Sulfanilic Acid from China and India, Inv. Nos 701-TA-318 and 731-TA-538 and 561 (Fourth Review)

=== USITC Institution === 60386 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and (c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Products that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country after 2010, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Products produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in each Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Products and Domestic Industries; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 24, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–20659 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731– TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review)] Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. DATES : Effective September 1, 2016. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 3, 2016. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 15, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background—On August 19, 1992, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of sulfanilic acid from China (57 FR 37524). On March 2, 1993, Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of sulfanilic acid from India (57 FR 12025 and 12026). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective June 8, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India (65 FR 36404). Following second five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective May 11, 2006, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India (71 FR 27449). Following the third five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective October 25, 2011, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on imports of sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on imports of sulfanilic acid from China and India (76 FR 66039). The Commission is now conducting fourth reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR parts 201, subparts A and B and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to these reviews: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60387Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce. (2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are China and India. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations, expedited first five-year review determinations, full second five- year review determinations, and expedited third five-year review determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all sulfanilic acid, coextensive with Commerce’s scope. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, expedited first five-year review determinations, full second five-year review determinations, and expedited third five-year review determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all domestic producers of sulfanilic acid. (5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. Participation in the proceeding and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission’s designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3088. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that information submitted in response to this request for information and throughout this proceeding or other proceeding may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Written submissions.—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is October 3, 2016. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is November 15, 2016. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission’s Web site at http:// edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response). No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 16–5–366, expiration date June 30, 2017. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60388 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determinations in the reviews. Information to be provided in response to this notice of institution: If you are a domestic producer, union/ worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. (1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. (2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association (a majority of whose members are interested parties under the statute), or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association. (3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission. (4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. (5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)). (6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2010. (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm). (8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets. (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2015, except as noted (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); (c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); (d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends). (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2015 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and (c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60389Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country after 2010, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in each Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 24, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–20658 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed First Partial Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Consent Decree Under Cercla On August 9, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed First Partial Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/ RA) Consent Decree (‘‘Consent Decree’’) with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, in the lawsuit entitled United States and State of New Mexico, et al. v. Chevron Mining Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16–cv–00904. The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, together with the State of New Mexico, filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (‘‘CERCLA’’) against Chevron Mining Inc. (‘‘CMI’’). The Defendant, CMI, is the owner and operator of the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’), an inactive Molybdenum mine, located in Taos County, New Mexico. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Site. Under the proposed settlement, CMI agrees to pay $5,269,949 in past costs, to perform certain aspects of the remedial action selected by EPA for the Site, which are estimated to cost over $143 million, and to pay EPA’s future costs associated with oversight of that work. Other aspects of the remedy will proceed at a later date. In return, the United States agrees not to sue CMI under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA or under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for the work that CMI has agreed to perform. The prior notice of lodging of this Consent Decree, published on August 15, 2016, stated that the Department of Justice would receive comments concerning the settlement for thirty days or until September 14, 2016. Having received a request for an extension of the initial public comment period, the United States is extending the comment period for an additional thirty (30) days, or until October 14, 2016. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of sixty (60) days from August 14, 2016, any comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and State of Mexico, et al. v. Chevron Mining Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16–cv–00904, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3– 10261. All comments must be submitted no later than October 14, 2016. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: To submit comments: Send them to: By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@ usdoj.gov. By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General U.S. DOJ—ENRD P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044–7611. Under section 7003(d) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6973, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https:// www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $36.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $11.50. Thomas P. Carroll, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2016–21068 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 183rd Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Teleconference Meeting Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 183rd open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held as a teleconference on September 27, 2016. The meeting will take place in C5521 room 4, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Public access is available only in this room (i.e. not by telephone). The meeting will run from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. The purpose of the open meeting is to discuss reports/ recommendations for the Secretary of Labor on the issues of (1) Cybersecurity Considerations for Benefit Plans and (2) Participant Plan Transfers and Account Consolidation for the Advancement of Lifetime Plan Participation. Descriptions of these topics are available on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA Web site at http:// www.dol.gov/ebsa/aboutebsa/erisa_ advisory_council.html. Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before September 20, 2016 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 92853Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices 1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. trademark prosecution and maintenance in the domestic industry analysis. As recognized in Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, patent prosecution activities rarely qualify as investments under section 337(a)(3)(C). See Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, Inv. No. 337–TA–743, Comm’n Op., 2011 WL 1523774, *5 (Apr. 14, 2011). Rather, such activities are typically a step towards patent ownership and are insufficient to constitute exploitation of the patent under section 337(a)(3)(C). See id.; 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Complainant made no showing that its patent and trademark prosecution and maintenance expenses are related to engineering, research and development, or licensing, or that such expenses otherwise qualify under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Comm’n Op.). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported and the expiration date of the ’070 patent. The Complainant is also requested to supply the names of all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. Written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on January 4, 2017. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on January 11, 2017. Such submissions should address the ALJ’s recommended determinations on remedy and bonding which were made in Order No. 11. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–988’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205– 2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, 1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–30580 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731– TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review)] Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 92854 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. 2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Nation Ford Chemical Co. and Archroma U.S., Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. DATES : Effective Date: December 5, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones (202–205–3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.— On December 5, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 60386, September 1, 2016) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate. The Commission also determined that the respondent interested party group response with respect to the order on sulfanilic acid from China was adequate but that the respondent interested party group response with respect to the orders on sulfanilic acid from India was inadequate. However, on November 18, 2016, the sole participating respondent interested party, in the review on sulfanilic acid from China (Archroma), withdrew its position and statements that advocated for revocation of the order. The Commission therefore determined that it would not be appropriate to conduct a full review of the order concerning China. The Commission did not find any circumstances that warranted conducting full reviews with respect to the orders concerning India. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 15, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before December 22, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by December 22, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission’s Web site at https:// edis.usitc.gov. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determinations.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–30534 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act On December 12, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the lawsuit entitled United States and State of Indiana v. the City of Gary, Indiana, and Gary Sanitary District, Civil Action No. 2:16–cv–512 (N.D. Ind.). The United States and the State filed a complaint under the Clean Water Act, alleging violations of the Gary Sanitary District’s wastewater discharge permit and duty to respond to an information request issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Settling Defendants are the Gary Sanitary District and the City of Gary. The proposed consent decree requires the Settling Defendants to: (1) Develop and implement a control plan addressing discharges from the Gary Sanitary District’s combined sewer overflow outfalls into the local water bodies; (2) implement additional operational changes focused on improving the wastewater treatment system’s efficiency; (3) repay an outstanding loan extended to the City by the District; (4) pay a civil penalty of $75,000; (5) perform a supplemental environmental project costing $175,000; and (6) provide schedules for the remaining remediation of the Ralston Street Lagoon and the remediation of sediment in the Grand Calumet River, which are outstanding Clean Water Act and Toxic Substances Control Act requirements from a consent decree entered into by the Parties in 2003 in Civil Action No. 2:78–cv–29 and 86–540 (N.D. Ind.). The settlement would resolve the Settling Defendants’ civil liability for the violations alleged in the complaint that has been filed in the same action also on December 12, 2016. The United States and Indiana reached VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM 20DEN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination === 18776 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). expire on April 15, 2018, unless extended. This notice gives the public an opportunity to comment on the application and to request a public meeting. This notice also corrects an error in the legal description. DATES : Comments and public meeting requests must be received by July 20, 2017. ADDRESSES : Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208–2965, Attention: Jacob Childers, OR 936.1. Records related to the application may be examined by contacting Mr. Childers at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacob Childers, BLM Oregon/ Washington State Office, 503–808–6225, or Candice Polisky, USFS Pacific Northwest Region, 503–808–2479. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 877–8339 to contact either of the above individuals. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend PLO No. 4145 (32 FR 214 (1967)), as modified by PLO No. 7322 (63 FR 13069 (1998)), for an additional 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights. In order to protect the recreational values of West Eagle Meadow Campground, PLO No. 4145, as modified, withdrew National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws. Willamette Meridian Wallowa-Whitman National Forest West Eagle Meadow Campground T. 5 S., R. 43 E., PB 43 The area described contains 32 acres in Union County. The subject land is identical in size, shape, and location to the legal description in PLO No. 7322 (63 FR 13069 (1998)). The original survey, which determined that the area was 20 acres, was incorrect. The difference in acreage, between what is stated in PLO No. 7322 and what is stated here stems from the original survey’s use of protraction blocks, which are essentially estimates. Following the initial withdrawal, the land was resurveyed using more advanced technology, and the area was determined to contain 32 acres, not 20 acres. This notice corrects the description to read as listed above. The USFS would not need to acquire water rights to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension. Records related to the application may be examined by contacting Jacob Childers at the address or phone number listed above. For a period until July 20, 2017, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, State Director at the address indicated above. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address indicated above during regular business hours. Be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with this withdrawal extension application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal extension application must submit a written request to the BLM State Director at the address indicated above by July 20, 2017. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register and a local newspaper at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. This extension will be processed in accordance with 43 CFR 2310.4. Leslie A. Frewing, Acting Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy Resources. [FR Doc. 2017–08012 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411–15–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–17–015] Change of Time to Government in the Sunshine Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade Commission. DATE : April 21, 2017. ORIGINAL TIME: 11:00 a.m. NEW TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE : Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000. STATUS : Open to the public. In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(2)(i), the Commission hereby gives notice that the Commission has determined to change the time of the meeting of April 21, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 18, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2017–08152 Filed 4–19–17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731– TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review)] Sulfanilic Acid From China and India Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in these subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid from China and the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on sulfanilic acid from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60386) and determined on December 5, 2016 that it would conduct expedited reviews (81 FR 92854, December 20, 2016). The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on April 17, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4680 (April 2017), entitled Sulfanilic Acid From China and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 18777Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices 1 The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to submit a corrective action plan and the procedure for doing so. Show Cause Order, at 2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 2 The ALJ’s recommended decision is not a final order of the Agency, and thus a motion for reconsideration is not ripe until the Agency issues its Decision and Order. India: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731–TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: April 17. 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–08064 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 17–8] William H. Wyttenbach, M.D.; Decision and Order On October 4, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to William H. Wyttenbach, M.D. (Respondent), of Fort Myers, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. BW1311997, on the ground that he ‘‘do[es] not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Florida, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the’’ Agency. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(3)). As to the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered ‘‘as a practitioner in [s]chedules II–V,’’ pursuant to the above registration number, at the registered address of 16329 South Tamiami Trail, Units 5&6, Fort Myers, Florida. Id. The Order further alleged that Respondent’s registration ‘‘expires by its terms on May 31, 2018.’’ Id. As to the substantive basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective June 15, 2016, the Florida Board of Medicine ‘‘suspended [his] authority to practice medicine,’’ and that he is ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substances in Florida, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with’’ DEA. Id. The Order thus alleged that Respondent’s registration is subject to revocation. 1 Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)). On November 3, 2016, Respondent submitted a request for a hearing. The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman. Thereafter, the ALJ issued an order which directed the Government to submit its evidence in support of the allegation and any motion for summary disposition on this ground by 2 p.m. on November 28, 2016. See Briefing Schedule for Lack of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ also ordered that if the Government filed such motion, Respondent’s reply was due by 2 p.m. on December 12, 2016. Id. On November 8, 2016, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition, which asserted that ‘‘on June 15, 2016, the State of Florida Board of Medicine suspended Respondent’s state medical license.’’ Mot. at 2. As support for its Motion, the Government attached a June 15, 2015 Final Order issued by the Florida Board of Medicine which suspended Respondent’s Florida medical license ‘‘until such time as he personally appears before the Board and demonstrates that his license to practice medicine in all jurisdictions is free from all encumbrances.’’ Appendix C, at 4. The Government also attached an affidavit by a DEA Diversion Investigator attesting to the authenticity of the Florida Board’s Final Order, see Appendix B, as well as a copy of Respondent’s DEA registration. See Appendix A. Based on this evidence, the Government argued that Respondent is without authority to handle controlled substances in Florida and therefore, he does not meet the statutory definition of a practitioner. Motion, at 3–4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21)). Invoking cases holding that revocation is warranted even when a registrant’s state authority has been summarily suspended, the Government maintained that because possessing authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for maintaining a DEA registration and Respondent does not possess such authority, revocation of his registration is warranted. Id. at 4 (citing Gary Alfred Shearer, 78 FR 19,009, 19012 (2013) (other citation omitted)). On December 5, 2016, Respondent filed his Response to the Government’s Motion. Therein, Respondent stated that he ‘‘agrees[ ] he has no authority to practice medicine in Florida and has not done so since June 4, 2015 and ongoing.’’ Response, at 1. Respondent asserted, however, that he does have an active and unrestricted medical license in Wyoming. Id. He further asserted that the suspension of his Florida license was illegal, that the Florida Board had violated his Due Process rights, and that he is suing the Florida Board as well as the medical boards of Tennessee, Colorado, Kentucky, and Washington, and a DEA Agent for civil rights violations in federal district court in Fort Myers, Florida. Id. at 2. He also asserted that this proceeding violates his ‘‘constitutional right of due process to appeal a non final order’’ and that ‘‘no alleged final order exists until ALL final appeals are exhausted.’’ Id. at 2–3. On review, the ALJ noted that under the CSA, ‘‘a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in which [he] is registered’’ in order to maintain his registration. R.D. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)). The ALJ also noted that under agency precedent, revocation is warranted ‘‘where the practitioner lacks state authority, even if the practitioner has not had the opportunity to contest the charges’’ brought by the state board, ‘‘or if there is a possibility that the Respondent’s state license will be reinstated in the future.’’ Id. (citing Richard H. Ng., 77 FR 29694, 29695 (2012); other citations omitted). Finding that there was no dispute over the material fact that ‘‘Respondent lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in Florida, where [he] is registered,’’ the ALJ concluded that Respondent is not entitled to maintain his registration and granted the Government’s motion, with the recommendation that I revoke his registration. Id. at 4. On January 12, 2017, after the expiration of the time period for filing exceptions, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for final agency action. More than two months later, Respondent submitted a pleading titled as: ‘‘Motion To Reconsider And/Or Motion for Telephonic Hearing, And/Or Motion To Dismiss Administrative Revocation.’’ I decline to consider Respondents’ motions. To the extent Respondent seeks reconsideration, his motion is not ripe,2 and even if it were ripe, it would fail. First, his motion presents no newly discovered evidence. See ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270, 278 (1987). Second, he does not point to any ‘‘changed circumstance’’ that would render my adoption of the ALJ’s factual findings, legal conclusions and recommended order inappropriate. Id. As for all three motions, they simply raise legal arguments which could have, and should have, been raised in a brief of exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended decision. Respondent did not, however, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Initiation === 60343Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices 16 Areal shrinkage is expressed as the following percentage: ((Fired Area, em2¥Initial Area, cm2)/ Initial Area, cm2) × 100 = Areal Shrinkage, %. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: August 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Discussion of the Methodology A. Non-Market Economy Country B. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments C. Separate Rates D. The PRC-wide Entity E. Application of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences F. Date of Sale G. Comparisons to Fair Value VII. Currency Conversion VIII. Adjustment Under Section 777A(F) of the Act IX. Adjustment for Countervailable Subsidies X. Disclosure and Public Comment XI. Verification XII. Conclusion Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is woven (whether from yarns or rovings) industrial grade amorphous silica fabric, which contains a minimum of 90 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight, and a nominal width in excess of 8 inches. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of other materials contained in the fabric, regardless of whether in roll form or cut-to-length, regardless of weight, width (except as noted above), or length. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the product is approved by a standards testing body (such as being Factory Mutual (FM) Approved), or regardless of whether it meets any governmental specification. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be produced in various colors. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is colored. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be coated or treated with materials that include, but are not limited to, oils, vermiculite, acrylic latex compound, silicone, aluminized polyester (Mylar®) film, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or other coatings and treatments. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is coated or treated, and regardless of coating or treatment weight as a percentage of total product weight. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be heat-cleaned. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is heat-cleaned. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be imported in rolls or may be cut-to- length and then further fabricated to make welding curtains, welding blankets, welding pads, fire blankets, fire pads, or fire screens. Regardless of the name, all industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further cut-to-length or cut-to-width or further finished by finishing the edges and/or adding grommets, is included within the scope of this investigation. Subject merchandise also includes (1) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been converted into industrial grade amorphous silica fabric in China from fiberglass cloth produced in a third country; and (2) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further processed in a third country prior to export to the United States, including but not limited to treating, coating, slitting, cutting to length, cutting to width, finishing the edges, adding grommets, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope industrial grade amorphous silica fabric. Excluded from the scope of the investigation is amorphous silica fabric that is subjected to controlled shrinkage, which is also called ‘‘pre-shrunk’’ or ‘‘aerospace grade’’ amorphous silica fabric. In order to be excluded as a pre-shrunk or aerospace grade amorphous silica fabric, the amorphous silica fabric must meet the following exclusion criteria: (l) The amorphous silica fabric must contain a minimum of 98 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight; (2) the amorphous silica fabric must have an areal shrinkage of 4 percent or less; (3) the amorphous silica fabric must contain no coatings or treatments; and (4) the amorphous silica fabric must be white in color. For purposes of this scope, ‘‘areal shrinkage’’ refers to the extent to which a specimen of amorphous silica fabric shrinks while subjected to heating at 1800 degrees F for 30 minutes. 16 Also excluded from the scope are amorphous silica fabric rope and tubing (or sleeving). Amorphous silica fabric rope is a knitted or braided product made from amorphous silica yarns. Silica tubing (or sleeving) is braided into a hollow sleeve from amorphous silica yarns. The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7019.59.4021, 7019.59.4096, 7019.59.9021, and 7019.59.9096 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7019.40.4030, 7019.40.4060, 7019.40.9030, 7019.40.9060, 7019.51.9010, 7019.51.9090, 7019.52.9010, 7019.52.9021, 7019.52.9096 and 7019.90.1000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2016–21095 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is automatically initiating the five-year review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (‘‘AD/CVD’’) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same order(s). DATES : Effective Date: September 1, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205–3193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The Department’s procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five- Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department’s conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60344 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices 1 See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). 2 See section 782(b) of the Act. 3 See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)). 4 See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013). 5 See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). 6 See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). Initiation of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s): DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A–533–806 .......... 731–TA–561 ........ India ..................... Sulfanilic Acid (4th Review) ............................................. David Goldberger 202–482–4136. C–533–807 .......... 701–TA–318 ........ India ..................... Sulfanilic Acid (4th Review) ............................................. David Goldberger 202–482–4136. A–570–815 .......... 731–TA–538 ........ PRC ..................... Sulfanilic Acid (4th Review) ............................................. David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. A–588–850 .......... 731–TA–847 ........ Japan ................... Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pres- sure Pipe (Over 4 1 ⁄2 Inches) (3rd Review). David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. A–588–851 .......... 731–TA–847 ........ Japan ................... Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pres- sure Pipe (Under 4 1 ⁄2 Inches) (3rd Review). David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. A–485–805 .......... 731–TA–849 ........ Romania .............. Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pres- sure Pipe (Under 4 1 ⁄2 Inches) (3rd Review). David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. Filing Information As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department’s regulations, the Department’s schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department’s Web site at the following address: ‘‘http:// enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.’’ All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department’s regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 1 This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/ government officials as well as their representatives in these segments. 3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements. On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/ CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ 1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ 1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5 Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department’s regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. Information Required From Interested Parties Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department’s regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review. 6 If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department’s regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department’s information requirements are distinct VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60345Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2016 / Notices from the Commission’s information requirements. Consult the Department’s regulations for information regarding the Department’s conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department’s regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department. This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). Dated: August 25, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2016–21209 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 14–3A004] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION : Notice of Issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California (‘‘DFA’’), Application No. 14–3A004. SUMMARY : The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (‘‘OTEA’’), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California (‘‘DFA’’) on August 8, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at etca@ trade.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register. Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary’s determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Amended Certificate DFA’s Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to make the following changes to the list of Members covered by the Certificate: Proposed Amendment: 1. Change the name of existing Member Diamond Foods, Inc. to Diamond Foods, LLC. The Members covered by the amended Export Trade Certificate of Review are listed below: 1. Alpine Pacific Nut Company, Hughson, CA 2. Andersen & Sons Shelling, Vina, CA 3. Avanti Nut Company, Inc., Stockton, CA 4. Berberian Nut Company, LLC, Chico, CA 5. Carriere Family Farms, Inc., Glenn, CA 6. California Almond Packers and Exporters (CAPEX), Corning CA 7. California Walnut Company, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 8. Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA 9. Continente Nut LLC, Oakley, CA 10. C. R. Crain & Sons, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 11. Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 12. Crisp California Walnuts, Stratford, CA 13. Diamond Foods, LLC, Stockton, CA 14. Empire Nut Company, Colusa, CA 15. Fig Garden Packing, Inc., Fresno, CA 16. Gold River Orchards, Inc., Escalon, CA 17. Grower Direct Nut Company, Hughson, CA 18. GSF Nut Company, Orosi, CA 19. Guerra Nut Shelling Company, Hollister, CA 20. Hill View Packing Company Inc., Gustine, CA 21. Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA 22. Mariani Packing Company, Inc., Vacaville, CA 23. Mid Valley Nut Company Inc., Hughson, CA 24. Morada Nut Company, LP, Stockton, CA 25. National Raisin Company, Fowler, CA 26. O–G Nut Company, Stockton, CA 27. Omega Walnut, Inc., Orland, CA 28. Pearl Crop, Inc., Stockton, CA 29. Poindexter Nut Company, Selma, CA 30. Prima Noce Packing, Linden, CA 31. RPC Packing Inc., Porterville, CA 32. Sacramento Packing, Inc., Yuba City, CA 33. Sacramento Valley Walnut Growers, Inc., Yuba City, CA 34. San Joaquin Figs, Inc., Fresno, CA 35. Shoei Foods USA, Inc., Olivehurst, CA 36. Stapleton-Spence Packing, Gridley, CA 37. Sun-Maid Growers of California, Kingsburg, CA 38. Sunsweet Growers Inc., Yuba City, CA 39. Taylor Brothers Farms, Inc., Yuba City, CA 40. T.M. Duche Nut Company, Inc., Orland, CA 41. Wilbur Packing Company, Inc., Live Oak, CA 42. Valley Fig Growers, Fresno, CA No change has been made regarding the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities or Methods of Operation covered by the Certificate. The amended Certificate of Review is effective from May 9, 2016, the date on which the application for an amendment was deemed submitted. Dated: August 26, 2016. Emily Kilcrease, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration. [FR Doc. 2016–21072 Filed 8–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XE849 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION : Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY : The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES : The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 20, 21, and 22, 2016. It will start at 9 a.m. on September 20; 8:30 a.m. on September 21; and at 8:30 a.m. on September 22, 2016. ADDRESSES : The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: (978) 777–2500; online at http://doubletree3.hilton.com/en/hotels/ massachusetts/doubletree-by-hilton- hotel-boston-north-shore-BOSNSDT/ index.html. Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465–0492; www.nefmc.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492, ext. 113. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Aug 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM 01SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Final Results - AD - China - India === 1321Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2, 1993) (‘‘India Order’’), and Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic from China, 57 FR 37524 (August 19, 1992) (‘‘PRC Order’’) (collectively, ‘‘Orders’’). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 81 FR 60386 (September 1, 2016) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 3 See Submissions from Petitioner to the Department, ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic of China/Petitioner’s Substantive Response’’ (‘‘PRC Substantive Response’’), and ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India/Petitioner’s Substantive Response’’ (‘‘India Substantive Response’’), each dated September 30, 2016. 4 See Submissions from Archroma to the Department, both titled ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India and China: Archroma’s Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,’’ each dated September 30, 2016. See letter from the Department to Archroma, ‘‘Sunset Reviews of Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic of China and India,’’ dated October 24, 2016. 5 Id. Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase- hardened, primarily with a ferritic- martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm 2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above. Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inches nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20 percent. The covered merchandise is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered include: Vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.01.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the covered merchandise is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Adverse Facts Available. [FR Doc. 2016–31995 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–815, A–533–806] Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY : As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective January 5, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6430. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On September 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the AD Orders 1 on sulfanilic acid from India and the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 2 On September 14, 2016, Nation Ford Chemical Company (‘‘Petitioner’’) notified the Department of its intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. Archroma, U.S., Inc. (‘‘Archroma’’) claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a domestic importer of subject merchandise to the United States. On September 30, 2016, the Department received from Petitioner complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation, with respect to both of the Orders, within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 Also on September 30, 2016 the Department received a response from Archroma, which the Department determined did not adequately meet the requirements of a substantive response under 19 CFR 351.218(d)–(e).4 Specifically, Archroma failed to address and/or provide additional information required of a respondent interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(iii), nor did it demonstrate whether the substantive submission is eligible to be considered adequate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).5 No other interested parties submitted substantive responses. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC. Scope of the Orders Imports covered by the antidumping duty orders are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid. Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 1322 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices 6 See the Department’s memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) (Order). 2 See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13239 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 21, 2007), amended by Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 19689 (April 19, 2007) (February 3–2004–July 31, 2005 Amended Final Results). 3 See Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 73 FR 14437 (March 18, 2008) August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final Results). 4 See Home Products International, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 07–00123, 08–00094 (December 8, 2016). Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received A complete discussion of all issues raised with respect to these sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. 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 to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of the Sunset Reviews Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 71.09 percent for India, and up to 85.20 percent for the PRC. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: December 29, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–31993 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–888] Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Pursuant to Settlement; 2004– 2005 and 2006–2007 AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 and August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 antidumping duty administrative reviews of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) with respect to Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) pursuant to an agreement that settles the related litigation. DATES : Effective January 5, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Erin Kearney, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 0167, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the antidumping duty order on floor standing, metal top ironing tables and certain parts thereof. 1 On April 19, 2007, the Department published the amended final results of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 administrative review.2 On, March 18, 2008, the Department published the final results of the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 administrative review. 3 Following the publication of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 Amended Final Results, and the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final Results, Since Hardware filed lawsuits with the CIT challenging the Department’s final results of both the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 and the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 administrative reviews. The United States and Since Hardware have entered into an agreement to settle the outstanding litigation. The Court issued its Judgment on December 8, 2016.4 Assessment of Duties Pursuant to the Court’s Judgment, the Department shall instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all shipments of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof, from the PRC, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005, and that were produced or exported by Since Hardware at a rate of 72.29 percent. The Department shall also instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all shipments of floor- standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof, from the PRC, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Continuation - AD - China - India === 21520 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 9, 2017 / Notices 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 81 FR 60386 (September 1, 2016) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). Dated: May 1, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People’s Republic of China (the PRC). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics: (1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals; (2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit; (3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches; (4) a drawer depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and (5) prepackaged for retail sale. For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit, i.e., each individual top chest, intermediate top chest, tool cabinet, side cabinet, storage unit, mobile work bench, and work station. Prepackaged for retail sale means the units are packaged in a cardboard box or other container suitable for retail display and sale. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC but assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC that are later found to be assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States. Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (e.g., stainless steel), painted, powder coated, galvanized, or otherwise coated for corrosion protection or aesthetic appearance. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials. Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (e.g., bolts) and instructions for assembling them onto the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate tool chest which rests on the base tool cabinet. Smaller top chests typically have handles on the sides, while the larger top chests typically lack handles. Intermediate tool chests are designed to fit on top of the floor standing tool cabinet and to be used underneath the top tool chest. Although they may be packaged or used separately from the tool cabinet, intermediate chests are designed to be used in conjunction with tool cabinets. The intermediate chests typically do not have handles. The intermediate and top chests may have the capability of being bolted together. Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet. Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs the tools are not part of the subject merchandise. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are tool boxes, chests and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are portable metal tool boxes. Portable metal tool boxes have each of the following characteristics: (1) Fewer than three drawers; (2) a handle on the top that allows the tool box to be carried by hand; and (3) a width that is 21 inches or less; and depth (front to back) not exceeding 10 inches. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those: (1) Having a body that is over 60 inches wide; or (2) having each of the following physical characteristics: (a) A body made of steel that is 0.055″ or more in thickness; (b) all drawers over 21″ deep; (c) all drawer slides rated for 200 lbs. or more; and (d) not prepackaged for retail sale. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are work benches with fewer than two drawers. Excluded work benches have a solid top working surface, fewer than two drawers, are supported by legs and have no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020. Merchandise subject to the investigation is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030 and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2017–09371 Filed 5–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–815, A–533–806, C–533–807] Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on sulfanilic acid from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and India and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on sulfanilic acid from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Effective May 9, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Mallott (India and PRC AD Orders), John Conniff (India CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6430 or (202) 482–1009, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On September 1, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act).1 As a result of its reviews, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, the Department determined that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy, and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and net VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 May 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM 09MYN1 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES 21521Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 9, 2017 / Notices 2 See Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 1321 (January 5, 2017); Sulfanilic Acid From India: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 1693 (January 6, 2017). 3 See USITC Publication USITC Publication 4680, April 2017, Sulfanilic Acid from China and India: Inv. Nos. 701–TA–318 and 731–TA–538 and 561 (Fourth Review). See also Sulfanilic Acid from China and India, 82 FR 18776 (April 21, 2017). 4 In response to a request from 3V Corporation, on May 5, 1999, the Department clarified that sodium sulfanilate processed in Italy from sulfanilic acid produced in India is within the scope of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from India. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957 (July 7, 2000). 1 See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results in the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from Ukraine; 2015–2016,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). countervailable subsidy likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.2 On April 21, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the existing AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 3 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the AD and CVD orders is all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid. Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.4 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India and the CVD order from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India, and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this continuation. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: May 2, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–09302 Filed 5–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–823–805] Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015– 2016 AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Ukraine. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. The review covers two exporters of the subject merchandise, PJSC Zaporozhye Ferroalloy Plant (ZFP), and PJSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant (NFP). The Department preliminarily finds, based on the application of adverse facts available, that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value during the POR. DATES : Effective May 9, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0665. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is silicomanganese from Ukraine. Most silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.8040. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 1 Methodology The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 May 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM 09MYN1 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES