Federal Register Vol. 81, No.106,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

In April 2016, the Department received revised databases from JSW 2 and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. (“Uttam Galva”), the mandatory respondents in this investigation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

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.

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.

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

The period of investigation is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Customer protection continues to be a bedrock guiding principle for the Commission, as the protection of customer funds is paramount to a trusted marketplace.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.