Federal Register Vol. 82, No.63,

Title: Laboratory Approval Programs.

OMB Number: 0581-0251.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2017.

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

Abstract: Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), AMS' Laboratory Approval Service (LAS) approves, or accredits, laboratories to perform testing services in support of domestic and international trades. At the request of industry, other Federal agencies, or foreign governments, AMS develops and administers laboratory approval programs (LAPs) to verify that the analysis of food and agricultural products meet country or customer-specified requirements. LAS ensures the testing of products marketed is conducted by qualified and approved laboratories. LAPs requirements include good laboratory, quality assurance and control practices; applicable domestic and international standards (such as ISO/IEC 17025:2005); established methods and accepted equipment; and on-site audits. Laboratories voluntarily participate in the program and pay program fees. Currently, LAS administers four overarching LAPs with over 70 laboratories.

The information collection includes submission of a letter of intent and analyses related documentation. These requirements are essential to examine laboratories for entrance into and continued participation in the following programs:

(1) Aflatoxin Program—laboratories perform aflatoxin testing in support of domestic and/or export trade of almonds, peanuts, and pistachio nuts. (a) Almond. At the request of the Almond Board of California (ABC), AMS administers the program for aflatoxin testing of almonds destined for export to the European Union (EU) through the Pre-Export Certification program of ABC. (b) Peanuts. AMS administers Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States (7 CFR 996 Parts 996.1—996.75). The regulation requires domestically marketed peanuts for human consumption to be analyzed for aflatoxin by a USDA or USDA-approved laboratory. AMS consults with the Peanut Standards Board on program requirements. (c) Pistachio Nuts. AMS administers mandatory domestic and import aflatoxin requirements for pistachio nuts under Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico (7 CFR part 983) and Specialty Crops, Import Regulations (7 CFR part 999, Section 999.600), respectively. All domestic and import shipments of pistachio nuts intended for human consumption must be tested for aflatoxin contamination. At the request of the Administrative Committee for Pistachios, laboratories may also participate in the program for pistachio nuts destined for EU.

(2) Export Program—this program ensures the testing of meat and poultry products offered for export certification by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is conducted by qualified and approved laboratories. LAS collaborates with FSIS, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the meat and poultry industries to administer a flexible and comprehensive program to provide reliable analyses of pesticide residues, environmental contaminants, veterinary drug residues, antibiotic residues, microorganisms, and parasites.

(3) Microbiological Testing for the Federal Purchase Program (FPP)—testing is limited to the analysis of aerobic plate counts, coliform counts, coagulase positive Staphylococcus aureus, generic Escherichia coli, Salmonella species, and Listeria monocytogenes in frozen, cooked, and diced chicken procured for the FPP. This is a new program added to the LAPs since the last OMB information collection approval.

(4) Any additional programs which may be requested in the future to facilitate the marketing of U.S. agricultural products.

All LAPs will follow the similar general procedures. Applicants would submit a letter of intent, provide related documentation on analyses they intend to perform, participate in proficiency testing (PT) sample analyses, and be audited by AMS auditors. The time required for information collection will depend on the complexity of the methodology and the time necessary to perform the analysis. The burden hours incurred for these laboratories to submit the initial letter requesting entrance and completion of analyses documentation is a one-time occurrence. Once a laboratory is accepted into the program, the information collection burden will decrease and will be based on the number of PT samples analyzed by the laboratory throughout the year in order to maintain its program status.

Form ST-212 (Alternate Payment Form) is an option applicant/approved laboratories may use to pay for participation in AMS LAPs. Interested parties can obtain a copy of the form (ST-212) by calling or writing to the point of contact listed above.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.94 hours per response.

Respondents: Laboratories.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 380.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 7.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,157.30.

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 completion of analyses related documentation; (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. Comments may be sent to Grace Vaillant, Laboratory Approval and Testing Division, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0272, Washington, DC 20250-0272; Phone 202-690-0621, Fax 202-720-4631. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to hold public meetings to receive input, particularly from the cattle and bison sectors, on enhancing the current Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) system. The original ADT framework, as described in the January 6, 2013, final rule 1 establishing the program, provided specific performance requirements for an intentionally flexible ADT system. This let States and individual producers use personally efficient methods to meet requirements to move their livestock between States.

These meetings will let APHIS hear from the public about the successes and challenges of the current ADT framework and let attendees brainstorm ideas about overcoming these challenges and finding ways to fill gaps in the existing system. Although APHIS is especially interested during these sessions to hear from cattle and bison industry members, we welcome participation from all members of the public.

Each meeting will start with an overview of the basic principles of ADT and progress made to date given by APHIS employees and a panel of State and industry representatives. A comment/question and answer session will follow. After a break for lunch, attendees will split off into breakout sessions to discuss challenge areas and come up with solutions. The entire group will reconvene to receive the highlights of the breakout sessions, and the meeting will end after some discussion of next steps and closing remarks.

If you are planning to attend a meeting, we ask that you register in advance by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal-health/adt-meeting-registrations. Same-day registration will also be available at each meeting site. If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please call or write the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Written statements about the current ADT system may be filed at the meetings or by using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES above.

For the April 13, 2017, meeting in Riverdale, MD, picture identification will be required to gain access to the USDA Center at Riverside. Free parking is available next to the building. The nearest Metro station is the College Park station on the Green Line, which is within walking distance (about 2/3 of a mile). For the May 4, 2017, meeting in Denver, CO, there will be a free hotel shuttle to and from Denver International Airport.

The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 156, ” Extension of patent term,” provide, generally, that a patent for a product may be extended for a period of up to 5 years as long as the patent claims a product that, among other things, was subject to a regulatory review period before its commercial marketing or use. (The term “product” is defined in that section as “a drug product” [which includes veterinary biological products] or “any medical device, food additive, or color additive subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”) A product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 124, “Patent Term Restoration” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth procedures and requirements for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') review of applications for the extension of the term of certain patents for veterinary biological products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 156. As identified in the regulations, the responsibilities of APHIS include:

• Assisting Patent and Trademark Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce in determining eligibility for patent term restoration;

• Determining the length of a product's regulatory review period;

• If petitioned, reviewing and ruling on due diligence challenges to APHIS' regulatory review period determinations; and

• Conducting hearings to review initial APHIS findings on due diligence challenges.

The regulations are designed to be used in conjunction with regulations issued by the Patent and Trademark Office concerning patent term extension, which may be found at 37 CFR 1.710 through 1.791.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For veterinary biologics, the testing phase begins on the date the authorization to prepare an experimental veterinary biologic became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase begins on the date an application for a license was initially submitted for approval and ends on the date such license was issued. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may award, APHIS' determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a veterinary biologic will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(5)(B).

APHIS recently licensed for production and marketing the veterinary biologic Lawsonia Intracellularis Bacterin Vaccine. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Lawsonia Intracellularis Bacterin Vaccine (U.S. Patent No. 5,610,059) from Intervet Inc., a subsidiary of Merck Animal Health, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested APHIS' assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated February 19, 2016, APHIS advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this veterinary biologic had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Lawsonia Intracellularis Bacterin Vaccine represented the first permitted commercial licensing or use of the product. Subsequently, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that APHIS determine the product's regulatory review period.

APHIS has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Lawsonia Intracellularis Bacterin Vaccine is 1,544 days. Of this time, 186 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, and 1,358 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods were derived from the following dates:

1. The date that APHIS started confirmatory testing on the master seed for use in products containing Lawsonia intracellularis: June 20, 2011. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the master seed to be used in the Lawsonia Intracellularis Bacterin Vaccine was first put on test by APHIS on June 20, 2011.

2. The date the application for a license was initially submitted for approval under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act: December 23, 2011. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the application was initially submitted on December 23, 2011.

3. The date the license was issued: September 11, 2015. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the license for the commercial marketing of the vaccine was issued on September 11, 2015.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,544 days of patent term extension.

Section 124.22 of the regulations provides that any interested person may request a revision of the regulatory review period determination within 30 days of the date of this notice (see DATES above). The request must specify the following:

• The identity of the product;

• The identity of the applicant for patent term restoration;

• The docket number of this notice; and

• The basis for the request for revision, including any documentary evidence.

Further, under § 124.30 of the regulations, any interested person may file a petition with APHIS, no later than 180 days after the date of this notice (see DATES above), alleging that a license applicant did not act with due diligence in seeking APHIS approval of the product during the regulatory review period. The filing, format, and content of a petition must be as described in the regulations in “Subpart D-Due Diligence Petitions” (§§ 124.30 through 124.33).

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Customer Feedback on Farm Service Agency Service Delivery.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0286.

Type of Request: Extension with a revision.

Abstract: FSA program staff have created several feedback instruments (customer surveys) and submitted them to the FSA information collection coordinator for approval under the current approved information collection of 0560-0286, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Customer Feedback on Farm Service Agency Service Delivery. FSA program staff continue to use the fast track approval to submit a new customer instruments to the FSA information collection coordinator for approval, which takes less time rather than going through a regular Paperwork Reduction Act process. As a result, program staff are able to quickly implement certain types of surveys and related collection of information using OMB control number of 0560-0286. For example, when we implement a new program and provide information about the programs on our Web site, FSA may provide a voluntary customer service questionnaire about how well the program is working for our customers, specifically within the area of customer service. The information collection provides a means to gather qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner that is consistent with FSA's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean information, generally from customers, that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions based on experiences with FSA service delivery. Such information does not include statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population. The qualitative feedback will:

• Provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations,

• Provide an early warning of issues with service, and

• Focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services.

The collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communication between FSA and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on FSA's services will be unavailable.

FSA will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

• The collections are voluntary;

• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

• The collections are targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of FSA;

• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as religious beliefs, sexual behavior and attitudes, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

The estimated total annual burden hours are being amended due to an increase in the number of FSA customers that will respond to the customer survey, which therefore increased the information collection requirements. Annual responses have increased by 590,000, with a resulting increase of 295,000 burden hours in the request.

For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual number of responses.

Estimate of Average Time to Respond: Public reporting burden for collecting information under this notice is estimated to average 30 minutes (0.50 hours) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Respondents: Individuals and Households; Businesses; Organizations; and State, Local, or Tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 600,000.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 30 minutes (0.50 hours).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 300,000 hours.

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

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

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

(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

(1) Annual Ethics Training;

(2) Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) Project update;

(3) 2016 Forest Health Report;

(4) Black Hills Invasive Plant Partnership presentation;

(5) Non-motorized Trails—Working Group update;

(6) Recreation Site Analysis (RSA)—Working Group update;

(7) Fire Season Outlook—2017;

(8) Orientation Topic—Road Maintenance; and

(9) Election update—Chairman/Vice Chairman.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 10, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Review proposed projects, and

2. Allocate funds to approved projects.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 19, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Lydia Mills, RAC Coordinator, Admiralty National Monument, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, Alaska 99801; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-586-8808.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-737-3705 and conference call ID: 5272563#. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-737-3705 and conference call ID: 5272563#.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=240; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-523-1191, conference ID: 8007351. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by May 14, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

The Department published the Preliminary Determination on September 14, 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The merchandise covered by this investigation is CTL plate from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

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

In making this final determination, the Department relied in part on facts available. Because POSCO Chemtech and POSCO M-Tech, which are cross-owned affiliates of POSCO, and Hyundai Corporation, a trading company unaffiliated with POSCO, did not act to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.3 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties and the minor corrections presented, as well as additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondent's subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and POSCO's Final Calculation Memorandum.4

On July 26, 2016, Petitioners 5 timely filed a critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate from Korea.6 The Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to POSCO, POSCO-Daewoo Corporation, and all-other producers/exporters from Korea.7 Our analysis and conclusion concerning critical circumstances remain unchanged for our final determination.8

In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for POSCO, the exporter/producer 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. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that the all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero or de minimis or any rates determined entirely on facts available. However, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that if the countervailable subsidy rates for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis rates, or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.

POSCO is the only mandatory respondent in the instant investigation. We, therefore, are applying the countervailable subsidy rate calculated for POSCO to all-other producers/exporters not individually investigated. The Department has taken this approach to calculating the all-others rate in other countervailing duty (CVD) investigations.9 In accordance with the scope of this investigation, this application of POSCO's subsidy rate to all-other producers/exporters applies only to subject CTL plate not within the physical description of cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate in the 1999 Korea CVD Order.10

The final subsidy rates are as follows:

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

In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation of entries of CTL plate from Korea. However, as the estimated subsidy rates for the examined company is above de minimis in this final determination, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of CTL plate from Korea that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above, pursuant to section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and instruct CBP to continue to 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 Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

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 sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Italy.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) in November 2016, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Officine Tecnosider s.r.l. (OTS) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by OTS.3

In addition, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in November 2016 and January 2017, we also attempted to verify the sales and cost information submitted by NLMK Verona SpA (NVR), using standard verification procedures. However, as explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, the Department was unable to validate the accuracy of NVR's reporting.4 As a consequence, we find that NVR's reported data are unverifiable, and, thus, cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation. Specifically, because we encountered so many errors within NVR's reported data at verification, and the submitted sales and cost information is integral to the proper evaluation of its margin calculation, we find that all of the information submitted by NVR is unverifiable. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-4.

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for OTS. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate from Marcegaglia, NVR, and OTS, and do not exist with respect to companies covered by the “all others” rate.5 We modified our critical circumstances findings for the final determination and now determine that critical circumstances exist for “all others.” For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Critical Circumstances.” 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 Marcegaglia, NVR, OTS, and “all others.”

In the Preliminary Determination, because mandatory respondent Marcegaglia SpA (Marcegaglia) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire and informed the Department that it would not participate in this investigation,6 we applied adverse facts available (AFA) to these respondents, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. We were able to corroborate the petition dumping margin of 130.63 percent to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act using the highest transaction-specific dumping margins calculated for NVR 7 and, thus, we assigned this dumping margin to Marcegaglia as AFA.

The Department received no comments regarding its preliminary application of the AFA dumping margin to Marcegaglia. For the final determination, the Department has not altered its analysis or its decision to apply the AFA to Marcegaglia, but for the reasons explained below, the petition margin can no longer be corroborated and, thus, we assigned to Marcegaglia a different dumping margin.

Additionally, due to its failures at verification, we determine that NVR's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation and that NVR did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we also find it appropriate to apply the AFA dumping margin to NVR. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-4.

Finally, for the final determination, because NVR's information is no longer available for use in corroborating the petition rate, as AFA, we assigned to Marcegaglia and NVR the highest transaction-specific dumping margin calculated for OTS. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.

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. OTS is the only respondent for which the Department calculated a company-specific margin that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for OTS, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from Italy, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. For entries made by Marcegaglia, NVR, and OTS, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of CTL plate from Italy which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 16, 2016, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Additionally, for entries made by the companies covered by the “all others” rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of CTL plate from Italy which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 16, 2016, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 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 CTL plate 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 sanctionable violation.

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

On September 8, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR Tires from the PRC.1 In September 2016, the Department received multiple timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR Tires from the PRC. Based on these requests, on November 9, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016, with respect to ten companies: Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Ltd.; Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Milestone Tyres Co. Ltd.; Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. Ltd.; Shandong Zhentai Group Co., Ltd.; Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd.; TWS China; Jintongda; and Zhongce.2 On November 24, 2016, December 13, 2016, and February 7, 2017, Jingtongda,3 Zhongce,4 and TWS China,5 timely withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Jingtongda, Zhongce, and TWS China timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review; no other party requested a review of these companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Jingtongda, Zhongce, and TWS China, the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping and/or countervailing duties.

This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Japan.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2016, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tokyo Steel) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Tokyo Steel.3

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Tokyo Steel. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Determination, because mandatory respondents JFE Steel Corporation (JFE) and Shimabun Corporation (Shimabun) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire and informed the Department that they would not participate in this investigation,4 we applied adverse facts available (AFA) to these respondents, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. Because we could not corroborate the petition dumping margin of 179.2 percent, we assigned to JFE and Shimabun, as AFA, a dumping margin based on the highest transaction-specific dumping margin calculated for Tokyo Steel.5

The Department received no comments regarding its preliminary application of the AFA dumping margin to JFE and Shimabun. For the final determination, the Department has not altered its analysis or its decision to apply the AFA dumping margin to JFE and Shimabun.

In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available for Tokyo Steel. Furthermore, because Tokyo Steel did not act to the best of its ability in responding to certain of the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.6 For further information, see the accompanying 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 margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Tokyo Steel is the only respondent for which the Department calculated a company-specific margin. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Tokyo Steel, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from Japan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 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 CTL plate from Japan 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 sanctionable violation.

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

The Petitions

On March 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions (the Petitions) concerning imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, filed in proper form on behalf of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner).1 The Petitions also included countervailing duty (CVD) petitions on silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan.2 The petitioner is a domestic producer of silicon metal.3

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.4

Because the petitions were filed on March 8, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” at Appendix I of this notice.

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 17, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (also limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 27, 2017, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently believes that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of silicon metal to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe silicon metal, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 17, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 27, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Australia, Brazil, and Norway less-than-fair-value investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,6 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.7

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that silicon metal, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.8

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 production data of the domestic like product by the entire U.S. industry.9 The petitioner also provided a letter from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), stating that the USW represents the workers at the petitioner's Alloy, WV and Niagara Falls, NY silicon metal plants and it supports the Petitions.10 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support for the Petitions from the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America (IEU-CWA), stating that the IEU-CWA represents the workers at the petitioner's Selma, AL plant and it supports the Petitions.11 To establish industry support, the petitioner compared its production to the total 2016 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.12 We relied on the data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.13

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support.14 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).15 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.16 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.17 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting that the Department initiate.18

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.19

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, production capacity, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; increase in inventories; declines in average number of workers, hours worked, and wages paid; and declines in financial performance.20 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.21

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For Brazil, the petitioner based export price (EP) on transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) for shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered under the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading for three entries during one month of the POI into three specific ports.22 The petitioner linked port arrival data from an independent source to U.S. port-specific import statistics obtained from the ITC's Dataweb.23 The petitioner linked imports of silicon metal entered under the relevant HTSUS subheading to shipments from producers in Brazil to ensure the Dataweb statistics were specific to subject merchandise.24 Because the AUVs are based on the reported customs values, which reflect FOB foreign port prices, the petitioner made an adjustment for foreign inland freight from the production facility to the port of export.25 The petitioner made no other adjustments to EP.

For Australia and Norway, the petitioner had reason to believe that sales are made through U.S. affiliates. Therefore, the petitioner based constructed export price (CEP) on actual sales prices for silicon metal produced in, and exported from, those countries.26 The petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.27 The petitioner also deducted from U.S. price operating expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate.28

For Australia, Brazil, and Norway, the petitioner provided home market price information based on sales, or offers for sale, of merchandise identical or similar to the product being imported into the United States during the POI.29 As the prices obtained for Brazil were on an ex-factory basis, the petitioner made no adjustment for movement expenses.30 For Australia and Norway, the petitioner made certain adjustments to the prices, including deductions for inland freight charges (where applicable).31 The petitioner made no other adjustments to home market prices.

For Australia and Brazil, the petitioner provided information indicating that sales of silicon metal in the home market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, also calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).32 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.33

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.

For Australia, the petitioner relied on the 2015 financial statements of Australian producer Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Simcoa) to calculate the COP.34 The petitioner adjusted Simcoa's 2015 COP data to the POI using Australian producer price index information obtained from International Financial Statistics. 35

On March 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on behalf of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner). With the exception of Kazakhstan, the remaining CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of silicon metal from the above countries and Norway.1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of silicon metal.2

On March 9, 2017, and March 13, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions with respect to Australia 3 and Brazil. 4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on March 14, 2017, and March 15, 2017.5 6

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan received countervailable subsidies from the Governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan, respectively, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting their allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.7

Because the petitions were filed on March 8, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for each investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.8

The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see Appendix I of this notice.

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 17, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (also limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET (Eastern Time) on April 27, 2017, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently believes that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the Governments of Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, following invitations extended in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on March 16, 20 and 24, 2017, respectively, consultations with the Governments of Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan at the Department's main building. Memoranda regarding these consultations are available electronically via ACCESS.

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

Regarding the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of these investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that silicon metal, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 production data of the domestic like product by the entire U.S. industry.13 The petitioner also provided a letter from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), stating that the USW represents the workers at the petitioner's Alloy, WV and Niagara Falls, NY silicon metal plants and it supports the Petitions.14 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support for the Petitions from the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America (IEU-CWA), stating that the IEU-CWA represents the workers at the petitioner's Selma, AL plant and it supports the Petitions.15 To establish industry support, the petitioner compared its production to the total 2016 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.16 We relied on the data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.17

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support.18 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.22

Because Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from these countries materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility thresholds provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.23 The petitioner also demonstrates that subject imports from Brazil, which has been designated as a developing country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.24

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, production capacity, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; increase in inventories; declines in average number of workers, hours worked, and wages paid; and declines in financial performance.25 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.26

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.

The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of silicon metal in Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating these CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively.

Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.27 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.28

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all three alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Australia CVD Initiation Checklist.

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all six alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist.

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on five of the six alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Kazakhstan CVD Initiation Checklist.

A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation is available on ACCESS.

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner identified one company in Australia,29 five companies in Brazil,30 and two companies in Kazakhstan as producers/exporters of silicon metal.31 With respect to Brazil, following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed with the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I, below; and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents based on those data. We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of the investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from CBP to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in CVD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company as a producer/exporter of silicon metal in Australia: Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd., and two companies in Kazakhstan: (1) LLP Tau-Ken Temir, and; (2) LLP Metallurgical Combine Kaz Silicon. We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration from Australia and Kazakhstan and the petitioner provided information from independent sources as support.32 Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in the investigations for Australia and Kazakhstan (i.e., the companies cited above for each respective investigation). Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection for Australia and Kazakhstan must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the Governments of Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and/or Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.34 Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.35 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 36 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Germany.1 On November 29, 2016, we amended our Preliminary Determination.2 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.3

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from Germany. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2016, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke (Dillinger) and Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, and Salzgitter Mannesmann International GmbH (collectively, Salzgitter) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Dillinger and Salzgitter.4

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Dillinger and Salzgitter. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 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.

For the final determination, the Department calculated the all-others rate based on a weighted average of Dillinger's and Salzgitter's margins using publicly-ranged quantities of their sales of subject merchandise.5

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from Germany, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 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 CTL plate from Germany 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 sanctionable violation.

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

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from France.1 On December 2, 2016, we amended our Preliminary Determination. 2 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.3

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from France. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2016, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Dillinger France S.A. (Dillinger France) and Industeel France S.A. (Industeel) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Dillinger France and Industeel.4

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Dillinger France. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculation” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Due to its failures at verification, we determine that Industeel's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation and that Industeel did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we find it appropriate to apply adverse facts available (AFA), in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

We are able to corroborate the highest petition dumping margin of 148.02 percent to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act using the highest transaction-specific dumping margin calculated for Dillinger France and, thus, we assigned this dumping margin to Industeel as AFA. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

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. Dillinger France is the only respondent for which the Department calculated a company-specific margin. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Dillinger France, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from France, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 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 CTL plate from France 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 sanctionable violation.

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

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Austria.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

Background

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from the Republic of Korea.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Taiwan.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2016, and in January 2017, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by China Steel Corporation (China Steel) and Shang Chen Steel Co., Ltd. (Shang Chen) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by China Steel and Shang Chen.3

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for China Steel and Shang Chen. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances existed with respect to imports of CTL plate from China Steel and the companies that are covered by the “all others” rate, but did not exist for imports from Shang Chen.4 We modified our critical circumstances findings for China Steel and the companies that are covered by the “all others” rate for the final determination. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. Thus, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by China Steel, Shang Chen, or the companies that are covered by the “all others” rate.

In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available for China Steel and Shang Chen. Furthermore, because China Steel and Shang Chen did not act to the best of their ability in responding to certain of the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.5 For further information, see the accompanying 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 margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For the final determination, the Department calculated the “all others” rate based on a simple average of China Steel's and Shang Chen's margins.6

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from Taiwan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.

Further, because our final critical circumstances determination is negative, in accordance with section 735(c)(3) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to terminate the retroactive suspension of liquidation ordered at the Preliminary Determination for China Steel and “all other” companies and to release any bond or security and refund any cash deposits required with respect to entries covered by the retroactive suspension of liquidation.

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 CTL plate from France 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 sanctionable violation.

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

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Adverse Facts Available a. China Steel b. Shang Chen IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Scope Comments VI. Affiliations and Collapsing VII. Margin Calculations VIII. Discussion of Issues a. China Steel 1. Whether to Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to China Steel 2. China Steel Excluded Operating Costs 3. China Steel Under-Reported Prime Merchandise 4. China Steel Under-Reported G&A Expenses 5. China Steel Under-Reported Interest Expenses 6. China Steel Improperly Reduced COGS 7. China Steel Date of Sale 8. China Steel Home Market Post-Sale Price Adjustments 9. China Steel Destination Codes 10. China Steel Packing Expenses 11. Critical Circumstances 12. Alleged Errors in China Steel Verification Report b. Shang Chen 13. Total Adverse Facts Available for Shang Chen 14. Adjustments to the Reported Per-Unit Cost of Manufacturing 15. Shang Chen General and Administrative Expenses 16. Shang Chen Scrap Offset 17. Quarterly Cost Data 18. Shang Chen Differential Pricing Analysis 19. Shang Chen Date of Sale 20. Shang Chen Sales-Related Revenues 21. Shang Chen Reported Packing Cost 22. Alleged Error in Shang Chen's Margin Calculation Program IX. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2017-06703 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No.: 170301219-7219-01] RIN 0625-XC029 Amendment to the Privacy Shield Cost Recovery Fees AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

On November 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of CTL plate from Belgium.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 Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The scope of the investigation covers CTL plate from Belgium. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2016, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Industeel Belgium S.A. (Industeel), for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Industeel.3

In addition, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in December 2016 and January 2017, we also attempted to verify the sales and cost information submitted by NLMK Belgium,4 using standard verification procedures. However, as explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, the Department was unable to validate the accuracy of NLMK Belgium's reporting.5 As a consequence, we find that NLMK Belgium's reported data are unverifiable, and, thus, cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation. Specifically, because we encountered so many errors within NLMK Belgium's reported data at verification, and the submitted sales and cost information is integral to the proper evaluation of its margin calculation, we find that all of the information submitted by NLMK Belgium is unverifiable. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 8-12.

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Industeel. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate from Industeel and NLMK Belgium, and do not exist with respect to companies covered by the “all others” rate.6 We modified our critical circumstances findings for the final determination. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Critical Circumstances.” 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 NLMK Belgium and for “all others,” but not for Industeel.

Due to its failures at verification, we determine that NLMK Belgium's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation and that NLMK Belgium did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we find it appropriate to apply adverse facts available (AFA), in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308, to NLMK Belgium. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.

We are able to corroborate the highest petition dumping margin of 51.78 percent to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act using the highest transaction-specific dumping margins calculated for Industeel and, thus, we assigned this dumping margin to NLMK Belgium as AFA. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Use of Adverse Facts Available.”

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. Industeel is the only respondent for which the Department calculated a company-specific margin. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Industeel, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

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 CTL plate from Belgium, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. For entries made by NLMK Belgium, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of CTL plate from Belgium which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 16, 2016, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Additionally, for entries made by the companies covered by the “all others” rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of CTL plate from Belgium which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 16, 2016, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Because the Department did not find critical circumstances to exist for Industeel, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries, without regard to duties, which entered prior to November 14, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as shown 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 CTL plate from Belgium 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 sanctionable violation.

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

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. For meeting information please contact Mr. Steven Cruddas, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155, [email protected], (703) 697-2168. For submitting written comments or questions to the Board, send via email to mailbox address: [email protected]. A copy of the public agenda and the terms of reference for the Task Group study may be obtained from the Board's Web site at http://dbb.defense.gov/meetings.

Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the Board is to examine and advise the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance. The Board provides independent advice which reflects an outside private sector perspective on proven and effective best business practices that can be applied to DoD. The Board will hear an update from its Task Group on “Implications of Technology on the Future Workforce.”

Agenda:

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Steven Cruddas at the number listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 14, 2017 to register and make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 10:00 a.m. on April 20. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card.

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Written Statements: Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the email address for public comments given in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Board's Web site.

Based on a recent review, it was determined that the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel no longer maintains a Privacy Act system of records for private relief legislation. Legislative bills are tracked by bill number, rather than personal identifier.

The Office of the Secretary systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

The proposed changes to the record system being amended are set forth in this notice. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other types of information technology.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1905-0205.

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report.

(3) Type of Request: Extension, with changes, of a currently approved collection.

(4) Purpose: Form EIA-914, “Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report,” collects monthly data on natural gas production, crude oil and lease condensate production, and crude oil and lease condensate sales by API gravity category in 21 state/areas (Alabama, Arkansas, California (including State Offshore), Colorado, Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico, Federal Offshore Pacific, Kansas, Louisiana (including State Offshore), Michigan, Mississippi (including State Offshore), Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas (including State Offshore), Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Other States (defined as all remaining states, except Alaska)). The data appears in the “Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report,” on EIA's Web site and in the EIA publications, Monthly Energy Review, Petroleum Supply Annual volume 1, Petroleum Supply Annual volume 2, Petroleum Supply Monthly, Natural Gas Annual, and Natural Gas Monthly.

(4a) The proposed changes include changing the title from “Monthly Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report,” to “Monthly Crude Oil and Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report.”

EIA is proposing to add Part 5 to Form EIA-914 regarding stabilizer activity. Part 5 will collect state-level volumes of crude oil and lease condensate going into stabilizer units. A stabilizer processes lighter gravity crude oil and condensate and removes the gaseous portion from the crude oil. The requested data will be reported as three new data elements: volume of oil and condensate as inputs to a stabilizer; outlet volume of stabilized oil; and outlet volume of natural gas liquids (NGL). Respondents only need to report the total volume of NGLs as a single category and do not need to provide separate estimates for each separate NGL. The reporting unit of measurement is in barrels per day (bpd).

The increase in the production of light crude oils and condensate in the crude oil production industry is the main reason that EIA is proposing changes to Form EIA-914 to include the collection of state-level volumes of crude oil and lease condensate going into stabilizer units. Stabilizers lower the Reed Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the crude oil and make it safe to transport and store. EIA is also proposing minor changes to Parts 2, 3, and 4. Currently, a respondent is limited to selecting only one pre-existing comment in the comments box drop down menu. EIA is proposing to allow respondents to select multiple frequently-used default comments, as well as the option to record specific comments in the text box. This facilitates a respondent's ability to provide a more complete and accurate explanation for the data reported on the form.

For Parts 2, 3, 4, and 5, EIA also proposes to increase the number of states/areas for which production will be separately collected and reported from 17 to 22 states/areas. EIA proposes to add the following states/areas: Alabama, federal offshore Pacific, Michigan, Mississippi, and Virginia will be reported separately and no longer included in the “Other States” group. Separately reporting for these five states/areas reduces the number of states that are included in the “Other States” reporting category from 19 (including federal Pacific) to 14. Removing these five states/areas from the “Other States” category reduces the “Other States” category's oil production by approximately 75% and gas production by 80%. EIA believes these proposed changes will reduce reporting burden for respondents, reduce reporting errors in the “Other States” category, and make it easier for respondents to answer any follow up questions for “Other States.” Production for these 5 states/areas will be estimated more accurately using the weighted least squares method rather than using the calendar year average ratio applied to the “Other States” group. The 14 states remaining in the “Other States” group account for approximately 1% or less of the Lower 48 oil and gas production. EIA is proposing these changes to Form EIA-914 to increase the precision of its collection of information on crude oil and natural gas production activities in the United States.

The burden hours per response will increase from 4.0 hours to 4.5 hours due to the addition of Part 5 regarding the reporting of information on stabilizer activity. The proposal to add five states in Parts 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not affect total burden because it only involves adding approximately nine more respondents to the sampling frame and the total budgeted sample is being reduced from 600 to 500 respondents.

EIA proposes a permanent change in the confidentiality pledge to respondents to Form EIA-914. EIA revised its confidentiality pledge to EIA-914 survey respondents under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 (note)) (CIPSEA) in an emergency Federal Register notice released on January 12, 2017 in 82 FR 3764. These revisions are required by provisions of the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-11, Division N, Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 223). This law permits and requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide Federal civilian agencies' information technology systems with cybersecurity protection for their Internet traffic. Federal statistics provide key information that the Nation uses to measure its performance and make informed choices about budgets, energy, employment, health, investments, taxes, and a host of other significant topics. Strong and trusted confidentiality and exclusive statistical use pledges under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) and similar statistical confidentiality pledges are effective and necessary in honoring the trust that businesses, individuals, and institutions place in statistical agencies. In this notice EIA proposes to permanently revise the confidentiality pledge to EIA-914 respondents as follows:

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 500 respondents with 12 responses each.

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: The annual number of total responses is 6,000.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: The annual estimated burden is 27,000 hours.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: Additional costs to respondents are not anticipated beyond costs associated with response burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $1,988,820 (27,000 burden hours times $73.66 per hour). Other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.