7584 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Notices 

Tribe and the State of South Dakota 

have reached an agreement to extend 

the expiration of their existing TribalState Class III gaming compact until 

June 23, 2016. This publishes notice of 

the new expiration date of the compact. 

Dated: February 3, 2016. 

Lawrence R. Roberts, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02917 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–933] 

Certain Stainless Steel Products, 

Certain Processes for Manufacturing 

or Relating to Same, and Certain 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

an Initial Determination Granting in 

Part a Motion for Default and Other 

Relief and, on Review, To Affirm the 

Default Finding; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order 

No. 17) by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding Viraj Profiles 

Limited (‘‘Viraj’’) in default for 

spoliation of evidence and ordering the 

disgorgement of complainants’ 

operating practices in Viraj’s possession. 

On review, the Commission has 

determined to affirm the default finding 

as to Viraj. The Commission requests 

certain briefing from the parties on the 

remaining issues under review, as 

indicated in this notice. The 

Commission also requests briefing from 

the parties and interested persons on the 

issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–3438. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http://

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on October 10, 2014, based on a 

complaint filed by Valbruna Slater 

Stainless, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana; 

Valbruna Stainless Inc., of Fort Wayne, 

Indiana; and Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. 

of Italy (collectively, ‘‘Valbruna’’). 79 FR 

61339 (Oct. 10, 2014). The complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain stainless 

steel products, certain processes for 

manufacturing or relating to same, and 

certain products containing same by 

reason of the misappropriation of trade 

secrets, the threat or effect of which is 

to destroy or substantially injure an 

industry in the United States. Id. The 

notice of investigation names as 

respondents Viraj Profiles Limited of 

Mumbai, India; Viraj Holdings P. Ltd. of 

Mumbai, India; Viraj—U.S.A., Inc. of 

Garden City, New York; Flanschenwerk 

Bebitz GmbH of Ko ̈nnern, Germany; 

Bebitz Flanges Works Pvt. Ltd. of 

Maharashtra, India; Bebitz U.S.A. of 

Garden City, New York; and Ta Chen 

Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. of Tainan, 

Taiwan and Ta Chen International, Inc. 

of Long Beach, California (‘‘Ta Chen’’). 

Id. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) also was named 

as a party to the investigation. Id. 

On September 8, 2015, Valbruna filed 

a motion for default and other relief for 

Viraj’s failure to make and cooperate in 

discovery, intentional concealment and 

failure to preserve dispositive evidence, 

and misrepresentations to Valbruna and 

the Commission. On September 17, 

2015, OUII filed a response in support 

of Valbruna’s motion. On September 18, 

2015, Viraj filed a response opposing 

the motion. 

On December 8, 2015, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID (Order No. 17), granting 

in part Valbruna’s motion for default 

and other relief. The ALJ found that 

Viraj acted in bad faith in spoliating 

evidence and that a sanction of default 

against Viraj was warranted. The ALJ 

also ordered Viraj to disgorge any 

Valbruna operating practices in its 

possession. The ALJ denied Valbruna’s 

request to assert certain operating 

practices that the ALJ had previously 

excluded. 

On December 16, 2015, Viraj filed a 

petition for review. Ta Chen also filed 

a petition for review, arguing that it is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. On 

December 23, 2015, Valbruna and OUII 

each filed responses to both petitions. 

Valbruna’s response included a request 

for immediate entry of relief against 

Viraj. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the ID. Specifically, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s finding of default for spoliation 

of evidence as to Viraj and the ID’s order 

that Viraj disgorge any Valbruna 

operating practices in its possession. On 

review, the Commission affirms the 

default finding, with supplemental 

reasoning described in a forthcoming 

opinion. The Commission clarifies that 

the default finding against Viraj does 

not preclude the remaining respondents 

from participating in an evidentiary 

hearing and contesting the allegations at 

issue in the investigation. The 

Commission expects the stay of the 

procedural schedule to be lifted. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions only. The parties 

are requested to brief their positions 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the existing evidentiary record. 

1. Please provide an analysis of the 

Commission’s authority to (1) order 

Viraj to disgorge any Valbruna operating 

practices in its possession as a sanction 

for spoliation of evidence and (2) 

enforce such an order. Discuss the 

Commission’s jurisdiction to order 

disgorgement by a foreign entity. 

2. Please discuss whether the 

circumstances here provide the grounds 

for the issuance of immediate entry of 

relief against Viraj under Commission 

Rule 210.16(c). 

In connection with the final 

disposition of Order No. 17, the 

Commission may determine that 

immediate relief against Viraj is 

warranted. If so, 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 a cease and desist order that could 

result in Viraj 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Notices 7585 

1The Department of Commerce has preliminarily 

determined that countervailable subsidies are not 

being provided to producers and exporters of 

certain corrosion-resistant steel products from 

Taiwan and that imports of certain corrosionresistant steel products from Taiwan are not being 

and are not likely to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. 

2For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as certain corrosion-resistant steel 

products. For a full description of the scope of these 

investigations, including product exclusions, see 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination, 80 FR 68843, November 6, 2015. 

Please include in the submission a 

discussion of the appropriate duration 

of the remedy, if any, supported by the 

factual record. 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) (Commission 

Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders would have on (1) the public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

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. 

Complainants are requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported, and 

provide identification information for 

all known importers of the subject 

articles. Initial written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders must be filed 

no later than close of business on 

Thursday, February 18, 2016. Initial 

written submissions by the parties shall 

be no more than 40 pages, excluding 

any attachments or exhibits. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on Thursday, 

February 25, 2016. Reply submissions 

by the parties shall be no more than 25 

pages, excluding any attachments or 

exhibits. No further submissions on 

these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions must 

file the original document electronically 

on or before the deadlines stated above 

and submit 8 true paper copies to the 

Office of the Secretary by noon the next 

day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). 

Submissions should refer to the 

investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– 

TA–933’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

filing should contact the Secretary at 

(202) 205–2000. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document 

must also be filed simultaneously with 

any confidential filing. 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: February 8, 2016. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02869 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–534–538 and 

731–TA–1274–1278 (Final)] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products From China, India, Italy, 

Korea, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the 

Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigation Nos. 

701–TA–534–538 and 731–TA–1274– 

1278 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine 

whether an industry in the United 

States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of imports of certain corrosionresistant steel products from China, 

India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan,1

provided for in subheadings 7210.30.00, 

7210.41.00, 7210.49.00, 7210.61.00, 

7210.69.00, 7210.70.60, 7210.90.10, 

7210.90.60, 7210.90.90, 7212.20.00, 

7212.30.10, 7212.30.30, 7212.30.50, 

7212.40.10, 7212.40.50, 7212.50.00, 

7212.60.00, 7215.90.10, 7215.90.30, 

7215.90.50, 7217.20.15, 7217.30.15, 

7217.90.10, 7217.90.50, 7225.91.00, 

7225.92.00, 7226.99.01, 7228.60.60, 

7228.60.80, and 7229.90.10 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, preliminarily determined 

by the Department of Commerce to be 

subsidized and sold at less-than-fairvalue.2

DATES: Effective Date: January 4, 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. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES2