towards GPRA measures as a condition of the grant. Data for GPRA performance measures are collected through the Annual Performance Report (APR) completed by grantees. The APR also collects budget information and data on project-specific performance measures. The forms being submitted for OMB review are APR templates that expand on the ED 524-B form to gather additional data on performance from Arts in Education grantees in a streamlined manner. Performance data are used to help make decisions about continued funding for grantees and to show overall program progress by aggregating GPRA data across grantees. GPRA data may be also be used by Congress to determine future program funding.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13045 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR11-108-000.

    Applicants: Atlanta Gas Light Company.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Five-Year Rate Review Certification to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 201605175129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-54-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123/.224: 20160523_Compliance in PR16-36-000 March 1, 2016 Eff. Date to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/23/16.

    Accession Number: 201605235159.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-55-000.

    Applicants: Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): 20160524_SOR GRSA Refund Eff 5-1-2016 to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/24/16.

    Accession Number: 201605245141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-967-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: DTI—May 25, 2016 Nonconforming Service Agreement to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/25/16.

    Accession Number: 20160525-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12992 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-609-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: 2015 Operational Purchases and Sales Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160429-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-212-000.

    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: 2015 Operational Purchases and Sales Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160429-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-968-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates—June 2016 Chevron TEAM 2014 Releases to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-969-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: FTSS and GSS Rate Schedule Clarifications to be effective 6/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12993 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9947-21-Region 3] Clean Water Act: Availability of List Decisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and initial request for public input.

    SUMMARY:

    The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states periodically submit, and EPA approve or disapprove, lists of waters (called “Section 303(d) lists”) for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. Waters identified on Section 303(d) lists are called “water quality-limited segments.” This notice announces EPA's proposal to include in West Virginia's 2014 Section 303(d) list certain water quality-limited segments and requests public comment.

    On May 11, 2016, EPA partially approved West Virginia's 2014 Section 303(d) list of water quality-limited segments and associated pollutants and partially disapproved West Virginia's submission to the extent that West Virginia did not evaluate certain water quality information and therefore did not identify certain water quality-limited segments. EPA has evaluated the information and proposes to identify these additional water quality-limited segments for inclusion on the State's 2014 Section 303(d) list. The proposed water quality-limited segments are identified in Enclosure 3 of the decision document available at the Web site link provided below.

    EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its decision to add these water quality-limited segments to West Virginia's 2014 Section 303(d) list. EPA will consider public comments before transmitting its final listing decision to the State.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the proposed decision should be sent to Bill Richardson, Water Protection Division (3WP30), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or emailed to [email protected] Oral comments will not be considered. Copies of EPA's letter concerning West Virginia's 2014 Section 303(d) list that explains the rationale for EPA's decision and EPA's proposed list of waters to be added to West Virginia's 2014 Section 303(d) list can be obtained at EPA Region 3's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/impaired-waters-and-tmdls-region-3 or by writing Mr. Richardson at the above address. Underlying documents from the administrative record for these decisions are available for public inspection at the above address. Please contact Mr. Richardson to schedule an inspection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Bill Richardson at (215) 814-5675.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each State identify those waters (called “water quality-limited segments”) for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. For those waters, States are required to establish TMDLs according to a priority ranking.

    EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require States to assemble and evaluate existing and readily-available water quality data and to identify water quality-limited segments still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list of waters still needing TMDL development must also include priority rankings and must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7).

    Consistent with EPA's regulations, EPA received West Virginia's submittal of its listing decisions under Section 303(d)(2) on April 13, 2015. On May 11, 2016, EPA partially approved West Virginia's 2014 list of water quality-limited segments and associated priority ranking and partially disapproved West Virginia's submission to the extent that West Virginia did not list sixty-one (61) water quality-limited segments based upon existing data and public input. EPA solicits public comment on the addition of these waters to the State's list, as required by 40 CFR 130.7(d)(2).

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Jon M. Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13030 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9946-41] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol or EPA Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-739, 100-1262, 100-1312, 100-1313, 100-1476, and 100-1554. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Difenoconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Rice; wild rice; and cotton (crop subgroup 20C). Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 2724-804. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0128. Applicant: Wellmark International, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. Active ingredient: Etofenprox. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Fungi, edible, group 21. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number: 67702-49. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0256. Applicant: W. Neudorff GmbH KG, An der Mühle 3, 31860 Emmerthal, Germany (c/o Walter G. Talarek, PC, 1008 Riva Ridge Dr., Great Falls, VA 22066-1620). Active ingredient: Iron phosphate. Product type: Biochemical molluscicide. Proposed use: Broadcast application to crops under flooded conditions to control golden apple snails. Contact: BPPD.

    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 71512-21, 71512-22, and 71512-23. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Isofetamid. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Bushberries (subgroup 13-07B); caneberries (subgroup 13-07A); pome fruit (group 11-10); small vine climbing fruit (subgroup 13-07E); stone fruit (subgroups 12-12A, 12-12B, 12-12C); legume vegetable pea and bean, succulent and dried, except soybeans (subgroups 6A, 6B, 6C); ornamental plants. Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Number: 86203-4. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0128. Applicant: Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. (c/o Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126; Valdosta, GA 31603. Active ingredient: Etofenprox. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Fungi, edible, group 21. Contact: RD.

    6. File Symbol: 89186-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0258. Applicant: ConidioTec, 2610 Sleepy Hollow Drive, State College, PA 16803. Active ingredient: Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Indoor use in buildings and structures to control and prevent bedbug infestations. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 19, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13029 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0023; FRL-9946-86] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for April 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from April 1, 2016 to April 29, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0023, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, Information Management Division, 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from April 1, 2016 to April 29, 2016, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new” chemical, while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing” chemical. For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 58 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From April 1, 2016 to April 29, 2016 Case No. Date
  • received
  • Projected
  • end date for EPA
  • review
  • Manufacturer/
  • Importer
  • Use(s) Chemical
  • identity
  • P-16-0095 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 CBI (G) Flame retardant additive (G) Phenol-formaldehyde resin. P-16-0119 4/20/2016 7/19/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Chlorofluorocarbon. P-16-0150 4/26/2016 7/25/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Chlorofluorocarbon. P-16-0267 4/20/2016 7/19/2016 Allnex USA, Inc (S) Electro-deposition primer (G) Fatty acids, reaction products with alkylamine, polymers with substituted carbomonocycle, substituted alkylamines, heteromonocycle and substituted alkanoate, lactates (salts). P-16-0277 4/1/2016 6/30/2016 Organic Dyestuffs Corporation (S) Metalized dye for dyeing wool with good fastness properties (S) Chromate(1-), hydroxy[2-(hydroxy-ko)-3-[2-[2-(hydroxy-ko)-1-naphthalenyl]diazenyl-kn1]-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, sodium (1:1). P-16-0279 4/4/2016 7/3/2016 Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC (G) Component in paints (S) Hexanamide, n,-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]-, compd, with 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane mono (2-ethylhexyl) ether phosphate. P-16-0281 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 CBI (G) Reactive polyol (G) Fatty alcohols—dimers, trimmers, polymers. P-16-0287 4/1/2016 6/30/2016 CBI (G) Hardener for epoxy coating (G) Alkanoic acid, 2-substituted-methyl ester, reaction products with aromatic diamine-[alkanediylbis(oxymethylene)]bis[oxirane] polymer. P-16-0289 4/1/2016 6/30/2016 CBI (G) Extrusion compounding resin molding resin (G) Semi-aromatic polyamide. P-16-0290 4/1/2016 6/30/2016 CBI (G) Fuel additive (G) Copolymer of maleic acid and olefin. P-16-0291 4/3/2016 7/2/2016 CBI (G) Curing agent (G) 1,3-cyclohexanedimethanamine adduct. P-16-0292 4/5/2016 7/4/2016 CBI (S) Intermediate for use in the manufacture of polymers (G) Depolymerized waste plastics. P-16-0293 4/13/2016 7/12/2016 Charkit Chemical Corporation (S) Compounding of fragrance for industrial cleaners/janitorial compounds, detergents, etc (S) Octanoic acid, phenylmethyl ester. P-16-0299 4/20/2016 7/19/2016 CBI (S) Reactive (meth)acrylate oligomer for ultra violet cured 3d printed parts (G) Polyurethane, methacrylate-blocked. P-16-0300 4/6/2016 7/5/2016 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (G) Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with 1,3-xylylene diisocyanate and oxirane, 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl isocyanate. P-16-0301 4/6/2016 7/5/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Propyl silsesquioxanes, hydrogen-terminated. P-16-0302 4/6/2016 7/5/2016 CBI (G) Plastic additive (G) Organic modified propyl silsesquioxane. P-16-0303 4/7/2016 7/6/2016 CBI (G) Use for the production of acrylic resin for waterborne exterior coatings composition (G) Alkyl methyacrylate polymer with styrene, amino acrylate and acrylic acid, ammonium salt. P-16-0304 4/7/2016 7/6/2016 CBI (G) Industrial adhesive (G) Polyurea grease. P-16-0305 4/7/2016 7/6/2016 CBI (G) Industrial Adhesive (G) Polyurea grease. P-16-0307 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 CBI (G) Open non dispersive use (G) Heteropolycycliccarboxylic acid, 1,3-dihydro-disubstituted-, polymer with 1,1'-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], reaction products with silica. P-16-0308 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 Itaconix Corporation (G) Reactive Monomer (S) Butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, 1,4-bis (2-methylpropyl) ester. P-16-0309 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 CBI (G) PMN substances are intended for use as rheological or thixotropic agents used in the production of solvent based industrial coatings, high solid aromatic paints, adhesives, sealants, and other types of paints and topcoats (G) Bisamide mixture. P-16-0310 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 CBI (G) PMN substances are intended for use as rheological or thixotropic agents used in the production of solvent based industrial coatings, high solid aromatic paints, adhesives, sealants, and other types of paints and topcoats (G) Bisamide mixture. P-16-0311 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 CBI (S) Coatings for wood metal and plastic (G) Aromatic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with alkyl dicarcoxylic acid, alkyl diol, hydroxy(hydroxyalkyl)alkylcarboxylic acid, methylenebis(isocyanatocycloalkane) and alkylethylidene bis(phenyleneoxy)bis[alkyl alcohol]. P-16-0312 4/8/2016 7/7/2016 CBI (S) Coatings for wood metal and plastic (G) Aromatic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with cycloalkanemethanol, alkanediamine, alkanedioic acid, hydroxy-2-(hydroxyalkyl)-2-alkylcarboxylic acid, methylenebis[isocyanatocycloalkane] and [(methylethylidene)bis(phenyleneoxy)]bis[alkanol]. P-16-0313 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 Honeyol, Inc (S) Use in production of resins (raw material used in the production of resins) (S) Tar acids (shale oil), c6-9-fraction, alkylphenols, low-boiling. P-16-0314 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 Firmenich, Inc (G) As part of a fragrance formula (S) Ethanone, 1-(5-propyl-1,3-benzodioxol-2-yl)- P-16-0315 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 CBI (S) Industrial rubber formulation (G) Alkyldiene, polymer, terminated alkoxysilylalkylcarbamate. P-16-0316 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 CBI (G) Drilling chemical (G) Aliphatic polyester. P-16-0317 4/11/2016 7/10/2016 CBI (G) Drilling chemical (G) Aliphatic polyester. P-16-0322 4/22/2016 7/21/2016 CBI (G) Pulp bleaching catalyst (G) Manganese cyclic (tri)amine chloride complex. P-16-0322 4/22/2016 7/21/2016 CBI (G) Textile bleaching catalyst (G) Manganese cyclic (tri)amine chloride complex. P-16-0323 4/13/2016 7/12/2016 Allnex USA, Inc (G) Coating resin (G) Alkylaldehyde, reaction products with substituted carbomonocycle-substituted heteromonocycle-alkylene glycol bis [[[substituted(oxoneoalky)oxy]alkyl]amino]alky] ether polymer and alkyl substituted alkanediamine, acetate salts. P-16-0324 4/13/2016 7/12/2016 CBI (G) Adhesive for open non-descriptive use (G) Ultra violet-curable urethane acrylate. P-16-0325 4/13/2016 7/12/2016 CBI (G) Oil & Gas extraction (G) Polymer of substituted acrylic acid and bromohexane. P-16-0326 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 Firmenich, Inc (G) As part of a fragrance formula (S) Propanoic acid, 2,2-dimethyl-,1-methyl-2-(1-methylethoxy)-2-oxoethyl ester. P-16-0327 4/14/2016 7/13/2016 CBI (G) Additive in rubber tires (G) Alkenoic acid, polymer with alkylalkenoate, sodium salt. P-16-0328 4/19/2016 7/18/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Terephthalic acid, polymer with alkanepolycarboxylic acids, alkanepolyols, isophthalic acid, polyetherpolyol, 1,1-methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], phthalic anhydride and a substituted alkanepolyol. P-16-0329 4/19/2016 7/18/2016 CBI (G) Adhesive component (G) Polymer of alkanepolycarboxylic acids, alkanepolyols, isophthalic acid, polyetherpolyols, 1,1-methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], terephthalic acid, phthalic anhydride and a substituted alkanepolyol. P-16-0330 4/19/2016 7/18/2016 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (G) Hydroxy functional triglyceride polymer with glycerol mono-ester and 1,1'-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene]. P-16-0331 4/19/2016 7/18/2016 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (G) Hydroxy functional triglyceride polymer with glycerol mono-ester and 1,1'-methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene]. P-16-0332 4/21/2016 7/20/2016 CBI (G) Component of coating (G) Carbomonocycle phosphate metal salt. P-16-0334 4/22/2016 7/21/2016 Lamberti USA, Inc (G) Additive for industrial purposes (G) Polymeric amide. P-16-0335 4/22/2016 7/21/2016 Lamberti USA, Inc (G) Additive for industrial purposes (G) Polymeric amide. P-16-0336 4/22/2016 7/21/2016 CBI (G) Fuel additive—destructive use (G) Polyolefin ester. P-16-0337 4/25/2016 7/24/2016 CBI (S) Monomer (G) Aliphatic acrylate. P-16-0338 4/26/2016 7/25/2016 CBI (G) Dyestuff (G) Substituted xanthene derivative. P-16-0339 4/26/2016 7/25/2016 CBI (G) Dyestuff (G) Azo derivatives. P-16-0340 4/26/2016 7/25/2016 Solazyme, Inc (G) Feedstock for oleochemical industry (G) Glycerides, c8-18 and c18 unsaturated, from fermentation. P-16-0340 4/26/2016 7/25/2016 Solazyme, Inc (G) Renewable oil source for fuels (G) Glycerides, c8-18 and c18 unsaturated, from fermentation. P-16-0341 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 Perstorp Polyols (G) Elastomer (S) 2-oxepanone, homopolymer, ester with 1,6-hexanediol. P-16-0341 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 Perstorp Polyols (S) Industrial coatings (S) 2-oxepanone, homopolymer, ester with 1,6-hexanediol. P-16-0341 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 Perstorp Polyols (S) Adhesive components (S) 2-oxepanone, homopolymer, ester with 1,6-hexanediol. P-16-0342. 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 CBI (S) Modified acrylic polymer used as a dispersant for deflocculation of pigments in industrial paints and coatings (G) Modified acrylic polymer. P-16-0343 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 CBI (S) Modified urethane polymer used as a dispersant for deflocculation of pigments in industrial paints and coatings (G) Modified urethane polymer. P-16-0344 4/27/2016 7/26/2016 CBI (S) Modified acrylic polymer used as a dispersant for deflocculation of pigments in industrial paints and coatings (G) Modified urethane polymer. P-16-0345 4/28/2016 7/27/2016 CBI (G) Processing aid (G) Acrylamide, polymer with methacrylic acid derivatives.

    For the 31 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—NOCs Received From April 1, 2016 to April 29, 2016 Case No. Date
  • received
  • Projected
  • date of
  • commencement
  • Chemical identity
    P-05-0522 4/26/2016 3/31/2016 (S) [1,1'-biphenyl]-4-carboxaldehyde. P-11-0243 4/1/2016 3/12/2016 (G) Alkanedioic acid polymer with alkanediol and diisocyanatohexane. P-13-0670 4/25/2016 4/4/2016 (G) Alkyl-[4-(carbomonocyclesubstituted)carbomonocycle]-(dialkyl-hydroxycarbomonocycle)alkane derivative. P-13-0671 4/25/2016 4/4/2016 (G) Alkyl-[4-(carbomonocyclesubstituted)carbomonocycle]-(dialkyl-hydroxycarbomonocycle)alkane derivative. P-14-0166 4/4/2016 3/3/2016 (G) Fatty acid amide. P-14-0185 4/4/2016 3/5/2016 (G) Fatty acid amide acetate. P-14-0800 4/22/2016 4/11/2016 (G) Solvent red 252. P-15-0046 4/12/2016 4/1/2016 (S) Propanol, oxybis, polymer with bis(isocyanatomethyl)cyclohexane and alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl). P-15-0074 4/8/2016 3/30/2016 (G) Trisiloxane alkoxylate. P-15-0329 4/12/2016 3/12/2016 (S) Urea, n, n“-1,6-hexanediylbis[n'-[(1s)-1-phenylethyl]-. P-15-0382 4/29/2016 4/20/2016 (G) Polyitaconic acid, sodium zinc salt. P-15-0409 4/5/2016 3/24/2016 (G) Substituted alkanolamine ether. P-15-0515 4/19/2016 4/7/2016 (G) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl, methyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene, ethyl 2-propenoate, 2-oxiranylmethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), reaction products with dialkylamine, carboxylate salt. P-15-0567 4/8/2016 3/10/2016 (S) Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,?6-?hexanediol, 1,?3-?isobenzofurandione, 5-?isocyanato-?1-?(isocyanatomethyl)?-?1,?3,?3-?trimethylcyclohexane and 1,?2,?3-?propanetriol, 2-?hydroxyethyl acrylate-?blocked. P-15-0623 4/18/2016 4/14/2016 (G) Fatty acids, polymers with bisphenol a, nutshell liq., epichlorohydrin, alkylenediamine, formaldehyde and polyalkylenepolyamine. P-15-0733 4/4/2016 3/13/2016 (G) Alkane carboxylic acid, hydroxy, hydroxyalkyl-alkyl, polymer with .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) ether with alkyl-(hydroxyalkyl)-alkanediol (x:1), .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-alkyldiyl)] and alkylenebis [isocyanatoalkane],-blocked. P-15-0737 4/12/2016 4/7/2016 (G) Diammonium salt of phosphate methacrylate. P-15-0737 4/12/2016 4/7/2016 (G) Monoammonium salt of phosphate methacrylate. P-15-0769 4/14/2016 4/4/2016 (G) Polyurethane silane. P-16-0009 4/1/2016 3/9/2016 (S) Fatty acids, castor-oil, esters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1). P-16-0026 4/11/2016 4/3/2016 (G) Amine functional epoxy, organic acid salt. P-16-0100 4/5/2016 3/23/2016 (G) Substituted heteropolycyclic derivs. P-16-0107 4/14/2016 3/27/2016 (G) Aromatic polycarboxylic acid, polymer with alkyldiol, alkylidioic acid, aromatic polyisocyanate, substituted alkyldiol, compd. with alkylamine. P-16-0108 4/28/2016 3/17/2016 (G) Carbonic acid, polymer with, 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)- 1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate-blocked. P-16-0115 4/6/2016 3/27/2016 (G) 2-propanediol, polymer with 2-ethyloxirane, oxirane and cycloaliphatic anhydride, polymer with 2,2???-[(1-methylethylidene)bis(4,1-phenyleneoxymethylene)]bis[oxirane]. P-16-0121 4/18/2016 4/13/2016 (G) Acrylic acid polymer with polyethylene glycol. P-16-0142 4/26/2016 4/20/2016 (G) Amine salted polyacrylate. P-16-0149 4/18/2016 4/15/2016 (G) 2-alkenoic acid, alkyl ester, polymer with ethenyl benzene, alkyl 2-alky alkenoate and alkene carboxylic acid. P-16-0159 4/25/2016 3/31/2016 (G) Hexasodium 5-{4-[3-(8-benzoylamino-1-hydroxy-3,6-disulfonatonaphthalene-2-yldiazenyl)-4-sulfonatoanilino]-6-(2-sulfonatoethylamino)-1,3,5-triazine-2-ylamino}benzene-1,3-dicarboxylate. P-16-0174 4/29/2016 4/19/2016 (S) Butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, telomer with phosphinic acid and sodium 4-ethenylbenzenesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt. P-16-0175 4/28/2016 4/18/2016 (S) Naphthalene, eicosyl-.
    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Pamela Myrick, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13028 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:03 a.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, concurred in by Paul M. Nash (Acting in the place and stead of Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency)), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13159 Filed 5-31-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10325 First Commercial Bank of Florida, Orlando, FL

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10325 First Commercial Bank of Florida, Orlando, FL (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Commercial Bank of Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective June 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12956 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10310, Western Commercial Bank Woodland Hills, CA

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Western Commercial Bank, Woodland Hills, CA (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Western Commercial Bank on November 5, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12955 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012355-001.

    Title: CMA CGM/SL Gulf Bridge Express Slot Charter Agreement.

    Parties: CMA CGM, S.A. and Maersk Line A/S DBA Sealand.

    Filing Party: Draughn B. Arbona, Esq; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502.

    Synopsis: The amendment changes the name of the Maersk entity participating in the Agreement and reduces the number of slots being chartered.

    Agreement No.: 012413.

    Title: MOL/ELJSA Slot Exchange Agreement.

    Parties: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd and Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to exchange slots in the trade between the U.S. East Coast on the one hand, and the People's Republic of China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Panama, on the other hand.

    Agreement No.: 012414.

    Title: LGL/Glovis Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Liberty Global Logistics LLC and Hyundai Glovis Co., Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq., Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to charter space for ro/ro cargo to/from each other in the trade between the U.S. East Coast on the one hand, and Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait on the other hand.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13027 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice May 31, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    2:00 p.m., Monday, June 13, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGary, et al. v. The Marshall County Coal Company, et al., Docket Nos. WEVA 2015-583-D, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in ruling that certain statements by mine management constituted an interference with miners' safety rights.)

    Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13117 Filed 5-31-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice May 31, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    2:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session: Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGary, et al. v. The Marshall County Coal Company, et al., Docket Nos. WEVA 2015-583-D, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in ruling that certain statements by mine management constituted an interference with miners' safety rights.)

    Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13118 Filed 5-31-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 27, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc., Luray, Virginia; to merge with River Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire River Community Bank, National Association, both in Martinsville, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 27, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13005 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 16, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Michael William Mathis, Sr., Sharon L. Mathis, Michael William Mathis, Jr., Mark Coppage Mathis, Victoria Lynn Mathis, and Norman Van Lambert, all of Rome, Georgia, to retain voting shares of RCB Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of River City Bank, both in Rome, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 27, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13007 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-MA-2016-03; Docket No. 2016-0002, Sequence No. 12] Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances—Requirement To Report Agency Payments for Relocation AGENCY:

    Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a bulletin.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to inform agencies that FTR Bulletin 16-04, pertaining to the Requirement to Report Agency Payments for Relocation, is now available online at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Asset and Transportation Management (MA), Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, at 202-501-3822 or via email at [email protected] Please cite FTR Bulletin 16-04.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under 5 U.S.C. 5707(c), as implemented in the Federal Travel Regulation, Part 300-70, Subpart A—Requirement To Report Agency Payments for Employee Travel and Relocation, the Administrator of General Services is required to collect data on total agency payments for travel, transportation, and relocation expenses every year. This bulletin provides guidance to agencies that spent more than $5 million on travel and transportation payments, including relocation costs, and the requirement procedures to report the data to GSA. FTR Bulletin 16-04 and all other FTR Bulletins can be found at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

    Troy Cribb, Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12888 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Unmodified Qualified Trust Model Certificates and Model Trust Documents AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is publishing this second round notice and requesting comment on the twelve executive branch OGE model certificates and model documents for qualified trusts. OGE intends to submit these forms to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). OGE is proposing no changes to these forms at this time.

    DATES:

    Written comments by the public and the agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this paperwork notice to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for OGE, via fax at 202-395-6974 or email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul D. Ledvina, Agency Clearance Officer at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9247; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email: [email protected] The model Certificate of Independence and model Certificate of Compliance for qualified trusts are codified in appendixes A and B to 5 CFR part 2634. Appendix C of 5 CFR part 2634 provides the Privacy Act Statement, Public Burden Statement and Paperwork Reduction Act Statement for the model certificates. Copies of the ten qualified trust model documents may be obtained, without charge, by contacting Mr. Ledvina.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Government Ethics intends to submit, shortly after this second round notice, all twelve qualified trust model certificates and model documents described below (all of which are included under OMB paperwork control number 3209-0007) for a three-year extension of approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The current paperwork approval for the model certificates and model trust documents, last granted by OMB in 2013, is scheduled to expire at the end of November 2016. OGE is proposing no changes to the two model qualified trust certificates and the ten model trust documents at this time. OGE is the supervising ethics office for the executive branch of the Federal Government under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA). Presidential nominees to executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation and any other executive branch officials may seek OGE approval for EIGA qualified blind or diversified trusts as one means to be used to avoid conflicts of interest.

    OGE is the sponsoring agency for the model certificates and model trust documents for qualified blind and diversified trusts of executive branch officials set up under section 102(f) of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(f), and OGE's implementing financial disclosure regulations at subpart D of 5 CFR part 2634. The various model certificates and model trust documents are utilized by OGE and settlors, trustees and other fiduciaries in establishing and administering these qualified trusts.

    There are two categories of information collection requirements that OGE plans to submit for renewed paperwork approval, each with its own related reporting model certificates or model trust documents which are subject to paperwork review and approval by OMB. The OGE regulatory citations for these two categories, together with identification of the forms used for their implementation, are as follows:

    i. Qualified trust certifications—5 CFR 2634.404(f) and (g), 2634.405(c) and (d), 2634.407, 2634.408(d)(4), 2634.410, 2634.414 and appendixes A and B to part 2634 (the two implementing forms, the Certificate of Independence and Certificate of Compliance, are codified respectively in the cited appendixes); and

    ii. Qualified trust communications and model provisions and agreements—5 CFR 2634.404(f), 2634.407(a), 2634.408(a)-(c), 2634.407 and 2634.414 (the ten implementing forms are the: (A) Blind Trust Communications (Expedited Procedure for Securing Approval of Proposed Communications); (B) Model Qualified Blind Trust Provisions; (C) Model Qualified Diversified Trust Provisions; (D) Model Qualified Blind Trust Provisions (For Use in the Case of Multiple Fiduciaries); (E) Model Qualified Blind Trust Provisions (For Use in the Case of an Irrevocable Pre-Existing Trust); (F) Model Qualified Diversified Trust Provisions (Hybrid Version); (G) Model Qualified Diversified Trust Provisions (For Use in the Case of Multiple Fiduciaries); (H) Model Qualified Diversified Trust Provisions (For Use in the Case of an Irrevocable Pre-Existing Trust); (I) Model Confidentiality Agreement Provisions (For Use in the Case of a Privately Owned Business); and (J) Model Confidentiality Agreement Provisions (For Use in the Case of Investment Management Activities)).

    The communications formats and the confidentiality agreements (items ii.(A), (I) and (J) above), once completed, would not be available to the public because they contain sensitive, confidential information. All the other completed model trust certificates and model trust documents (except for any trust provisions that relate to the testamentary disposition of trust assets) are retained and made publicly available based upon a proper request under EIGA (by filling out an OGE Form 201 access form) until the periods for retention of all other reports (usually the OGE Form 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports) of the individual establishing the trust have lapsed (generally six years after the filing of the last other report). See 5 CFR 2634.603(g)(2) of OGE's executive branch financial disclosure regulation.

    The U.S. Office of Government Ethics administers the qualified trust program for the executive branch. At the present time, there are no active filers using the trust model certificates and documents. However, OGE intends to submit to OMB a request for extension of approval for two reasons. First, under OMB's implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i), any recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure requirement contained in a sponsoring agency rule of general applicability is deemed to meet the minimum threshold of ten or more persons. Second, OGE does anticipate possible limited use of these forms during the forthcoming three-year period 2016-2019. Therefore, the estimated burden figures, representing branchwide implementation of the forms, will remain the same as previously reported by OGE in its prior first and second round paperwork renewal notice for the trust forms (77 FR 76293-76294 (December 27, 2012) and 78 FR 40144-40146 (July 3, 2013)). The estimate is based on the amount of time imposed on a trust administrator or private representative.

    i. Trust Certificates:

    A. Certificate of Independence: Total filers (executive branch): 5; private citizen filers (100%): 5; private citizen burden hours (20 minutes/certificate): 2.

    B. Certificate of Compliance: Total filers (executive branch): 10; private citizen filers (100%): 10; private citizen burden hours (20 minutes/certificate): 3; and

    ii. Model Qualified Trust Documents:

    A. Blind Trust Communications: Total users (executive branch): 5; private citizen users (100%): 5; communications documents (private citizens): 25 (based on an average of five communications per user, per year); private citizen burden hours (20 minutes/communication): 8.

    B. Model Qualified Blind Trust: Total users (executive branch): 2; private citizen users (100%): 2; private citizen burden hours (100 hours/model): 200.

    C. Model Qualified Diversified Trust: Total users (executive branch): 1; private citizen users (100%): 1; private citizen burden hours (100 hours/model): 100.

    D.-H. Of the five remaining model qualified trust documents: Total users (executive branch): 2; private citizen users (100%): 2; private citizen burden hours (100 hours/model): 200.

    I.-J. Of the two model confidentiality agreements: Total users (executive branch): 1; private citizen users (100%): 1; private citizen burden hours (50 hours/agreement): 50.

    However, the total annual reporting hour burden on filers themselves is zero and not the 563 hours estimated above because OGE's estimating methodology reflects the fact that all respondents hire private trust administrators or other private representatives to set up and maintain the qualified blind and diversified trusts. Respondents themselves, typically incoming private citizen Presidential nominees, therefore incur no hour burden. The estimated total annual cost burden to respondents resulting from the collection of information is $1,000,000. Those who use the model documents for guidance are private trust administrators or other private representatives hired to set up and maintain the qualified blind and diversified trusts of executive branch officials who seek to establish such qualified trusts. The cost burden figure is based primarily on OGE's knowledge of the typical trust administrator fee structure (an average of 1 percent of total assets) and OGE's experience with administration of the qualified trust program. The $1,000,000 annual cost figure is based on OGE's estimate of an average of five possible active trusts anticipated to be under administration for each of the next three years with combined total assets of $100,000,000. However, OGE notes that the $1,000,000 figure is a cost estimate for the overall administration of the trusts, only a portion of which relates to information collection and reporting. For want of a precise way to break out the costs directly associated with information collection, OGE is continuing to report to OMB the full $1,000,000 estimate for paperwork clearance purposes.

    On March 4, 2016, OGE published a first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for the proposed unmodified qualified trust certificates and modified model trust documents. See 81 FR 11566-11567. OGE did not receive any responses to that notice.

    In this second notice, public comment is again invited on the model qualified trust certificates and model trust documents, and underlying regulatory provisions, as set forth in this notice, including specific views on the need for and practical utility of this set of collections of information, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the potential for enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology).

    Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of the OMB paperwork approval for the set of the various existing qualified trust model certificates, the model communications package, and the model trust documents. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Approved: May 27, 2016. Walter M. Shaub, Jr. Director, Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13008 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Informational Meeting: The Importation and Exportation of Infectious Biological Agents, Infectious Substances and Vectors; Public Webcast AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public webcast.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hosting a public webcast to address import and export permit regulations for infectious biological agents, infectious substances, and vectors; and import and export permit exemptions. Presenters for this webcast will include representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), CDC Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, HHS/Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response/Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

    DATES:

    The webcast will be held over two days, August 3, 2016 from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT and August 4, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Registration instructions are found on the HHS/CDC Import Permit Program Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/od/eaipp/importApplication/agents.htm.

    ADDRESSES:

    The webcast will be broadcast from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Von McClee, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS A-46, Atlanta, GA 30333; phone: 404-718-2000; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This webcast is an opportunity for all interested parties (e.g., academic institutions and biomedical centers, commercial manufacturing facilities, federal, state, and local laboratories, including clinical and diagnostic laboratories, research facilities, exhibition facilities, and educational facilities) to obtain specific guidance and information regarding import and export permit regulations. The webcast will also provide assistance to those interested in applying for an import or export permit (or license) from federal agencies within the United States.

    Instructions for registration are found on the HHS/CDC Import Permit Program Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/od/eaipp/importApplication/agents.htm. Participants must register by July 15, 2016. This is a webcast only event and there will be no on-site participation at the HHS/CDC broadcast facility.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Veronica Kennedy, Acting Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13053 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service—Annual Report AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity to comment on the proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice collects comments on the information collection requirements relating to the continuation of an existing collection for University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Bond by email at [email protected] or 202.795-7311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 104 (42 U.S.C. 15004) of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act of 2000) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a system of program accountability to monitor the grantees funded under the DD Act of 2000. The program accountability system shall include the National Network of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs) authorized under Part D of the DD Act of 2000. In addition to the accountability system, Section 154(e) (42 U.S.C. 15064) of the DD Act of 2000 includes requirements for a UCEDD Annual Report.

    ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Annual Burden Estimates Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    UCEDD Annual Report 67 1 1,412 94,604

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 94,604.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator & Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13020 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) Program Outcome Measurement AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.5806 or by email to [email protected]. Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Phillip McKoy at 202.795.7397 or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Grantees are required by Congress to provide information for use in program monitoring and for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. This information collection reports the number of active volunteers, issues and inquiries received, other SMP program outreach activities, and the number of Medicare dollars recovered, among other SMP performance outcomes. This information is used as the primary method for monitoring the SMP Projects. ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Respondents: 54 SMP grantees at 23 hours per month (276 hours per year, per grantee). Total Estimated Burden Hours: 7,452 hours per year.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12868 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Collaborating To Strengthen Food, Drug, and Medical Device Safety Systems; Notice of Conference AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of conference.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Philadelphia District Office, in co-sponsorship with the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), and the North Central Association of Food and Drug Officials, is announcing a conference entitled “Collaborating to Strengthen Food, Drug, and Medical Device Safety Systems.” This conference is intended to provide information about FDA drug and device regulation to the regulated industry.

    DATES:

    The conference will be held on June 25 to June 29, 2016. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting times.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Omni William Penn Hotel, 530 William Penn Pl., Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Young, Association of Food and Drug Officials, 2550 Kingston Rd., Suite 311, York, PA 17402, 717-757-2888, FAX: 717-650-3650, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA has made education of the food, feed, drug, and device manufacturing community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated products. The conference helps to achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information for stakeholders and the public. The conference also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as outreach activities by government Agencies to small businesses.

    The conference helps fulfill the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to protect the public health. The conference will provide FDA-regulated drug and device entities with information on a number of topics concerning FDA requirements related to the production and marketing of drugs and/or devices. Topics for discussion include, but are not limited to the following:

    • FDA Program Alignment • Recalls from the Perspective of the District • Inspection of Licensed Producers under the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (Health Canada) • Foreign inspections • Regulatory Intelligence • FDA Inspections: Challenges and Opportunities (Working Luncheon) • Drug Shortages • Drug Supply Chain Act: Wholesale Drug Distributor and 3rd Party Logistics Provider • Medical Device Single Audit Program • Compliance Questions Panel

    The Conference Web site is: http://afdo.org/conference. The meeting times are as follows:

    Date Meeting time June 25 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. June 26 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. June 27 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. June 28 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. June 29 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Registration: The AFDO registration fees cover the cost of facilities, materials, and breaks. Seats are limited and registration will close after the course is filled; therefore, please submit your registration as soon as possible. Conference space will be filled in order of receipt of registration; those accepted will receive confirmation. Registration at the site is not guaranteed but may be possible on a space available basis on the day of the conference, beginning at 7:30 a.m. The cost of registration follows:

    Category Cost of
  • registration
  • Member $475 Non-Member 575 Additional Fee for Registration Postmarked After June 1, 2016 100

    To register, please complete and submit an AFDO conference registration form, available at http://pitt.afdo.org/registration.html, along with a check, money order payable to “AFDO”; the registrar will also accept Visa and MasterCard credit cards. Please mail your completed registration form and payment to: AFDO, 2550 Kingston Rd., Suite 311, York, PA 17402. To register online, please visit http://pitt.afdo.org/registration.html (FDA has verified the Web site address, but is not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register.) For more information on the conference, or for questions about registration, please contact Randy Young (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), email inquiries will also be accepted at [email protected], or visit http://www.afdo.org.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Randy Young (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the conference.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12942 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-P-0378] Determination That TRIVARIS (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Injectable Suspension, 80 Milligrams/Milliliters, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 milligrams/milliliters (mg/mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for triamcinolone acetonide injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda Jong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6288, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3977.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

    TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, is the subject of NDA 22-220, held by Allergan, and initially approved on June 16, 2008. TRIVARIS is indicated for sympathetic ophthalmia, temporal arteritis, uveitis, and ocular inflammatory conditions unresponsive to topical corticosteroids. TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

    The Weinberg Group submitted a citizen petition dated January 28, 2016 (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-0378), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to TRIVARIS (triamcinolone acetonide) injectable suspension, 80 mg/mL, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12949 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0055] Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods.” The draft guidance, when finalized, will describe our views on voluntary short-term and long-term goals for sodium reduction in a variety of identified categories of foods that are commercially processed, packaged, or prepared. These goals are intended to address the excessive intake of sodium in the current population and promote improvements in public health.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on Issues 1 through 4 listed in section IV of this document by August 31, 2016. Submit either electronic or written comments on Issues 5 through 8 listed in section IV of this document by October 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0055 for “Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kasey Heintz, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1376.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    Many expert advisory panels have concluded that scientific evidence supports the value of reducing sodium intake in the general population (Ref. 1). Recent analysis, including the findings of the 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, “Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence” (IOM report), continue to support this conclusion (Ref. 2). The 2013 IOM report confirmed a positive relationship between higher levels of sodium intake and the risk of heart disease, and found substantial evidence of population benefit and no evidence of negative health effects associated with reductions in sodium intake down to 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day (mg/day) (Ref. 2). Members of the committee which authored the 2013 IOM report also clarified in a subsequent publication that different groups using a variety of methods and data have obtained results consistent with the committee's analysis that current U.S. intake is excessive, that it should be reduced, and that reduction is expected to have significant public health benefit (Ref. 3). Moreover, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Sodium Working Group examined the relationship between sodium and blood pressure and other cardiovascular outcomes in adults, as well as sodium and blood pressure in children. The Committee's recommendations concurred with previous reports that sodium intake among the U.S. population remains high and that higher levels of sodium intake are associated with increased blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular disease (Ref. 4).

    Multiple researchers have estimated the public health benefits associated with broad reduction in sodium intakes in the United States (Ref. 1). Reasonable reductions in average intake (modeled at a variety of intake levels below current intake, down to an average level of roughly 2,200 mg/day) have been estimated to result in tens of thousands fewer cases of heart disease and stroke each year, as well as billions of dollars in health care savings over time. A recent study (Ref. 5) used three epidemiological datasets to forecast the separate public health benefits of reducing the population's average sodium intake to 2,200 mg/day over 10 years. (This 2,200 mg/day final mean intake level was derived from intake values embedded in the sources of evidence used for the study.) Researchers found that this pattern of reduction would save between 280,000 and 500,000 premature deaths over 10 years; sustained sodium reduction would prevent additional premature deaths.

    FDA is not conducting rulemaking with regard to sodium, and these goals are voluntary. Given the potentially significant benefits to public health, as well as FDA's role in safeguarding America's food supply and enabling consumers to choose healthy diets, we are committed to exploring effective and efficient strategies to promote sodium reduction in the food supply. We believe that these voluntary goals can be an effective means to achieve significant benefits to public health through sodium reduction in commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods.

    II. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods.” (For purposes of this draft guidance, “commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods” refers to processed, multiple-ingredient foods that have been packaged by a member of the food industry for direct sale to consumers or for use in restaurants and similar retail food establishments including, but not limited to, restaurants, or for resale to other members of the food industry, as well as foods that are prepared by food establishments for direct consumption.) The draft guidance provides information to the food industry on sodium reduction, expressed as measurable voluntary goals for sodium content (from sodium chloride, commonly called “salt,” as well as other sodium-containing ingredients) in commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods. Approximately 75 percent of sodium consumed by Americans is added to foods before they are sold (Ref. 6). Thus, the goals are intended to promote reductions in the amount of sodium added during processing, manufacturing, and preparation, especially for uses not necessary for microbial safety, stability, and/or physical integrity. We particularly encourage attention by food manufacturers whose products make up a significant proportion of national sales in one or more categories and restaurant chains that are national or regional in scope.

    Broad adoption of these voluntary recommendations by the industry members would create a meaningful reduction in population intake over time and support adjustment of consumer taste preferences. We recognize that many companies have initiated sodium reduction efforts and have made commitments on their own. The voluntary goals are intended to support ongoing efforts, including progress that has already been made by industry. This approach also builds on other efforts such as an initiative by New York City in partnership with local and State health departments and health organizations and international approaches from foreign governments such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The voluntary goals are intended to provide a shared framework for describing and analyzing the success of voluntary reduction efforts by various industry stakeholders and to promote continued discussion on sodium reduction opportunities. The guidance is intended to help achieve public health goals and see safe, gradual, and broadly distributed change over time across the full range of commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods. To accomplish these goals, discussion and collaboration among FDA, Federal partners, the food industry, consumers, and other stakeholders will be essential.

    We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of the FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You may use an alternate approach to reducing sodium as long as these approaches satisfy the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    The draft guidance provides our tentative views with respect to identifying challenging, yet feasible, target mean and upper bound concentrations of sodium (referred to in this document as “sodium concentration goals”) across a wide variety of food categories. Our targets are based on our analysis of the current minimum and upper bound levels of sodium in a variety of identified food categories, available literature on the amount of salt needed for different functions in food, and discussions with experts on different food categories. Our milestone date for the short-term goals is the second year after publication of the final guidance. Our milestone date for the long-term goals is the 10th year after publication of the final guidance. The short-term targets are intended to be more easily achievable and as many as half of all products may already have achieved these interim targets. We recognize that the longer term targets are more difficult to achieve. We are aware that new ingredients capable of replacing some salt as well as other innovative strategies are being explored and more research and development may be needed. We also want to make clear that broader public health goals and maintenance of nutritional quality are important considerations in developing sodium reduction or reformulation strategies. For example, sodium reduction that relies on increases in added sugars would not be consistent with the public health goals of this guidance.

    The sodium concentration goals in this voluntary draft guidance are intended to:

    • Support increased food choice for consumers seeking to consume a diverse diet that is consistent with recommendations of the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans;

    • support the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines and the Healthy People 2020 recommendations of less than 2,300 mg per day for many individuals;

    • provide shared goals as metrics (mg/100g) for voluntary reduction efforts by various industry stakeholders;

    • support successful efforts already underway in the private sector to reduce sodium content;

    • focus on total amount of sodium in a given food as opposed to any individual sodium-containing ingredient; and

    • support and extend industry's voluntary efforts to reduce sodium across the range of commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods.

    This guidance does not:

    • Recommend specific methods and technologies for sodium reduction;

    • prescribe how much of any individual sodium-containing ingredient, such as salt or sodium nitrite, should be used in a formulation (in other words, we focus on the total amount of sodium in a given food);

    • focus on foods that contain only naturally occurring sodium (e.g., milk); or

    • address salt that individuals add to their food.

    As described in the notice “Approaches to Reducing Sodium Consumption; Establishment of Dockets; Request for Comments, Data, and Information” (76 FR 57050, September 15, 2011, referred to in this document as the 2011 request for comment), current sodium intake is substantially higher than what scientific and public health agencies and organizations have recommended in recent years. There have been a number of public and industry initiatives to reduce sodium intake, as well as initiatives in other countries (76 FR 57050 at 75051). In April 2010, IOM released a report titled “Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States” which concluded that sodium intake, with the greatest contribution from salt, remains well above recommended levels (Ref. 1).

    We recognize that a successful effort to reduce sodium intake requires information on a wide variety of topics, resulting from a genuine dialogue with all interested persons. To begin this dialogue, in 2011, FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) opened parallel dockets for public comment and described the rationale for sodium intake reduction and identified 15 specific issues for comment by all interested persons (76 FR 57050). These issues concerned multiple aspects of sodium reduction, including technical challenges and opportunities, implementation of reduction targets, and potential unintended consequences of reduction.

    In November 2011, FDA and FSIS, in conjunction with other Federal agencies interested in sodium reduction efforts, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USDA's Agricultural Research Service and Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, sponsored a public meeting to provide a forum for discussion of the issues raised in the 2011 request for comment. FDA and FSIS together received approximately 1,500 comments, which addressed the following key themes:

    • The need for slow and gradual change;

    • the importance of acknowledging technical and regulatory constraints;

    • the need for consumer acceptance and market viability of new or reformulated products;

    • the critical importance of maintaining a safe food supply;

    • the potential health consequences of broad sodium reduction;

    • the costs associated with broad reductions in sodium;

    • the potential for positive incentives to promote reformulation; and

    • reports of successful reduction efforts.

    We reviewed the comments submitted to the 2011 request for comments as well as other available information. In particular, we have considered the 2013 IOM report, “Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence.” The IOM report concluded that evidence from studies on direct health outcomes associated with sodium intake was sufficient to support reducing excessive sodium intake, noting a benefit for cardiovascular disease outcomes if population sodium intake came down to a level of 2,300 mg/day. Ultimately, this report reaffirmed the association between sodium intake and health outcomes, which supports the need to engage in population-based efforts to lower excessive dietary sodium intakes (Ref. 2).

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 101 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381. The collections of information in 21 CFR 101.11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0783.

    IV. Issues for Consideration

    We developed the sodium targets using the best available representation of sodium in the food supply, based on product nutrition data from manufacturers and widely used sales data. We welcome comment on any issues related to the methods for developing the sodium targets and for implementation of this guidance. In particular, we are interested in comments on collecting and organizing these data into food categories, our methods for quantifying sodium content, refinements to the specific mean and upper bound targets based on adjustments of our category structures and data, and any challenges of implementing the voluntary goals. Please provide the reasoning behind your comments, including, where available, any data you may have.

    1. Are there categories where foods have been grouped together that should be separated on the basis of different manufacturing methods or technical effects relating to the potential for sodium reduction? Conversely, are there categories which could be merged due to similar sodium functionality and potential for reduction? Are there foods that contribute to sodium intake that we have not effectively captured? Are the categories amenable for use by restaurant chains and if not, how should they be modified to make them amenable for use by restaurant chains?

    2. Are the baseline sodium concentration values reasonably representative of the state of the food supply in 2010? For categories that do not appear representative, what food products are not adequately represented? Are there situations in which our method of quantification could lead to unrepresentative baseline values?

    3. Are there categories for which the 2-year target concentration goals are infeasible? If so, why are these targets not feasible, e.g., for technical reasons? What goals would be feasible in the short-term (2-year), and why? For reference, a supplementary memorandum to the docket is provided to further describe the type of information needed, “Target Development Example: Supplementary Memorandum to the Draft Guidance” (Ref. 7).

    4. Are the short-term (2-year) timeframes for these goals achievable? If the timeframes are not achievable, what timeframes would be challenging, but still achievable?

    5. Are there categories for which the 10-year target concentration goals are infeasible? If so, why are these targets not feasible, e.g., for technical reasons? What goals would be feasible in the long-term (10-year), and why? For reference, a supplementary memorandum to the docket is provided to further describe the type of information needed, “Target Development Example: Supplementary Memorandum to the Draft Guidance” (Ref. 7).

    6. Are the long-term (10-year) timeframes for these goals achievable? If the timeframes are not achievable, what timeframes would be challenging, but still achievable?

    7. What specific research needs or technological advances (if any) could enhance the food industry's ability to meet these goals? What are possible innovations in the area of sodium reduction and are there any unintended consequences associated with their use?

    8. What amendments to FDA's standard of identity regulations in 21 CFR parts 130-169 are needed to facilitate sodium reduction by permitting alternative ingredients to be used in standardized foods? For example, amendments could include revisions to specific standards (e.g., cheese or cheese products) and to the general requirements for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced sodium”) and a standardized term under 21 CFR 130.10.

    V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    VI. References

    The following references are on display in FDA's Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.

    1. IOM. “Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States,” Washington DC: The National Academies Press (2010).

    2. IOM. “Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence Institutes of Medicine (IOM) Report,” Washington DC: The National Academies Press (2013).

    3. Strom, B. L., C. A. M. Anderson, and J. H. Ix. “Sodium Reduction in Populations: Insights From the Institute of Medicine Committee.” Journal of the American Medical Association. July 3, 2013; 310(1): 31-32.

    4. “Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,” Part B, Chapter 6. http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/. Accessed March 9, 2015.

    5. Coxson, P. G., N. R. Cook, M. Joffres, Y. Hong, et al. “Mortality Benefits From U.S. Population-Wide Reduction in Sodium Consumption.” Hypertension. March 2013; 61:564-570.

    6. Mattes, R. D. and D. Donnelly. “Relative Constitutions of Dietary Sodium Sources.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition. August 1991;10(4):383-93.

    7. FDA. “Memo: Target Development Example: Supplementary Memorandum to the Draft Guidance (2016).”

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12950 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1543] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and title “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products.” Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Guidance for Industry on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    The guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products” describes FDA's current thinking on the need for biological products licensed under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to bear a nonproprietary name that includes an FDA-designated suffix. There is a need to clearly identify biological products to facilitate pharmacovigilance and, for the purposes of safe use, to minimize inadvertent substitution. Accordingly, for biological products licensed under the PHS Act, FDA intends to designate a nonproprietary name that includes a core name and a distinguishing suffix. This naming convention is applicable to biological products previously licensed and newly licensed under section 351(a) or 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a) or 262(k)).

    The guidance includes information collection by requesting that applicants propose a suffix composed of four lowercase letters for use as the distinguishing identifier included in the proper name designated by FDA at the time of licensure for biological products licensed under the PHS Act. The suffix will be incorporated in the nonproprietary name of the product. The guidance recommends that applicants should submit up to 10 proposed suffixes, in the order of the applicant's preference. We also recommend including supporting analyses demonstrating that the proposed suffixes meet the factors described in the guidance for FDA's consideration.

    As indicated in table 1, we estimate that we will receive a total of 40 requests annually for the proposed proper name for biological products submitted under section 351(a) of the PHS Act, and 6 requests annually for the proposed proper name for biosimilar products and interchangeable products submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The average burden per response (hours) is based on our experience with similar information collection requirements for applicants to create and submit suffix proposals to FDA and in consideration of comments received in response to our 60-day notice.

    In the Federal Register of August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52296), we published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. Most comments supported our proposal to designate a suffix. Many comments suggested that a meaningful, distinguishable suffix may help to improve pharmacovigilance, enhance safety, and facilitate identification between biological products. Some comments supported use of a random suffix to avoid creating an unfair advantage for specific manufacturers. Several comments stated that the current practices of FDA and non-FDA entities for identifying biosimilar and interchangeable products is sufficient for the purpose of pharmacovigilance, and designation of a suffix is not needed. One comment stated that FDA's estimate of 6 hours to submit proposed suffixes is based only on the time needed to prepare the submission itself after the multiple suffixes have been selected. The comment further stated that because FDA suggests that each respondent submit three suggested suffixes for consideration, the time needed to do an analysis of each suffix would exceed 720 hours per suffix (based on their own company experience) or 2,160 hours total for the three suffixes.

    In response to the comments we note that our estimated annual reporting burden results from information that would be submitted to us by applicants in order to facilitate Agency designation of a suffix as part of the proper name of a biological product. We estimated that sponsors would spend 2 hours completing the submission for each of the three suffixes, resulting in 6 hours as the average burden. This estimate is an annualized figure based on the average number of responses per respondent and the average burden per response over a 3-year period. We understand that there is a certain amount of research and other costs that an applicant might encounter in analyzing any proposed name for a biological product. We also recognize that the burden may be higher for some applicants and lower for other applicants based on a variety of factors specific to the applicant.

    The comment suggesting that it will take 720 hours to complete an analysis and submission for each suffix does not provide a basis by which the estimate was calculated or whether it is broadly applicable. We find this figure rather high and retain our original estimate of 6 hours. The latter figure is based on our familiarity with the average amount of time required by similar submissions to FDA. At the same time, the comment also suggested that we failed to adequately account for the time spent on creating proposed suffixes. In consideration, therefore, we have revised our estimate upward to account for burden associated with creating and submitting up to 10 proposed suffixes for designation, as reflected in table 1.

    FDA estimates the information collection burden as follows:

    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the collection are sponsors of biological product applications.

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Information for the Proposed Proper Name for Biological Products Submitted Under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act 20 2 40 420 16,800 Information for the Proposed Proper Name for Biosimilar Products and Interchangeable Products Submitted Under Section 351(k) of the PHS Act 3 2 6 420 2,520 Total 19,320 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information for the submission of a biologics license application (BLA) and changes (supplements) to an approved application under 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. The collections of information for the submission of a BLA under section 351(k) of the PHS Act (biosimilar products and interchangeable products) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12885 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps (NACNHSC).

    Dates and Times: June 22, 2016 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST.

    Place: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Conference Room #5E29, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Webinar and Conference Call Format.

    Status: This advisory council meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The NACNHSC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and, by designation, the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) on a range of issues including identifying the priorities for the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) and policy revisions.

    Agenda: The NACNHSC will refine the Council's top priorities for the NHSC and will continue to work on the draft of formal recommendations to submit to the HHS Secretary and the HRSA Administrator. During the March 2016 NACNHSC meeting, the Council identified its priorities for the NHSC. The Council will continue the discussion on how the priorities meet the goals of the 2016 Bureau of Health Workforce Strategic Plan. The priority areas include, but are not limited to, telehealth, Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) certification, mentorship and NHSC discipline expansion, specifically for mental and behavioral and oral health providers. The content of the agenda is subject to change prior to the meeting. The NACNHSC final agenda and call-in information will be available 3 days in advance of the meeting at http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/corpsexperience/aboutus/nationaladvisorycouncil/meetingsummaries/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please send requests for information to Dawn Smith, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, in one of two ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Dawn Smith, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 14N70B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; or (2) send an email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Further information regarding the NACNHSC, including the roster of members and past meeting summaries, is available at: http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/corpsexperience/aboutus/nationaladvisorycouncil/meetingsummaries/index.html.

    Members of the public and interested parties may request to participate in the meeting by contacting Dawn Smith via email at [email protected] to obtain access information. Access will be granted on a first come, first served basis. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed above at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. If you would like to provide oral public comment during the meeting, please register with Dawn Smith. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Statements and comments can be addressed to Dawn Smith by emailing her at [email protected]

    In addition, please be advised that committee members are given copies of all written statements submitted from the public. Any further public participation will be solely at the discretion of the Chair, with approval of the Designated Federal Official. Registration through the designated contact for the public comment session is required.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13052 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

    Date: June 12-14, 2016.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Alan P. Koretsky, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 35 Convent Drive, Room GF144, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2232, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12895 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel—Research Support Services for NIDA AIDS Program (1209).

    Date: June 21, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12894 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (NIDA) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016, pages 12913-12914 and allowed 60-days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institutes of Health may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Kevin P. Conway, Deputy Director, Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research, NIDA, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5185, Rockville, MD 20852; or call non-toll-free number (301) 443-8755 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Methodological Studies for the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (NIDA), 0925-0675, expiration date 5/31/2016—Reinstatement Without Change—NIDA, NIH, in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: This is a request to continue the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study's conduct of methodological studies in support of improvements in the Study's approaches for data and biospecimen collection. The PATH Study is a national longitudinal cohort study of tobacco use behavior and health among the U.S. household population of adults age 18 and older and youth ages 12 to 17; the Study conducts annual or biannual interviews and collects biospecimens from adults and youth to inform FDA's regulatory actions under the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act. The methodological studies under this reinstatement will continue to enhance the approaches used by the PATH Study for data and biospecimen collections to obtain high quality and useful data; minimize respondent burden; and achieve and maintain high response, retention, and follow-up rates.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total annualized burden hours are 29,750.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Type of
  • respondent
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • In-person and telephone surveys Adults 5,000 1 90/60 7,500 Youth 3,500 1 90/60 5,250 Web and smartphone/mobile phone surveys Adults 5,000 1 90/60 7,500 Youth 3,500 1 90/60 5,250 Focus groups and individual in-depth qualitative interviews Adults 1,000 1 2 2,000 Youth 1,000 1 2 2,000 Biospecimen collection Adults 1,000 1 15/60 250 Total 20,000 20,000 29,750
    Dated: May 27, 2016. Genevieve deAlmeida-Morris, Project Clearance Liaison, NIDA, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12994 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Behavioral Neuroscience.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Beacon Hotel and Corporate Quarters, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Mei Qin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR16-052 Fogarty NDC R21.

    Date: June 27-28, 2016.

    Time: 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Fungai Chanetsa, MPH, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3135, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9436, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Academic Industrial Partnership.

    Date: June 27, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Guo Feng Xu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5122, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9870, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Informatics.

    Date: June 27, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Claire E Gutkin, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3106, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3139, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Macromolecular Structure and Function.

    Date: June 27, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: William A Greenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1726, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: ACL Injury, Biomechanics and Osteoarthritis.

    Date: June 27, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Aftab A Ansari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4108, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9931, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics in Infectious Diseases.

    Date: June 27, 2016

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: John C Pugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2398, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: May 27, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12996 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel Fellowship Training Grants.

    Date: June 9, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Yujing Liu, Ph.D., MD., Chief, Office of Review, Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-5152, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12896 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Initial Review Group Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Clinical Trials Review Committee.

    Date: June 21-22, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Kathy Salaita, Sc.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 818, Bethesda, MD. 20892, 301-594-5033, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12893 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA SEP for Medications Development.

    Date: June 22, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Room 4228, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 451-3086, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Systems Biology Approaches in HIV/AIDS and Substance Use (R01).

    Date: July 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Gerald L. McLaughlin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-402-6626, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12998 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c) (6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR13-280: Program Project: Mechanisms of Membrane Fusion.

    Date: June 14, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: David R Jollie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4150, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)-435-1722, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Clinical Neuroplasticity and Neurotransmitters Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Suzan Nadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217B, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1259, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814

    Contact Person: Kimm Hamann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118A, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-5575, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Developmental Brain Disorders Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Pat Manos, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5200, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9866, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Chemo/Dietary Prevention Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Warwick Seattle Hotel, 401 Lenora Street, Seattle, WA 98121.

    Contact Person: Svetlana Kotliarova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-7945, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Discovery and Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: American Inn of Bethesda, 8130 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: John C Pugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1206, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2398, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 26, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12898 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive any unpublished information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Albumin Binding Immunomodulatory Compositions

    The invention relates to molecules wherein Evan's Blue dye is chemically conjugated to CpG Oligonucleotides that elicit anti-tumoral or infection fighting immunity. Evans Blue, a symmetric azo dye, has high binding affinity to albumin. Albumin binding ability of Evans blue is utilized with CpGs and tumor-specific antigens, in order to leverage endogenous albumin that increases the safety and the potency of molecular vaccines. As such, the molecular entities provided here enable efficient delivery and prolonged retention in lymph nodes and reduce systemic toxicity of Evans Blue and enhanced the therapeutic potency of molecular vaccines.

    Potential Commercial Applications: • Cancer therapeutics • Infectious disease therapeutics • Lymph node specificity • Higher stability/Lower toxicity Development Stage: • Early stage

    Inventors: Xiaoyuan Chen and Guizhi Zhu (both of NIBIB).

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-149-2016/0; U.S. Provisional Patent Applications 62/331,890 filed May 4, 2016.

    Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, Esq, CLP; 301-435-5019; [email protected]

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Michael Shmilovich, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Office of Technology Transfer and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12892 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Study of Center of Global Health's (CGH) Workshops (NCI) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Instititue, the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 and page 10638 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Cancer Institute, NCI, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact*: Sudha Sivaram, National Cancer Institute Center for Global Health, 9609 Medical Center Dr., Rm 3W528, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-5815 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected]. Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: The Study of the Center of Global Health's (CGH) Workshops (NCI), 0925-0722, Expiration Date 06/30/2018, REVISION, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: This study is collecting stakeholder feedback from past and future workshops; to assess the effectiveness of the Center of Global Health (CGH) workshops, which seek to assess abilities of the workshop attendees and respective countries to implement national cancer control programs; inform content and improve delivery of future workshops, and to systematically assess CGH's contribution. The workshops to be studied are the Symposiums on Global Cancer Research, Workshops in Cancer Control Planning and Implementation, the Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention, Women's Cancer Program Summit, Regional Grant Writing and Peer Review Workshops, and Workshops on Tobacco Control. While these workshops differ in content and delivery style, their underlying goals are the same; they intend to initiate and enhance cancer control efforts, increase capacity for cancer research, foster new partnerships, and create research and cancer control networks. The proposed study requests information about the outcomes of each of these workshops including (1) new cancer research partnerships and networks (2) cancer control partnerships and networks, (3) effects on cancer research, and (4) effect on cancer control planning and implementation efforts. Information will be collected in two phases where Phase 1 will collect information from attendees of past workshops (1998-2015) and Phase 2 will collect information from attendees of future workshops over the next three years. The surveys will enable CGH to better understand the impact the workshops have had on their partnerships and networks, research, and cancer control planning and implementation efforts.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 941.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • per year
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Chief Executives, Medical Scientists, Health Educators, Family/General Practitioners, Registered Nurses, Medical and Health Services Managers Phase 1: Symposium on Global Cancer Research
  • Phase 2: Symposium on Global Cancer Research
  • Phase 1: Workshop in Cancer Control Planning and Implementation for non-Ministry of Health participants
  • 500
  • 250
  • 70
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 20/60
  • 20/60
  • 20/60
  • 167
  • 84
  • 23
  • Phase 2: Workshop in Cancer Control Planning and Implementation for non-Ministry of Health participants 70 1 20/60 23 Phase 1: Workshop in Cancer Control Planning and Implementation for Ministry of Health 70 1 20/60 23 Phase 2: Workshop in Cancer Control Planning and Implementation for Ministry of Health 70 1 20/60 23 Phase 1: Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention (Attach 3D) 500 1 30/60 250 Phase 2: Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention 27 1 30/60 14 Phase 1: Women's Cancer Program Summit 140 1 20/60 47 Phase 2: Women's Cancer Program Summit 140 1 20/60 47 Phase 1: Regional Grant Writing and Peer Review Workshop 150 1 30/60 75 Phase 2: Regional Grant Writing and Peer Review Workshop 60 1 30/60 30 Phase 1: Workshops on Tobacco Control 180 1 30/60 90 Phase 2: Workshops on Tobacco Control 90 1 30/60 45 Totals 2,317 2,317 941
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12995 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Sensory and Cognitive Processes.

    Date: June 21-22, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jana Drgonova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 5213, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Drug Discovery and Development.

    Date: June 27, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Sergei Ruvinov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1180, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Pregnancy and Neonatology Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Michael Knecht, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6176, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1046, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Molecular and Cellular Substrates of Complex Brain Disorders.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington Embassy Row, 2015 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Deborah L. Lewis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4183, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9129, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Nephrology.

    Date: June 28-29, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic Processes Study Section.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin Georgetown, 2350 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Gregory S. Shelness, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6156, Bethesda, MD 20892-7892, 301-755-4335, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Molecular Probes.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Mary Custer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1164, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Sciences.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Maria Nurminskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1222, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Sciences.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Rajiv Kumar, Ph.D., Chief, MOSS IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4216, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1212, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Hormonal Regulation of Bone Metabolism.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Rajiv Kumar, Ph.D., Chief, MOSS IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4216, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1212, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Psychosocial Development, Risk and Prevention.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Anna L. Riley, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7759, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2889, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Gastrointestinal Inflammation and Development.

    Date: June 28, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12997 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2016-0142] Towing Safety Advisory Committee; June 2016 Teleconference AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet, via teleconference, to receive two additional tasks: One on the implementation of 46 Code of Federal Regulations subchapter M and the other on training requirement for firefighting equipment for inland towing vessels. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The full committee will meet by teleconference on Tuesday, June 22, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that this meeting may close early if the Committee has completed its business. To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain the needed information no later than 1 p.m. on June 15, 2016. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Written comments for distribution to Committee members before the meeting must be submitted no later than June 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the docket for this notice, USCG-2016-0142, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. If you encounter technical difficulties, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management system in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0142 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William J. Abernathy, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1363, fax 202-372-8382 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting via teleconference is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5 U.S.C. Appendix). As stated in 33 U.S.C. 1231a, the Towing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety.

    Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the June 22, 2016, teleconference is as follows:

    (1) Assignment of new tasking to the Committee for “Recommendations on the Implementation of 46 Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter M—Towing Vessels” (Short Title: Subchapter M Implementation). Work on this task is to begin after the Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule publishes.

    (2) Assignment of new tasking to the Committee for “Recommendation Regarding Firefighting Training Requirements for Officer Endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, Except Utility Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in Inland Service” (Short title: “Firefighting Training Requirements”).

    During the June 22, 2016 meeting via teleconference, a public comment period will be held from approximately 2:45 p.m. to 3 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Please note that this public comment period may start before 2:45 p.m. if all other agenda items have been covered and may end before 3 p.m. if all of those wishing to comment have done so.

    Minutes

    Minutes from the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 30 days following the meeting at https://homeport.uscg.mil/tsac.

    Notice of Future 2016 Towing Safety Advisory Committee Meetings

    To receive automatic email notices of any future Towing Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2016, go to the online docket, USCG-2016-0142 (http://www.regulations.gov/1B!docketDetail;D=USCG-2016-0142), and select the sign-up-for-email-alerts option. We plan to use the same docket number for all Towing Safety Advisory Committee meeting notices in 2016, so if another 2016 meeting notice is published you will receive an email alert from www.regulations.gov when the notice appears in this docket.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12963 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-21118; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 14, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 14, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    ALABAMA Colbert County Florence, Alabama Music Enterprises (FAME) Recording Studios, 603 Avalon Ave., Muscle Shoals, 16000397 Conecuh County Evergreen School, 100 City School Dr., Evergreen, 16000398 Jefferson County North Lakeview Industrial District, 2801-3211 2nd & 2810-3130 3rd Aves. S., 216-31 29th, 130 30th, 230 31st & 205 32nd Sts., S., Birmingham, 16000399 Mobile County Automobile Alley Historic District, 156-157 N. Cedar, 108 N. Dearborn, 100-101 N. Franklin, 156 N. Hamilton, 163 N. Lawrence, 453-701 St. Anthony Sts., Mobile, 16000400 ALASKA Juneau Borough-Census Area X'unaxi, Address Restricted, Juneau, 16000401 ARKANSAS Carroll County Berryville Commercial Historic District, Public Square, Berryville, 16000402 KANSAS Atchison County Martin, John A., Grade School, (Public Schools of Kansas MPS) 507 Division, Atchison, 16000403 Brown County Iowa Tribe Community Building, (New Deal-Era Resources of Kansas MPS) 330th Rd., White Cloud, 16000404 Neosho County Oak Grove School, District 20, (Public Schools of Kansas MPS) 20505 20th Rd., St. Paul, 16000405 Scott County Steele, Herbert and Eliza, House, W. Scott Lake Dr., Scott City, 16000406 Sedgwick County Colorado—Derby Building, 201 N. Water St., Wichita, 16000407 MARYLAND Caroline County Chambers Park Log Cabin, Liberty Rd., Federalsburg, 16000408 MASSACHUSETTS Suffolk County Francis Street—Fenwood Road Historic District, Roughly bounded by Huntington Ave., Francis, Vining & Fenwood Sts., St. Albans Rd., Boston, 16000409 MICHIGAN Kalamazoo County Fountain of the Pioneers, (Kalamazoo MRA) Bronson Park, bounded by Academy, Rose, South & Park Sts., Kalamazoo, 16000417 MONTANA Blaine County Ervin Homestead—Gist Bottom Historic District, River Mile 122.3 Left, Hays, 16000410 NEW YORK Columbia County Columbia Turnpike East Tollhouse, NY 23, Hillsdale, 16000411 Rensselaer County Methodist Episcopal Church of Lansingburgh, 600 3rd Ave., Lansingsburgh, 16000412 OREGON Josephine County Grey, Zane, Cabin, N. bank of Rogue R., Galice, 16000413 SOUTH CAROLINA Berkeley County Gippy Plantation, 366 Avenue of Oaks, Moncks Corner, 16000414 SOUTH DAKOTA Clay County Bluff Historic District, Oak Pl., Court, Kidder, Church & Bloomingdale Sts., Vermillion, 16000415 TENNESSEE Davidson County Fire Hall for Engine Company No. 18, 1220 Gallatin Ave., Nashville, 16000416 UTAH Salt Lake County Bourne, Ernie and Irmgard, House, (Mount Olympus—Millcreek Community MPS) 3460 E. Ranch View Dr., Millcreek Township, 16000418 Butler, Donald and Erma, House, (Mount Olympus—Millcreek Community MPS) 3450 E. Ranch View Dr., Millcreek Township, 16000419 Fish—Baughman House, (Mount Olympus—Millcreek Community MPS) 3436 E. Ranch View Dr., Millcreek Township, 16000420 WISCONSIN Sheboygan County Downtown Plymouth Historic District, Generally bounded by the 100, 200, 300 & 400 blks. of E. Mill St., Plymouth, 16000421 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60

    Dated: May 18, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12982 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-21141; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 21, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 21, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    CALIFORNIA Santa Clara County Willow Glen Trestle over Los Gatos Creek, On former Western Pacific RR. approx. 1/4 mi. N. of jct. of Coe Ave. & Leona Ct., San Jose, 16000422 FLORIDA Orange County Laughlin, James, House, 5538 Sydonie Dr., Mount Dora, 16000423 MASSACHUSETTS Hampden County Chapin School, 40 Meadow St., Chicopee, 16000424 OREGON Clackamas County Willamette National Cemetery, 11800 SE. Mt. Scott Blvd., Portland, 16000426 PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia County Delaware Station of the Philadelphia Electric Company, The, 1325 Beach St., Philadelphia, 16000427 Times Finishing Works, 1136-1148 N. American St., Philadelphia, 16000428 WISCONSIN Dane County Willow Drive Mounds and Habitation Site Complex, (Late Woodland Stage in Archeological Region 8 MPS) N. end of Willow Dr., Madison, 16000430 Marathon County Dells of the Eau Claire County Park, P2150 Cty. Rd. Y, Plover, 16000429

    A request for removal was received for the following resource:

    TENNESSEE Marion County Marion Memorial Bridge, US 41 at Nickajack Lake, Haletown, 07000930 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12984 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-959] Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 42) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainant's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), on June 25, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (“PBL”). 80 FR 36576-77 (Jun. 25, 2015). The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric skin care devices, brushes and chargers therefor, and kits containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,320,691 and 7,386,906, and U.S. Design Patent No. D523,809. The complaint further alleges violations of section 337 by reason of trade dress infringement, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. Id. The complaint named numerous respondents. The Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations was named as a party.

    During the course of the investigation, eight of the respondents were terminated by consent order: Nutra-Luxe M.D., LLC of Fort Myers, Florida (Order No. 10) (consent order issued Jan. 5, 2016); SkincarebyAlana of Dana Point, California (Order No. 11) (consent order issued Oct. 6, 2015); Unicos USA, Inc. of LaHabra, California (Order No. 15) (consent order issued Oct. 20, 2015); H2PRO Beautylife, Inc. of Placentia, California (Order No. 19) (consent order issued Oct. 22, 2015); Jewlzie of New York, New York (Order No. 20) (consent order issued Oct. 22, 2015); Home Skinovations Inc. of Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, and Home Skinovations Ltd. of Yokneam, Israel (Order No. 30) (consent order issued Dec. 23, 2015); and Accord Media, LLC of New York, New York (Order No. 31) (consent order issued Dec. 23, 2015). Respondent RN Ventures Ltd. of London, United Kingdom, was terminated based on a settlement agreement (Order No. 36) (not reviewed Feb. 4, 2016). Respondents Michael Todd LP and MTTO LLC, both of Port St. Lucie, Florida, were also terminated based on a settlement agreement (Order No. 37) (not reviewed Mar. 3, 2016).

    The remaining ten respondents were found in default: Coreana Cosmetics Co., Ltd. of Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea; Flageoli Classic Limited of Las Vegas, Nevada; Serious Skin Care, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada; Shanghai Anzikang Electric Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China; and Wenzhou Ai Er Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. of ZheJiang, China (Order No. 13) (not reviewed, as modified by Order No. 15, Oct. 20, 2015); ANEX Corporation of Seoul, Republic of Korea; Korean Beauty Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; and Our Family Jewels, Inc. of Parker, Colorado (Order No. 18) (not reviewed Oct. 22, 2015); Beauty Tech, Inc. of Coral Gables, Florida (Order No. 24) (not reviewed Nov. 13, 2015); and Xnovi Electronic Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (Order No. 32) (not reviewed Dec. 23, 2015) (collectively, “the defaulting Respondents”).

    On February 18, 2016, complainant PBL filed a motion for summary determination of violation of Section 337 by the defaulting Respondents. The Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed.

    On April 11, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 42) granting complainant's motion and making recommendations regarding remedy and bonding. The IA filed a timely petition for review-in-part of the ID. No other party petitioned for review of the ID. Complainant PBL filed a response in support of the IA's petition. No other responses were filed.

    The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the patent-based allegations, all issues related to violation of the asserted trade dress, and to correct certain minor typographical errors. The Commission does not request any submissions on the issues under review.

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Commission Opinion).

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to provide the expiration dates of each of the asserted patents, and state the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused articles are imported. Complainant is also requested to supply the names of known importers of the infringing articles. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on June 9, 2016. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on June 16, 2016. Such submissions should address the ALJ's recommended determinations on remedy and bonding which were made in Order No. 42. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-959”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12923 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-946] Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to issue: (1) A general exclusion order (“GEO”) barring entry of certain ink cartridges and components thereof that infringe the patents asserted in this investigation; and (2) cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) directed against two domestic defaulting respondents. The Commission has terminated this investigation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), on January 27, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc. and Seiko Epson Corporation (collectively, “Epson,” or Complainants). 80 FR 4314-16 (Jan. 27, 2015). The complaint alleges a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,366,233 (“the '233 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,454,116 (“the '116 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,794,749 (“the '749 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,801,163 (“the '163 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,882,513 (“the '513 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) by numerous respondents. Id. In particular, the notice of investigation named the following nineteen entities as respondents: Zhuhai Nano Digital Technology Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Nano Business & Technology, Inc. of Lake Oswego, Oregon; Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Huebon Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong; Chancen Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Zhuhai Rich Imaging Technology Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Shanghai Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China; Orink lnfotech International Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Zinyaw LLC of Houston, Texas; Yotat Group Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Yotat (Zhuhai) Technology Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Kingway Image Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Chinamate Technology Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; InkPro2day, LLC of Los Angeles, California; Dongguan OcBestjet Printer Consumables Co., Ltd. of Dongguan, China; OcBestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Aomya Printer Consumables (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; and Zhuhai Richeng Development Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China. The Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party.

    On June 18, 2015, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) finding in default respondents Huebon Co.; Ltd., Chancen Co., Ltd.; Yotat Group Co., Ltd.; Ourway Image Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd.; Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd.; Kingway Image Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai Chinamate Technology Co., Ltd.; Yotat (Zhuhai) Technology Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai Richeng Development Co., Ltd.; Dongguan OcBestjet Printer Consumables Co., Ltd.; OcBestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd.; Zinyaw LLC; InkPro2day; LLC, Aomya Printer Consumables (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd.; and Zhuhai Rich Imaging Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”) (not reviewed Jul. 10, 2015). On July 8, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 10) terminating the investigation as to remaining named respondents Zhuhai Nano Digital Technology, Co., Ltd. (China) and Nano Business and Technology, Inc. (USA) based on a settlement agreement and consent order (not reviewed Aug. 5, 2015).

    All of the respondents in this investigation have either defaulted or entered into consent orders that have been approved by the Commission. On September 16, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 11) partially terminating the investigation based on Epson's withdrawal of certain claims (not reviewed Oct. 15, 2015). Claims 1 and 10 of the '233 patent; claims 9, 14, 18, and 21 of the '116 patent; claims 1, 18, 49, and 60 of the '749 patent; claims 1 and 6 of the '163 patent; and claims 14, 15, and 19 of the '513 patent remain pending in this investigation. ID at 3.

    On August 31, 2015, Epson filed a motion for summary determination of violation by the Defaulting Respondents. The IA filed a response in support of the motion on September 11, 2015. No respondent filed a response to the motion.

    On October 28, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (order No. 12) granting Complainants' motion for summary determination. No party petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission determined to review-in-part the subject ID and, on review, to affirm the ID with certain modifications to the ALJ's findings regarding the importation requirement. Notice of Commission Determination To Review an ID in Part and, on Review, to Affirm a Finding of a Violation of Section 337 dated December 14, 2015 (“Commission Notice”) at 2. See 80 Fed. Reg. 79097-99 (Dec. 18, 2015). The Commission's determination resulted in a finding of a violation of section 337.

    The Commission requested written submissions on remedy, public interest, and bonding. Id. Complainants and OUII timely filed their submissions pursuant to the Commission Notice. No other parties filed submissions in response to the Commission Notice. No submissions were filed by the public.

    Having reviewed the submissions filed in response to the Commission's Notice and the evidentiary record, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is: (a) A GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof covered by one or more of claims 1 and 10 of the '233 patent; claims 9, 14, 18, and 21 of the '116 patent; claims 1, 18, 49, and 60 of the '749 patent; claims 1 and 6 of the '163 patent; and claims 14, 15, and 19 of the '513 patent; and (b) CDOs directed against respondents Zinyaw and InkPro2day.

    The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above-referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the entered value is required to permit temporary importation of the articles in question during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission has also issued an opinion explaining the basis for the remedy. The investigation is terminated.

    The Commission's orders and the record upon which it based its determination were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The Commission has also notified the Secretary of the Treasury of the orders.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12922 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Amended Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received an amended complaint entitled Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Accompanying Product Catalogues, Product Inserts, Literature and Components Thereof DN 3128; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the amended complaint or complainants' filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the amended complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received an amended complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Laerdal Medical Corp. and Laerdal Medical AS on March 21, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain carbon spine board, cervical collar and various medical training manikin devices, and accompanying product catalogues, product inserts, literature and components thereof. The amended complaint names as respondents Shanghai Evenk International Trading Co., Ltd. of China; Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development Co., Ltd. of China; Shanghai Jolly Medical Education Co., Ltd. of China; Zhangjiagang Xiehe Medical Apparatus & Instruments Co., Ltd. of China; Zhangjiagang New Fellow Med. Co., Ltd. of China; Jiangsu Yongxin Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. of China; Jiangsu Yongxin Medical-Use Facilities Making Co., Ltd. of China; Jiangyin Everise Medical Devices Co., Ltd. of China; Medsource International Co., Ltd. and Medsource Factory, Inc. of China; and Basic Medical Supply, LLC of Richmond, TX. The complainants request that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative issue a limited exclusion order, and issue cease and desist orders.

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the amended complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainants in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3128”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

    5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12879 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1002] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 26, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A supplement to the complaint was filed on May 16, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; and (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 26, 2016, ordered that -

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; or (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: United States Steel Corporation, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Hebei Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd., 385 Sports South Avenue, Shijiazhuang City, 050023 Hebei Province, China Hebei Iron & Steel Group Hengshui Strip Rolling Co., Ltd., No. 29 Yuhua West Road, Tangcheng District, Hengshui City, 053000 Hebei Province, China Hebei Iron & Steel (Hong Kong) International Trade Co., Ltd., Suite 2705, 27th Floor, No. 9 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong, China Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation, Baoshan Iron & Steel Building, 370 Pudian, Pudong New Area, 200122 Shanghai, China Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Baosteel Administrative Center, No. 885 Fujin Road, Baoshan District, 201900 Shanghai, China Baosteel America Inc., 85 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, NJ 07645 Jiangsu Shagang Group, Yongxin Road, Zhangjiagang, 215625 Jiangsu Province, China Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd., 4,5/F, Shagang Building, Jinfeng Town, Zhangjiagang, 215625 Jiangsu Province, China Anshan Iron and Steel Group, 77 Dong Shan Street, Tie Dong District, Anshan City, 114009 Liaoning Province, China Angang Group International Trade Corporation, No. 322 South Zhonghua Road, Tiedong District, 114002 Anshan, Liaoning Province, China Angang Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd., Room 3412-13, 34/F Convention Plaza Office Tower, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong, China Wuhan Iron and Steel Group Corp., Changqian, Qingshan District, 430083 Hubei Province, China Wuhan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., 3 Yangang Road, Qingshan District, Wuhan City, 430083 Hubei Province, China WISCO America Co., Ltd., 2006 Birch Street, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Shougang Group, 68 Shijingshan Road, Shijingshan District, 100041 Beijing, China China Shougang International Trade & Engineering Corporation, 60 North Street, Xizhimen, Haidian District, Beijing, China Shandong Iron and Steel Group Co. Ltd., 4 Shuntai Square, No. 2000 Shunhua Road, Jinan City, 250101 Shandong Province, China Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., 21 Gongye North Road, Licheng District, Jinan City, 250101 Shandong Province, China Jigang Hong Kong Holdings Co., Ltd., Room 4206, 42/F, Convention Plaza, 1 Harbour Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China Jinan Steel International Trade Co., Ltd., 21 Gongye North Road, Licheng District, Jinan City, 250101 Shandong Province, China Magang Group Holding Co. Ltd., 8 Jiuhuaxi Road, Maanshan City, 243003 Anhui Province, China Maanshan Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., 8 Jiuhuaxi Road, Maanshan City,243003 Anhui Province, China Bohai Iron and Steel Group, No. 74 MaChang Road, Heping District, 300050 Tianjin, China Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation, 396 Jintang Highway, Dongli District, 300301 Tianjin Province, China Tianjin Pipe International Economic & Trading Corporation, 396 Jintang Highway, Dongli District, 300301 Tianjin Province, China TPCO Enterprise, Inc., 10700 Richmond Avenue, Suite # 302, Houston, Texas 77042 TPCO America Corporation, 5431 Highway 35, Gregory, Texas 78359 Benxi Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., 16 Renmin Road, Pingshan District, Benxi City, 117000 Liaoning Province, China Benxi Iron and Steel (Group) International Economic and Trading Co. Ltd., 8/F, 9 Dongming Avenue, Pingshan District, Benxi City, 117000 Liaoning Province, China Hunan Valin Steel Co. Ltd., No. 222 House Road, Changsha City, 410004 Hunan Province, China Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Yuetang Road, Yuetang District, Xiangtan City, 411101 Hunan Province, China Tianjin Tiangang Guanye Co., Ltd., 1-13 Zhufangyuan, Duwang New City, Beichen District, 300400 Tianjin, China Wuxi Sunny Xin Rui Science and Technology Co., Ltd., 21 Shixin Road, Dongbeitang, Xishan District, 214000 Wuxi Province, China Taian JNC Industrial Co., Ltd., 666 Nantianmen Street, Hi-Tech Industry Development Zone, Tai'an City, 271000 Shandong Province, China EQ Metal (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Rm. 803, 86 Sibao Road, Sijing Town, Songjiang District, Shanghai, China Kunshan Xinbei International Trade Co., Ltd., No. 351, Lvzhou Shanyu, Yushan Town, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China Tianjin Xinhai Trade Co., Ltd., Floor 11, Tonggang Liye Building, Junliangcheng, Dongli District, 300450 Tianjin, China Tianjin Xinlianxin Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., 8 Juhai Road, Jinghai Development Area, 301600 Tianjin, China Tianjin Xinyue Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd., Daqiuzhuang Industrial Area, 301606 Tianjin, China Xian Linkun Materials (Steel Pipe Supplies) Co., Ltd., Compound A8, E-Pang Road, Lianhu District, Xi'an City, 710005 Shaanxi Province, China

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 26, 2016 Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12935 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (16-038)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data. This task force reports to the NASA Advisory Council's Science Committee. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting and discussing, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to big data.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Thursday, June 30, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, Local Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Building 28, Room E210, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 800-988-9663, passcode 4718658, to participate in this meeting by telephone. A toll number also is available, 1-517-308-9427 passcode 4718658. The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number is 997 975 025 and the password is [email protected]@16-2. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

    —NASA's Science Data Cyber-Infrastructure —Access to NASA Science Mission Data Repositories —Big Data Best Practices in Government, Academia and Industry —Federal Big Data Initiatives —Resources and Concerns Specific to Big Data at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to the Goddard Space Flight Center. Due to the Real ID Act, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states are: American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship and Permanent Residents (green card holders) can provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance by contacting by contacting Ms. Briana E. Horton, via email at [email protected] or by fax at (301) 286-1714. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Patricia D. Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13033 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-409 and 72-046; NRC-2015-0279] In the Matter of LaCrosse Solutions, LLC; Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Direct transfer of license; order.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the direct transfer of Possession Only License No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) from the current holder, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), to LaCrosseSolutions, LLC (LS) a wholly-owned subsidiary of EnergySolutions, LLC (ES). The NRC is also amending the facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the license transfer from DPC to LS. The NRC confirmed that LS met the regulatory, legal, technical, and financial obligations necessary to qualify them as a transferee, and determined that the transferee is qualified to be the holder of the license; and the transfer of the license is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission. The order approving the transfer of the LACBWR license to ES became effective on May 20, 2016.

    DATES:

    The Order was issued on May 20, 2016, and is effective for one year.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0279 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0279. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; or via email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at: 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or via email to: [email protected] The license transfer Order, the NRC safety evaluation supporting the staff's findings, and the conforming license amendment are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16123A073, ML16123A074, and ML16123A057, respectively.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marlayna G. Vaaler, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Order is attached.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of May 2016.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrea L. Kock, Deputy Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    Attachment—Order Approving the Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment United States of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Dairyland Power Cooperative; La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Docket Nos. 50-409 and 72-046 License No. DPR-45   Order Approving the Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment I

    Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) is the holder of Possession Only License No. DPR-45, which authorizes the possession and maintenance of the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR). LACBWR permanently ceased operations on April 30, 1987, and reactor defueling was completed on June 11, 1987. In a letter dated August 4, 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) terminated DPC's authority to operate LACBWR under Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45, and a possess but not operate status was granted. By letter dated August 18, 1988, the NRC amended DPC's Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 to Possession Only License No. DPR-45 to reflect the permanently defueled configuration at LACBWR. The NRC issued an Order to authorize decommissioning of LACBWR and approve the proposed Decommissioning Plan on August 7, 1991. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 50.82(a)(1)(iii) and Section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), operations at LACBWR are no longer authorized under the 10 CFR part 50 license, and DPC is licensed to possess, but not use or operate, LACBWR under Possession Only License No. DPR-45, subject to the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Vernon County, Wisconsin.

    II

    By letter dated October 8, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15307A310), as supplemented by letter dated December 15, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A147), DPC submitted an application, pursuant to Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and 10 CFR 50.80, “Transfer of Licenses,” requesting NRC approval for the direct transfer of DPC's Possession Only License No. DPR-45 for LACBWR to LaCrosseSolutions, LLC (LS).

    DPC intends to transfer its licensed possession, maintenance, and decommissioning authorities to LS in order to implement expedited decommissioning at LACBWR. DPC will remain the licensed owner of LACBWR and hold title to and ownership of the real estate and lease hold interests, title to and ownership of the spent nuclear fuel, and title to and ownership of all improvements at the LACBWR site. LS will lease the above-ground LACBWR structures (other than the LACBWR independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)) and will assume responsibility for all licensed activities at LACBWR, including responsibilities for decommissioning. LS will assume responsibility for the maintenance and security of the ISFSI site, while DPC will provide for operation, maintenance, and security of the ISFSI site under a Company Services Agreement with LS. DPC will retain financial responsibility for operation, maintenance, and security of the ISFSI and other related costs. LS was expressly created for the purpose of decommissioning LACBWR and releasing the site for unrestricted use, except for the ISFSI. After the transfer, LS will complete the decommissioning of the LACBWR facility.

    Upon issuance of a license amendment providing for termination of the facility operating license, except for the ISFSI site, and upon receipt of a future NRC license transfer approval, LS will transfer responsibility for the LACBWR license back to DPC. Thereafter, DPC will maintain the ISFSI, and the ultimate disposition of the spent nuclear fuel will be provided for under the terms of DPC's Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Waste with the U.S. Department of Energy. DPC will also continue to maintain its nuclear decommissioning trust, a grantor trust in which funds are segregated from its assets and outside its administrative control, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1).

    The application also requested approval of a conforming amendment to the license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 50.90. No physical or operational changes to the facility were requested beyond those encompassed in the LACBWR Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.

    Notice of the application was published in the Federal Register (FR) on March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14898). The December 15, 2015, letter contained clarifying information, did not expand the application beyond the scope of the original notice, and did not affect the applicability of the NRC's generic no significant hazards consideration determination. No requests for hearing or comments were received.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements contained in the application, the NRC staff has determined that LS is qualified to be the holder of the license, and that the transfer of the license to LS, as described in the application, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto, subject to the condition set forth below.

    Upon review of the application for a conforming amendment to the LACBWR license to reflect the transfer to LS, the NRC staff determined the following:

    (1) The application for the proposed license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I.

    (2) There is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations.

    (3) The issuance of the proposed license amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

    (4) The issuance of the proposed license amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations, and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

    The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety evaluation dated May 20, 2016, which is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML16123A074.

    III

    Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered that the transfer of the license, as described herein, to LS is approved, subject to the following condition:

    Prior to the closing of the license transfer from DPC to LS, LS shall provide the Directors of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) satisfactory documentary evidence that it has obtained the appropriate amount of insurance required of a licensee under 10 CFR 140.12 and 10 CFR 50.54(w) of the Commission's regulations, consistent with the exemptions issued to LACBWR on June 26, 1986.

    It is further ordered that, consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), the license amendment that makes changes, as indicated in Enclosure 2 to the cover letter forwarding this Order, to conform the license to reflect the subject direct license transfer is approved. The amendment shall be issued and made effective at the time the proposed direct license transfer is completed.

    It is further ordered that LS shall inform the Directors of NMSS and NRR in writing of the date of closing of the transfer of the DPC interests in LACBWR, at least 1 business day prior to closing. Should the transfer of the license not be completed within 1 year of this Order's date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void; provided, however, that upon written application and for good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.

    This Order is effective upon issuance.

    For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated October 8, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated December 15, 2015, and the associated NRC safety evaluation dated May 20, 2016, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems with ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Scott Moore, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13013 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028; NRC-2008-0441] Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Consolidation of Class 1E DC and Uninterruptible Power Supply System Spare Battery Termination Boxes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow changes to the certification information of Tier 1 of the AP1000 generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 43 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), and South Carolina Public Service Authority (together called the licensee) in March 2012, for the construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    DATES:

    June 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by letter dated December 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14353A126). The licensee supplemented this request by letter dated February 25, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15056A429).

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Specific information on NRC's PDR is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/pdr.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William (Billy) Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” and issuing License Amendment No. 43 to COLs, NPF-93 and NPF-94, to the licensee. The exemption is required by paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to change Tier 1 information.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently. Specifically, the amendments allow the implementation of changes to the Class 1E dc and Uninterruptible Power Supply System (IDS), replacing four spare termination boxes with a single spare battery termination box and minor cable raceway and cable routing changes. The exemptions allow the implementation of changes to the plant-specific Tier 1 UFSAR that are different from those in the generic Tier 1 information in the AP1000 Certified Design Control Document.

    With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes related to the plant-specific Tier 1 tables related to the Class 1E dc and uninterruptible power supply system. The Tier 1 tables contain inspection, test, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) and specifically, the licensee sought proposed changes to Tier 1 ITAAC Table 2.6.3-1 that contains lists Category I equipment and Tier 1 ITAAC Table 2.6.3-4 that contains component locations for this system. The proposed changes to plant-specific Tier 1 information also contain corresponding COL Appendix C and UFSAR Tier 2 information that would facilitate the replacement of four Class 1E DC and uninterruptible power supply system (IDS) spare termination boxes with a single spare battery termination box.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16068A149.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16068A119 and ML16068A120, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16068A113 and ML16068A117, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated December 19, 2014, supplemented February 25, 2015, the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SC&G/licensee) requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC/Commission) an exemption from the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for AP1000 Design,” Section VIII.B.6.b, Item (4), to allow a departure from the certified information as part of license amendment request (LAR) 13-29, “Consolidation of Class 1E DC and Uninterruptible Power Supply System Spare Battery Termination Boxes.”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation that supports this license amendment, which can be found at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML16068A149, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption, and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified AP1000 DCD Tier 1 information, as described in the licensee's request dated December 19, 2014, supplemented February 25, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 43, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation that supports this license amendment (ADAMS Accession Number ML16068A149), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated December 19, 2014. The licensee supplemented this request by the letter dated February 25, 2015. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27200). No comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    The NRC staff has found that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. The supplement dated February 25, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on December 19, 2014, and supplemented by the letter dated February 25, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on April 25, 2016, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16077A120).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    John McKirgan, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12917 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 071-9305; NRC-2016-0106] Nuclear Waste Partnerships, LLC AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for an exemption request from the Nuclear Waste Partnerships, LLC, (NWP) for the one-time shipment of transuranic waste in two TRUPACT-III packages from the Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South Carolina, to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), Carlsbad, New Mexico.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0106 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0106. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessie Muir Quintero, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7476; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is reviewing a request from NWP (or applicant), dated January 28, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14035A106), for an exemption—in accordance with section 71.12 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)— for the one-time transport of two Standard Large Box 2 (SLB2) waste boxes, each in a Model No. TRUPACT-III package.

    Specifically, NWP requested an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 71.61, “Special requirements for Type B packages containing more than 105A2,” (i.e., deep water immersion test). The applicant requested an exemption from the deep water immersion test because the design of a TRUPACT-III package containing more than 105A2 has not been demonstrated to meet the deep water immersion requirements of 10 CFR 71.61, i.e., the package's undamaged containment system has not been shown that it can withstand an external water pressure of 2 MegaPascal for a period of not less than 1 hour without collapse, buckling, or in-leakage of water.

    Along with the exemption request, NWP also requested approval from the NRC for an increase in: (1) The A2 limit from less than 105A2 to 2.1 × 105A2 and (2) the authorized decay heat limit from 80 watts (W) to 190W. The A2 and decay heat limits are established in the TRUPACT-III Certificate of Compliance No. 9305, Revision No. 9 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15201A571).

    The TRUPACT-III is a shipping container used to transport transuranic (TRU) waste within an SLB2. The TRUPACT-III packages are front loaded in a horizontal position on custom-designed trailers for truck transport. The two TRUPACT-III packages will be transported by truck from the SRS in South Carolina, to the U.S. Department of Energy WIPP, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

    The SLB2 waste boxes have not been loaded into the TRUPACT-III packages yet and are currently sitting on a storage pad at SRS. The contents of each SLB2 waste box is primarily one half of a decommissioned tank used to process Plutonium-238.

    II. Environmental Assessment Summary

    Under the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30(a), the NRC staff developed an EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16119A075) to evaluate the proposed federal action, which is for the NRC to grant an exemption to NWP from the deep water immersion test requirements for the one-time transport of two TRUPACT-III packages from SRS to WIPP.

    The EA defines the NRC's proposed action (i.e., to grant NWP's exemption request from 10 CFR 71.61) and the purpose of and need for the proposed action. Evaluations of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action were presented, followed by the NRC's conclusion. Alternatives to the proposed action considered included: The no-action alternative (i.e., not granting the exemption); further segmenting the waste; using a different type of package; and storing the waste until the activity decays below 105A2. None of the alternatives are preferable to the proposed action because either the impacts are greater than the proposed action or they do not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

    The EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of granting the exemption of the two subject TRUPACT-III packages from the deep water immersion test. The only potential impacts from granting the exemption would be radiological impacts associated with an accident scenario. However, the analysis in the EA shows that there would be no radiological impacts as a result of exempting these two packages from the deep water immersion test since the packages will not cross bodies of water with depths greater than 15 meters (m) (50 feet [ft]). Any nonradiological impacts would be no greater than those for the transport of any other TRUPACT-III package and would be bounded by previous environmental analysis (NUREG-0170, ADAMS Accession No. ML12192A283). Therefore, the environmental impacts of transporting these two TRUPACT-III packages from SRS to WIPP are still bounded by those impacts documented in NUREG-0170.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared an EA and FONSI in support of the proposed action. The EA is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML16119A075. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action, for the NRC to grant an exemption to NWP from the deep water immersion test for the transport of two SLB2 waste boxes in Model No. TRUPACT-III packages from SRS to WIPP, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. The environmental impacts of the two packages are bounded by previous NRC environmental analysis since the packages will not cross bodies of water greater than 15 m (50 ft) in depth.

    The NRC provided the States of South Carolina and New Mexico a draft copy of this EA for a 30-day review on April 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16032A178 and ML16032A175, respectively). The NRC did not receive any comments on the draft EA (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16134A603 and ML16144A079, respectively).

    The NRC staff has determined that the exemption from the deep water immersion test for the two subject packages would have no impact on historic and cultural resources or ecological resources and, therefore, no consultations are necessary under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act respectively.

    The NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of May, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Craig G. Erlanger, Acting Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13014 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0094] Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed policy statement; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised and consolidated two policy statements on NRC's Agreement State Programs: the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program.” The resulting proposed single policy statement has been revised to add that public health and safety includes physical protection of agreement material.1

    1 The term ‘agreement material’ means the materials listed in Subsection 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), over which the States may receive regulatory authority.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 16, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0094. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN 12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Dimmick, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0694, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Background III. Discussion of Proposed Changes IV. Proposed Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0094 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0094.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is publicly available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0094 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    The “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) presents the NRC's policy for determining the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs. The “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) describes the respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and the States in the administration of programs carried out under the 274b. State Agreement.2 The application of these two policy statements has significant influence on the safety and security of agreement material and on regulation of the more than 22,000 Agreement State and NRC materials licensees.

    2 Section 274 of the AEA provides a statutory basis under which the NRC discontinues portions of its regulatory authority to license and regulate byproduct materials; source materials; and quantities of special nuclear materials under critical mass. The mechanism for the transfer of NRC's authority to a State is an agreement signed by the Governor of the State and the Chairman of the Commission, in accordance with Subsection 274b. of the AEA.

    In the 1990s, the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” were developed by working groups consisting of Agreement States representatives and the NRC staff. A number of workshops and meetings were also held to gather stakeholder input. The Commission approved both policy statements in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-95-112, “Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,” and SECY-95-115, “Final ‘Statement of Principles and Policy for Agreement State Program’ and ‘Procedures for Suspension and Termination of an Agreement State Program’,” dated June 29, 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003759325), but deferred implementation until all implementing procedures were completed and approved by the Commission. In the June 30, 1997, SRM to SECY-97-054, “Final Recommendations on Policy Statements and Implementing Procedures for: ‘Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program’ and ‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs’,” the Commission approved the accompanying implementing procedures for the policy statements (ADAMS Accession No. ML051610710). The policy statements became effective on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517).

    The NRC staff's efforts to update the Agreement State policy statements began with the Commission's direction provided in the SRM to SECY-10-0105, “Final Rule: Limiting the Quanitity of Byproduct Material in a Generally Licensed Device (RIN 3150-AI33),” issued on December 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103360262). The Commission directed the NRC staff to update the Commission's “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and associated guidance documents to include both safety and source security considerations in the determination process. Because Agreement State adequacy and compatibility are key components of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),3 the Commission's “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” was revised concurrently. As directed, the NRC staff's revisions to the policy statements added that public health and safety includes physical protection of agreement material.

    3 The NRC developed the IMPEP to evaluate the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs and the adequacy of the NRC's nuclear materials program activities.

    The Commission approved publication of the proposed updates to the two policy statements in the revised SRM to SECY-12-0112, “Policy Statements on Agreement State Programs,” dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13148A352). The NRC staff published the two proposed policy statements on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), for a 75-day comment period. After receiving requests from the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the State of Florida to extend the public comment period, the NRC extended the comment period to September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118; August 16, 2013). The NRC held two public meetings (July 18 and August 6, 2013), and a topical session during the OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada on August 28, 2013. The NRC staff specifically solicited comment on Compatibility Category B, and whether or not the policy statements should maintain the language from the 1997 “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” describing the adoption and number of compatible regulations.

    The NRC staff received 51 comments on the policy statements, in general, and 45 comments on Compatibility Category B from 13 commenters, including Agreement States, industry organizations, and individuals. Consistency and flexibility were underlying themes expressed in the comments. The need for consistent application of the NRC's policies and flexible implementation of these policies was mentioned in written comments, and was also expressed orally during the public meetings and OAS topical session. The NRC changed the policy statements as a result of the written comments and input from attendees to the two public meetings and the OAS topical session.

    In COMSECY-14-0028, “Agreement State Program Policy Statements: Update on Recent Activities and Recommendations for Path Forward,” dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14156A277), the NRC staff proposed a plan to provide a consolidated policy statement. The Commission approved this plan in the SRM to COMSECY-14-0028, dated August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14224A618). Accordingly, the NRC staff developed a single consolidated proposed policy statement for comment. In finalizing the policy statement, NRC staff identified and eliminated redundant language between the two policy statements, and removed detailed information on IMPEP and the “Principles of Good Regulation” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A026), as this material is not typically included in a high-level policy statement. The proposed single policy statement is included in its entirety in Section IV, “Proposed Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program,” of this document.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Changes

    The NRC's proposed consolidated policy statement addresses the Commission direction in the SRMs to SECY-10-0105, SECY-12-0112, and COMSECY-14-0028 and reflects written public comments and input received from public meetings and the OAS topical session. The NRC staff's disposition of comments is presented in a comment resolution table (ADAMS Accession No. ML14073A549).

    The Commission's proposed consolidated policy removes details on IMPEP and the “Principles of Good Regulation.” The NRC added context and makes the proposed policy statement clearer and more consistent with other recent NRC policy statements. Lastly, the Commission added a description of the National Materials Program (NMP).

    In response to the Federal Register notice (FRN) on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), 45 comments were received on the description of Compatibility Category B in the proposed policy statement. In the FRN, the NRC specifically solicited comment on the following topics concerning Compatibility Category B:

    1. To clarify the meaning of a “significant transboundary implication,”  4 the NRC is proposing to define a significant transboundary implication as “one which crosses regulatory jurisdictions, has a particular impact on public health and safety, and needs to be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis.” However, the NRC recognizes that the use of the word “particular” can be vague and cause confusion. The NRC is requesting specific comments on the proposed draft definition of “significant transboundary implication” and whether the word “particular” should be replaced with the phrase “significant and direct.”

    4 The NRC staff solicited public comment on the phrase “significant transboundary implication” in the Federal Register on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122).

    Based on comments received, the NRC staff noted that there is a wide variation on the interpretation of the description of Compatibility Category B and of the definition of significant transboundary implication. In light of this, the Commission is proposing a new description of Compatibility Category B to eliminate the phrase “significant transboundary implication.” The new language, (i.e., “cross jurisdictional boundaries”) embodies the original description of Compatibility Category B and eliminates the confusion surrounding the language incorporated into the 1997 version of the policy statement.

    2. Program elements with significant transboundary implications are illustrated by examples in the 1997 version of the policy statement. The NRC staff concluded the examples listed are not all-inclusive and could lead to misinterpretation by stakeholders, Agreement States, and the NRC staff. The NRC staff is seeking additional comment on whether or not the examples should be retained in this section of the policy statement.

    The majority of commenters requested that examples of program elements considered Compatibility Category B continue to be included in the description. No changes were made to the policy statement. The Commission retained examples in Section E.2.ii.

    3. The NRC is requesting comments on the description of Compatibility Category B as written in Section IV. of this notice and whether or not the movement of goods and services, which historically has been a main factor in determining whether an issue has transboundary implications, should be considered in the definition of significant transboundary implication.

    Specific comments were received regarding the consideration of the movement of goods and services. The majority of the commenters felt that it was not necessary to include the consideration of the movement of goods and services in the description of Compatibility Category B. The Commission has concluded that the movement of goods and services should not be considered in assessing compatibility and made no change to the proposed policy statement.

    4. The NRC is requesting comments on whether or not economic factors should be a consideration when making a Compatibility Category B determination. The NRC believes that health and safety should be the primary consideration in making a Compatibility B determination and that economic factors should not be a consideration.

    The comments included several comments that differed on whether or not economic factors should be considered. Based on the comments received and in reviewing previous rationale on this topic as discussed in SECY-95-112 “Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,” the Commission determined that economic factors (i.e., those costs incurred by the regulated community to comply with regulatory requirement(s)) should not be considered. No change to the proposed policy statement has been made.

    The NRC also solicited specific comment on the use of alternative wording regarding the expectation on the number of regulatory requirements that Agreement States will be requested to adopt in an identical manner to maintain compatibility. The 1997 version of the policy statement had specific text in three places regarding the expectation for adopting requirements in an identical manner to maintain compatibility. Six commenters supported returning the wording back to the text that was originally published in 1997. Based on comments received, the Commission retained the original language from the 1997 version in the proposed policy statement.

    Two commenters questioned the description of Compatibility Category D and indicated the description in the policy statement as published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), appears to discuss compatibility in general and does not describe Compatibility Category D as it is defined in Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770094). The Commission agreed and moved the language listed under Compatibility Category D, in the proposed policy statement, to the introductory paragraph of Section E.2., “Compatibility,” and revised the description of Compatibility Category D in Section E.2.iv.

    The criteria for adequacy and compatibility as proposed in this policy statement will provide Agreement States with flexibility in the administration of their individual programs. Recognizing that Agreement States have responsibilities for radiation sources other than agreement material, this proposed policy statement would allow Agreement States to fashion their programs so as to reflect specific State needs and preferences while accomplishing a compatible national program consistent with Section 274 of the AEA.

    The requirements in Compatibility Categories A, B, and C will allow the NRC to ensure that an orderly pattern for the regulation of agreement material exists nationwide. The NRC believes that this approach achieves a proper balance between the Agreement States' need for flexibility and the need for coherent and compatible regulation of agreement material across the country.

    IV. Proposed Policy Statement for the Agreement State Program A. Purpose

    The purpose of this policy statement for the Agreement State Program is to describe the respective roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Agreement States in the administration of programs carried out under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).5 Section 274 provides broad authority for the NRC to establish a unique Federal and State relationship in the administration of regulatory programs for the protection of public health and safety in the industrial, medical, commercial, and research uses of agreement material. This policy statement supersedes the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program.”

    5 Subsection 274b. of the AEA authorizes the NRC to enter into an agreement by which the NRC discontinues and the State assumes regulatory authority over some or all of these materials. The material over which the State receives regulatory authority under such agreement is termed “agreement material.”

    This policy statement addresses the Federal-State interaction under the AEA to (1) establish and maintain agreements with States under Subsection 274b. that provide for discontinuance by the NRC, and the assumption by the State, of responsibility for administration of a regulatory program for the safe and secure use of agreement material; (2) ensure that post-agreement interactions between the NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs are coordinated; and (3) ensure Agreement States provide adequate protection of public health and safety and maintain programs that are compatible with the NRC's regulatory program.

    Although not defined in the AEA, the National Materials Program (NMP) is a term to describe the broad collective effort within which both NRC and the Agreement States function in carrying out their respective regulatory programs for agreement material. The mission of the NMP is to provide a coherent national system for the regulation of agreement material with the goal of protecting public health and safety through compatible regulatory programs. Under the NMP, the NRC and Agreement States function as regulatory partners. The roles and responsibilities of the NRC and the Agreement States are based on their legislative authority, program needs, and expertise. Two national organizations—the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD)—which are composed of State radiation protection programs, also play important roles within the NMP.

    B. Background

    This policy statement is intended solely as guidance for the NRC and the Agreement States in the implementation of the Agreement State Program. This policy statement does not itself impose legally binding requirements on the Agreement States. In addition, nothing in this policy statement expands the legal authority of Agreement States beyond that already granted to them by Section 274 of the AEA and other relevant legal authority; nor does this policy statement diminish or constrain the NRC's authority under the AEA. Implementation procedures adopted pursuant to this policy statement shall be consistent with the legal authorities of the NRC and the Agreement States.

    This policy statement presents the NRC's policy for determining the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs. This policy statement clarifies the meaning and use of the terms “adequate to protect public health and safety” and “compatible with the NRC's regulatory program” as applied to Agreement State programs. The terms “adequate” and “compatible” represent fundamental concepts in the Agreement State programs authorized in 1959 by Section 274 of the AEA. Subsection 274d. states that the NRC shall enter into an Agreement under Subsection 274b., which discontinues the NRC's regulatory authority over specified AEA radioactive materials and activities within a State, provided that the State's program is adequate to protect public health and safety and is compatible with the Commission's regulatory program. Subsection 274g. authorizes and directs the NRC to cooperate with States in the formulation of standards to assure that State and NRC programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. Subsection 274j.(1) requires the NRC to periodically review the Agreements and actions taken by States under the Agreements to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 274.

    The NRC and Agreement State radiation control programs maintain regulatory authority for the safe and secure handling, use, and storage of agreement material. These programs have always included the security of agreement material as an integral part of their health and safety mission as it relates to controlling and minimizing the risk of exposure to workers and the public. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC's regulatory oversight has included developing and implementing enhanced security measures. For the purposes of this policy statement, public health and safety includes physical protection of agreement material.

    C. Statement of Legislative Intent

    In 1954, the AEA did not initially specify a role for the States in regulating the use of nuclear material. Many States were concerned as to what their responsibilities in this area might be and expressed interest in clearly defining the boundaries of Federal and State authority over nuclear material. This need for clarification was particularly important in view of the fact that although the Federal Government retained sole responsibility for protecting public health and safety from the radiation hazards of AEA radioactive materials, defined as byproduct, source, and special nuclear material, the States maintained the responsibility for protecting the public from the radiation hazards of other sources such as x-ray machines and naturally occurring radioactive material.

    Consequently, in 1959, Congress enacted Section 274 of the AEA to establish a statutory framework under which States could assume and the NRC could discontinue regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material insufficient to form a critical mass. The NRC continued to retain regulatory authority over the licensing of certain facilities and activities including, nuclear reactors, quantities of special nuclear material sufficient to form a critical mass, the export and import of nuclear materials, and matters related to common defense and security.

    The legislation did not authorize a wholesale relinquishment or abdication by the Commission of its regulatory responsibilities but only a gradual, carefully considered turnover. Congress recognized that the Federal Government would need to assist the States to ensure that they developed the capability to exercise their regulatory authority in a competent and effective manner. Accordingly, the legislation authorized the NRC to provide training, with or without charge, and other services to State officials and employees as the Commission deems appropriate. However, in rendering this assistance, Congress did not intend that the NRC would provide any grants to a State for the administration of a State regulatory program. This was fully consistent with the objectives of Section 274 to qualify States to assume independent regulatory authority over certain defined areas under their Agreement and to permit the NRC to discontinue its regulatory responsibilities in those areas.

    In order to discontinue its authority, the NRC must find that the State program is compatible with the NRC program for the regulation of agreement material and that the State program is adequate to protect public health and safety. In addition, the NRC has an obligation, pursuant to Subsection 274j. of the AEA, to periodically review existing Agreement State programs to ensure continued adequacy and compatibility. Subsection 274j. of the AEA provides that the NRC may terminate or suspend all or part of its agreement with a State if the NRC finds that such termination is necessary to protect public health and safety or that the State has not complied with the provisions of Subsection 274j. In these cases, the NRC must offer the State reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing. In cases where the State has requested termination of the agreement, notice and opportunity for a hearing are not necessary. In addition, the NRC may temporarily suspend all or part of an agreement in the case of an emergency situation.

    D. Program Implementation

    1. Implementation of the Agreement State Program is described below and includes (a) Principles of Good Regulation; (b) performance assessment on a consistent and systematic basis; (c) the responsibility to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, including physical protection of agreement material; (d) compatibility in areas of national interest; and (e) sufficient flexibility in program implementation and administration to accommodate individual State needs.

    i. Principles of Good Regulation

    In 1991, the Commission adopted the “Principles of Good Regulation” to serve as a guide to both agency decision making and to individual behavior of NRC employees. There are five Principles of Good Regulation: Independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. Adherence to these principles has helped to ensure that the NRC's regulatory activities have been of the highest quality, and are appropriate and consistent. The “Principles of Good Regulation” recognize that strong, vigilant management and a desire to improve performance are prerequisites for success, for both regulators and the regulated industry. The NRC's implementation of these principles has served the public, the Agreement States, and the regulated community well. Such principles are useful as a part of a common culture of the NMP that the NRC and the Agreement States share as co-regulators. Accordingly, the NRC encourages each Agreement State to adopt a similar set of principles for use in its own regulatory program. These principles should be incorporated into the day-to-day operational fabric of the NMP.

    ii. Performance Assessment

    To ensure that Agreement State programs continue to provide adequate protection of public health and safety and are compatible with the NRC's regulatory program, periodic program assessment is needed. The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement States, established and implemented the IMPEP. The IMPEP is a performance evaluation process that provides the NRC and Agreement State management with systematic, integrated, and reliable evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective radiation control programs and identification of areas needing improvement.

    iii. Adequate To Protect Public Health and Safety

    The NRC and the Agreement States have the responsibility to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in the administration of their respective regulatory programs, including physical protection of agreement material. Accordingly, the NRC and Agreement State programs shall possess the requisite supporting legislative authority, implementing organization structure and procedures, and financial and human resources to effectively administer a radiation control program that ensures adequate protection of public health and safety.

    iv. Compatible in Areas of National Interest

    The NRC and the Agreement States have the responsibility to ensure that the radiation control programs are compatible. Such radiation control programs should be based on a common regulatory philosophy including the common use of definitions and standards. The programs should be effective and cooperatively implemented by the NRC and the Agreement States and also should provide uniformity and achieve common strategic outcomes in program areas having national significance.

    Such areas of national significance include aspects of licensing, inspection and enforcement, response to incidents and allegations, and safety reviews for the manufacture and distribution of sealed sources and devices. Furthermore, communication using a nationally accepted set of terms with common understanding, ensuring an adequate level of protection of public health and safety that is consistent and stable across the nation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the NRC and Agreement State programs for the regulation of agreement material with respect to protection of public health and safety are essential to maintaining a strong NMP.

    v. Flexibility

    With the exception of those compatibility areas where programs should be essentially identical, Agreement State radiation control programs have flexibility in program implementation and administration to accommodate individual State preferences, State legislative direction, and local needs and conditions. A State has the flexibility to design its own program, including incorporating more stringent, or similar, requirements provided that the requirement