This solicitation is authorized pursuant by Congress in 1999 (Pub. L. 106-78), amended by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94), and funding continued under the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260).

The Agency encourages applicants to consider projects that will advance the following key priorities:

• Assisting rural communities recover economically from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly disadvantaged communities;

• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and

• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.

For further information, visit https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service (RHS).

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

Announcement Type: Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).

Funding Amount: The NOSA is being issued prior to the passage of a final appropriations act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022. Once the funding amount for this Program has been established by final appropriations act for FY 2022, the Agency will publish it on its website at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices-solicitation-applications-nosas.

Assistance Listing (AL) ( Formerly the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)) Number: 10.446.

Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-RD-HCFP-RCDI-2022.

Due Dates: Applications must be submitted using one of the following methods:

• Paper: The deadline for receipt of a paper application is 4 p.m. local time, April 25, 2022.

• Electronic: Electronic applications will be accepted via Grants.gov . The deadline for receipt of an electronic applications via Grants.gov is 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on April 19, 2022. The application dates and times are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted. Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, as long as such requests are made prior to April 14, 2022. Technical assistance is not meant to be an analysis or assessment of the quality of the materials submitted, a substitute for agency review of completed applications, nor a determination of eligibility, if such determination requires in-depth analysis. The Agency will not solicit or consider scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification information on materials contained in the submitted application.

Congress first authorized the RCDI in 1999 pursuant to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78), as amended by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94), and funding continued under the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260). The program is designed to assist qualified private organizations, nonprofit organizations, and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations, proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs to improve housing, community facilities, and community and economic development projects in rural areas. The RCDI program requires the intermediary (grantee) to provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients. The recipients will, in turn, provide programs to their communities (beneficiaries).

The Agency will publish the amount of funding received for FY 2022 on its website at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices-solicitation-applications-nosas.

Qualified private organizations, nonprofit organizations and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs will be eligible to receive grant funding.

The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant. In-kind contributions cannot be used as matching funds. Partnerships with other federal, state, local, private, and nonprofit entities are encouraged.

The respective minimum and maximum grant amounts per intermediary are $50,000 and $250,000, respectively. The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients to develop their capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will support the community.

Grant funds must be utilized within three years from date of the award.

A grantee that has an outstanding RCDI grant over three years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, is not eligible to apply for this round of funding.

The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to one or more of the following: A private, nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low- income rural community or a federally recognized Tribe. An intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.

Agency—The Rural Housing Service or its successor.

Beneficiary—Entities or individuals that receive benefits from assistance provided by the recipient.

Capacity—The ability of a recipient to implement housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects.

Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

Federally recognized Tribes—Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on the most recent notice in the Federal Register published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribes that received federal recognition after the most recent publication. Tribally Designated Housing Entities are eligible RCDI recipients.

Financial assistance—Funds, not to exceed $10,000 per award, used by the intermediary to purchase supplies and equipment to build the recipient's capacity.

Funds—The RCDI grant and matching funds that have been provided by the Grantee.

Intermediary—A qualified private organization, nonprofit organization (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic organizations), or public (including tribal) organization that provides financial and technical assistance to multiple recipients.

Low-income rural community—An authority, district, economic development authority, regional council, federally recognized Tribe, or unit of government representing an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, Indian reservation or borough whose income is at or below 80 percent of either the state or national Median Household Income as measured by the 2010 Census.

Matching funds—Cash or confirmed funding commitments. Matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period.

Recipient—The entity that receives the financial and technical assistance from the intermediary. The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized Tribe.

Rural and rural area—Any area other than (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants and (ii) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.

Technical assistance—Skilled help in improving the recipient's abilities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements by the application deadline. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible, will not be evaluated further, and will not receive a Federal award.

1. Qualified private organizations, nonprofit organizations (including faith- based organizations in accordance with 7 CFR part 16, and community organizations and philanthropic foundations), and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations are eligible applicants. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed below.

2. The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, low-income rural community, or federally recognized Tribe based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.

3. Private nonprofit, faith, or community-based organizations must provide a certificate of incorporation and a certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State of the State of incorporation, or other similar and valid documentation of current nonprofit status. For low-income rural community recipients, the Agency requires evidence that the entity is a public body and census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and technical assistance is located is at, or below, 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. For Federally recognized tribes, the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding services (see the definition of Federally recognized tribes in this Notice for details on this list). An intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized Tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.

4. In prior Fiscal Years any corporation that had been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months or that had any unpaid Federal tax liability that had been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies had been exhausted or lapsed, and that was not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, has not been eligible for financial assistance provided with full-year appropriated funds in accordance with prior appropriations acts unless a Federal agency had considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action was not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. It is possible that a similar provision will be included in the FY appropriations act for FY 2022, once enacted.

Matching funds are required to be provided in an amount that, at a minimum, is equal to the amount of the grant.

If this matching fund requirement is not met, the application will be deemed ineligible. See Section V, Application and Submission Information, for required pre-award and post award matching funds documentation submission.

Matching funds must be in the form of cash or confirmed funding commitments that, at a minimum, are equal to the grant amount. Matching funds must also be committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period. These funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities and must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program.

In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property, and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

Grant funds and matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean funds have to be used equally by line item.

The request for advance or reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of matching funds used.

Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 2 CFR parts 200 and 400. See Section V, Application and Submission Information, for matching funds documentation and pre-award requirements.

The intermediary is responsible for demonstrating that matching funds are available and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period to the RCDI proposal. Matching funds may be provided by the intermediary or a third party. Other Federal funds may be used as matching funds if authorized by statute and the purpose of the funds is an eligible RCDI purpose.

RCDI funds will be disbursed on an advance or reimbursement basis. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

Applicants must provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the amount of the Federal grant. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and will be awarded from funds appropriated for the RCDI program.

1. The recipient and beneficiary, but not the intermediary, must be located in an eligible rural area. The physical location of the recipient's office that will be receiving the financial and technical assistance must be in an eligible rural area. If the recipient is a low-income community, the median household income of the area where the office is located must be at or below 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. The applicable Rural Development State Office can assist in determining the eligibility of an area.

A listing of Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at the following link: https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf. A map showing eligible rural areas can be found at the following link: https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do?pageAction=RBSmenu.

2. RCDI grantees that have an outstanding grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, will not be eligible to apply for this round of funding. Grant and matching funds must be utilized in a timely manner to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are met.

3. Individuals cannot be recipients.

4. The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to the recipient.

5. The intermediary organization must have been legally organized for a minimum of three years and have at least three years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

6. Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant funds within 3 years from the date of the award.

7. Each applicant, whether individually or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI funds under this Notice. This restriction does not preclude the applicant from providing matching funds for other applications.

8. Recipients can benefit from more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the recipient can only benefit from multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and technical assistance the recipient will receive is not duplicative. The services described in multiple RCDI grant applications must have separate and identifiable accounts for compliance purposes.

9. The intermediary and the recipient cannot be the same entity. The recipient can be a related entity to the intermediary, if it meets the definition of a recipient, provided the relationship does not create a Conflict of Interest that cannot be resolved to Rural Development's satisfaction.

10. If the recipient is a low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and technical assistance will be provided ( e.g., town council or village board). The financial and technical assistance must be provided to the organized unit of government representing that community, not the community at large.

11. An intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.

Fund uses must be consistent with the RCDI purpose. Eligible purposes of grant funds include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Provide technical assistance to develop recipients' capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development, ( e.g., the intermediary hires a staff person to provide technical assistance to the recipient or the recipient hires a staff person, under the supervision of the intermediary, to carry out the technical assistance provided by the intermediary).

2. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct community development programs, ( e.g., homeownership education or training for business entrepreneurs).

3. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct development initiatives, ( e.g., programs that support micro-enterprise and sustainable development).

4. Develop the capacity of recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.

5. Develop the capacity of recipients to provide the technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.

6. Assist recipients in completing pre- development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services, ( e.g., architectural, engineering, or legal).

7. Improve recipient's organizational capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.

8. Purchase of computers, software, and printers, limited to $10,000 per award, at the recipient level when directly related to the technical assistance program being undertaken by the intermediary.

9. Provide funds to recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.

The following is a list of ineligible uses of grant funds:

The following are examples of eligible and ineligible purposes under the RCDI program. (These examples are illustrative and are not meant to limit the activities proposed in the application. Activities that meet the objectives of the RCDI program and meet the criteria outlined in this Notice will be considered eligible.)

1. The intermediary must work directly with the recipient, not the ultimate beneficiaries. For example:

The intermediary provides training and technical assistance to the recipients on developing and updating materials related to the prevention, treatment and recovery activities for opioid use disorder and ensures that high-quality training is provided to communities affected by the opioid epidemic.

2. The intermediary provides training to the recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community—the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The intermediary is providing technical assistance that will build the recipient's capacity by enabling it to conduct homeownership education classes for the public.

This is an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the recipient would be bypassed.

3. If the intermediary is working with a low-income community as the recipient, the intermediary must provide the technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council.

If the intermediary provides technical assistance to the Board of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose.

The recipient's capacity is built by learning skills that will enable it to support sustainable economic development in its community on an ongoing basis.

4. The intermediary may provide technical assistance to the recipient on how to create and operate a revolving loan fund. The intermediary may not monitor or operate the revolving loan fund. RCDI funds, including matching funds, cannot be used to fund revolving loan funds.

5. The intermediary may work with recipients to build their capacity to provide planning and leadership development training. The recipients of this training would be expected to assume leadership roles in the development and execution of regional strategic plans. The intermediary would work with multiple recipients in helping communities recognize their connections to the greater regional and national economies.

6. The intermediary could provide training and technical assistance to the recipients on developing emergency shelter and feeding, short-term housing, search and rescue, and environmental accident, prevention, and cleanup program plans. For longer term disaster and economic crisis responses, the intermediary could work with the recipients to develop job placement and training programs and develop coordinated transit systems for displaced workers.

Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/ community-facilities/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

Application information for electronic submissions may be found at https://www.grants.gov.

Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State office contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-205-9685.

If the applicant is ineligible or the application is incomplete, the Agency will inform the applicant in writing of the decision, reasons therefore, and its appeal rights and no further evaluation of the application will occur.

A complete application for RCDI funds must include the following:

1. A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following: (This information should not be presented in narrative form.)

a. Applicant's name,

b. Applicant's address,

c. Applicant's telephone number,

d. Name of applicant's contact person, email address and telephone number,

e. County where applicant is located,

f. Congressional district number where applicant is located,

g. Amount of grant request, and

h. Number of recipients.

2. A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.

3. A project overview, no longer than one page, including the following items, which will also be addressed separately and in detail under “Building Capacity and Expertise” of the “Evaluation Criteria.”

a. The type of technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and how it will be implemented.

b. How the capacity and ability of the recipients will be improved.

c. The overall goals to be accomplished.

d. The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program. Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable.

4. Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and a current good standing certification from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of current status, from the intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of three years as the applicant entity.

5. Verification of source and amount of matching funds, ( e.g., a copy of a complete bank statement if matching funds are in cash or a copy of the confirmed funding commitment from the funding source).

The verification must show that matching funds are available for the duration of the grant performance period. The verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application, or the application will be considered incomplete.

The applicant will be contacted by the Agency prior to grant award to verify that the matching funds provided with the application continue to be available. The applicant will have 15 days from the date contacted to submit verification that matching funds continue to be available.

If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible. The applicant must maintain bank statements on file or other documentation for a period of at least three years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the three-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.

6. The following information for each recipient:

a. Recipient's entity name,

b. Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different),

c. County where located,

d. Number of Congressional district where recipient is located,

e. Contact person's name, email address and telephone number and,

f. Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” If the Form RD 400-4 is not submitted for each recipient, the recipient will be considered ineligible. No information pertaining to that recipient will be included in the income or population scoring criteria and the requested funding may be adjusted due to the deletion of the recipient.

7. Submit evidence that each recipient entity is eligible. Documentation must be submitted to verify recipient eligibility. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of recipient:

a. Nonprofits—provide a current valid letter confirming non-profit status from the Secretary of State of the State of incorporation, a current good standing certification from the Secretary of State of the State of incorporation, or other valid documentation of current nonprofit status of each recipient.

A nonprofit recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.

b. Low-income rural community— provide evidence the entity is a public body ( e.g., copy of Charter, relevant Acts of Assembly, relevant court orders (if created judicially) or other valid documentation), a copy of the 2010 census data to verify the population, and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set) data as evidence that the median household income is at, or below, 80 percent of either the State or national median household income. We will only accept data and printouts from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

c. Federally recognized Tribes—provide the page listing their name from the Federal Register list of tribal entities published most recently by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 2021 list is available at 86 FR 7554, pages 7554—7558 at the following link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-29/pdf/2021-01606.pdf. For Tribes that received federal recognition after the most recent publication, statutory citations and additional documentation may suffice.

An intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.

8. Each of the “Evaluation Criteria” must be addressed specifically and individually by category. Present these criteria in narrative form. Narrative (not including attachments) must be limited to five pages per criterion. The “Population and Income” criteria for recipient locations can be provided in the form of a list; however, the source of the data must be included on the page(s).

9. A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.

10. A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and matching funds. This should be a line-item budget, by category. Categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs that pertain to the proposed project must be clearly defined. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included. The budget should be dated: Year 1, year 2, and year 3, as applicable.

11. The indirect cost category in the project budget should be used only when a grant applicant has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate. A copy of the current rate agreement must be provided with the application. Non-federal entities that have never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200-States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph (d)(1)(B), may use the de minimis rate of 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC).

12. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.”

(Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in Letter (j) of this section.)

13. Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities.

14. Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

Applicants must collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure Ultimate Recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

The applicant and the recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

15. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees. (A statement acknowledging whether or not a relationship exists is required.)

In order to register with System for Award Management (SAM), your organization will need an UEI number. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID (MPID) and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the SAM registration process.

Grant applicants must obtain an UEI number and register in the SAM System prior to submitting an application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in SAM at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. The applicant must ensure that the information in the database is current, accurate, and complete. Applicants must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).

An applicant, unless excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c), or (d), is required to:

1. Be registered in SAM before

submitting its application;

2. Provide a valid UEI number in its application; and

3. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

The Federal awarding agency (RHS) may not make a federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applications must provide an UEI number when applying for Federal grants.

Organizations can receive an UEI number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at 1-866- 705-5711 or via internet at https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Additional information concerning this requirement can be obtained on the Grants.gov website at https://www.grants.gov. Similarly, applicants may register for SAM at https://sam.gov or by calling 1-866-606- 8220.

The applicant must provide documentation that it is registered in SAM and include its UEI number. If the applicant does not provide documentation confirming that it is registered in SAM and its UEI number, the application will not be considered for funding. The required forms and certifications can be downloaded from the RCDI website at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-facilities/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

In order to register with System for Award Management (SAM), your organization will need an UEI number. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID (MPID) and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the SAM registration process.

The deadline for receipt of a paper application is 4 p.m. local time, April 25, 2022. The deadline for electronic applications via Grants.gov is 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on April 19, 2022. The application dates and times are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail, and postage due applications will not be accepted.

To submit a paper application, the original application package must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located.

A listing of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via . https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

Applications will not be accepted via FAX or electronic mail. Applicants may file an electronic application at https://www.grants.gov. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing, and software. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. If a system problem or technical difficulty occurs with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov website.

Technical difficulties submitting an application through Grants.gov will not be a reason to extend the application deadline. If an application is unable to be submitted through Grants.gov, a paper application must be received in the appropriate Rural Development State Office by the deadline noted previously.

First time Grants.gov users should carefully read and follow the registration steps listed on the website. These steps need to be initiated early in the application process to avoid delays in submitting your application online.

There are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Additional application instructions for submitting an electronic application can be found by selecting this funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. RCDI grant funds cannot be used for these meeting- related expenses. Matching funds may, however, be used to pay for these expenses.

RCDI funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting.

RCDI funds cannot be used for meetings; they can, however, be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for program-related training and technical assistance purposes. Any training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses (including meals and incidental expenses) will be allowed in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.

1. Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria and weights:

The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity, through a program of financial and technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes.

Capacity-building financial and technical assistance should provide new functions to the recipients or expand existing functions that will enable the recipients to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. Capacity-building financial and technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: Training to conduct community development programs, ( e.g., homeownership education, or the establishment of minority business entrepreneurs, cooperatives, or micro-enterprises); organizational development, ( e.g., assistance to develop or improve board operations, management, and financial systems); instruction on how to develop and implement a strategic plan; instruction on how to access alternative funding sources to increase leveraging opportunities; staffing, ( e.g., hiring a person at intermediary or recipient level to provide technical assistance to recipients).

The program of financial and technical assistance that is to be provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application.

All applications will be competitively ranked with the applications providing the most improvement in capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest.

The narrative response must contain the following items. This list also contains the points for each item.

(1) Describe the nature of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and the activities that will be conducted to deliver the technical assistance (10 Points).

(2) Explain how financial and technical assistance will develop or increase the recipient's capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively (7 Points).

(3) Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: Housing, community facilities, or community and economic development (3 Points).

(4) Describe how the results of the technical assistance will be measured. What benchmarks will be used to measure effectiveness? Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable (5 Points).

(5) Demonstrate that the applicant/intermediary has conducted programs of financial and technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas (10 Points).

(6) Provide in a chart or excel spreadsheet, the organization name, point of contact, address, phone number, email address, and the type and amount of the financial and technical assistance the applicant organization has provided to the following for the last 3 years (5 Points).

( a ) Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.

( b ) Low-income communities in rural areas (also include the type of entity, e.g., city government, town council, or village board).

( c ) Federally recognized Tribes or any other culturally diverse organizations.

The applicant can receive up to 15 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion.

The maximum 15 points for this criterion will be based on the following:

(1) The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited, is clearly stated, and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented (7 Points).

(2) The ability to provide the proposed financial and technical assistance based on prior accomplishments (6 Points).

(3) Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and matching funds should be utilized to maximize capacity building at the recipient level (2 Points).

Population is based on the average population from the 2010 census data for the communities in which the recipients are located. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, Indian reservation or census-designated place where the recipient's office is physically located.

The applicant must submit the census data from the following website in the form of a printout to verify the population figures used for each recipient. The data can be accessed on the internet at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Enter location, P1 ( i.e., Parma, Idaho, P1) and click “search”; the name and population data for each recipient location must be listed in this section.

The average population of the recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows:

The average of the median household income for the communities where the recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Applicants may compare the average recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $51,914.

The applicant must submit the income data in the form of a printout of the applicable information from the following website to verify the income for each recipient. The data being used is from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set). The data can be accessed on the internet at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/; enter location, S1903 ( i.e., Parma, Idaho, S1903), click on “Search,” click the drop-down button and select the 2010 ACS-5-year estimates table the name and income data for each recipient location must be listed in this section (use the Household and Median Income column). Points will be awarded as follows:

(1) This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant.

(2) The State Director may award up to 10 discretionary points for the highest priority project in each state, up to 7 points for the second highest priority project in each state and up to 5 points for the third highest priority project.

These points may be awarded to applicants proposing to advance any or all of the Agency's three key funding priorities, provided that all other requirements set forth in this notice are otherwise met. The key priorities are:

(i) COVID-19 Impacts (up to 4 points); Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving one of the top 10% of counties or county equivalents based upon county risk score in the United States. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

(ii) Equity (up to 3 points); Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving a community with a score of 0.75 or above on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

(iii) Climate Impacts (up to 3 points); Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities whose economic well-being ranks in the most distressed tier of the Distressed Communities Index. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

(3) These points may be awarded by the Rural Development State Director to any application(s) that benefits their State regardless of whether the applicant is headquartered in their State.

(4) When an intermediary submits an application that will benefit a State that is not the same as the State in which the intermediary is headquartered, it is the intermediary's responsibility to notify the State Director of the State which is receiving the benefit of its application. In such cases, State Directors awarding points to applications benefiting their state must notify the reviewing State in writing.

(5) Assignment of any points under this criterion requires a written justification and must be tied to and awarded based on how closely the application aligns with the Rural Development State Office's strategic goals.

The Administrator may award up to 20 discretionary points for projects to address items such as geographic distribution of funds, emergency conditions caused by economic problems, natural disasters and other initiatives identified by the Secretary. The Administrator may also award points to any application that will advance the following key priorities:

• COVID-19 Impacts: Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving one of the top 10% of counties or county equivalents based upon county risk score in the United States. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

• Equity: Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving a community with score 0.75 or above on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points. and

• Climate Impacts: Priority points may be awarded if the project is located in or serving coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities whose economic well-being ranks in the most distressed tier of the Distressed Communities Index. Information on whether your project qualifies for priority points can be found at the following website: https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

If requests exceed funds available, the applications will be rated and ranked on a national basis by a review panel based on the “Evaluation Criteria” contained in this Notice.

If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until one highest score can be determined.

The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are examples of reasons for rejection from previous funding rounds. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent the majority of the applications previously rejected.

a. Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in this Notice.

b. Applicants failed to provide evidence of recipient's status, i.e., documentation supporting nonprofit evidence of organization.

c. Applicants failed to provide evidence of committed matching funds or matching funds were not committed for a period at least equal to the grant performance period.

d. Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an intermediary and recipients.

e. Recipients were not identified in the application.

f. Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least three years as the applicant entity.

g. Applicants failed to address the “Evaluation Criteria.”

h. The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.

i. Inappropriate use of funds ( e.g., construction or renovations).

j. The applicant proposed providing financial and technical assistance directly to individuals.

k. The application package was not received by closing date and time.

Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of the Agency shall make grants in ranked order to eligible applicants under the procedures set forth in this Notice.

Successful applicants will receive a selection letter by mail containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. In addition, selected applicants will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed at the time of selection and on the award obligation date, if requested by the Agency.

The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” and the grant agreement.

Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification, including notification of appeal rights, by mail.

Grantees will be required to do the following:

1. Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement.

2. Execute Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

3. Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements. Provide receipts for expenditures, timesheets and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement.

4. Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.

5. Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.

6. Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant funds and matching funds. Receipts for expenditures will be included in this documentation.

7. Provide annual audits or management reports on Form RD 442- 2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal funds expended and the outstanding balance.

8. Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

9. Provide a final project performance report.

10. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.

11. The intermediary and recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 12250, Age Act of 1975, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

12. The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:

a. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).

b. 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)).

After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following, as indicated in the Grant Agreement:

1. SF-425, “Federal Financial Report” and SF-PPR, “Performance Progress Report” will be required on a quarterly basis (due 30 working days after each calendar quarter). The Performance Progress Report shall include the elements described in the grant agreement.

2. Final financial and performance reports will be due 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date.

3. A summary at the end of the final report with elements as described in the grant agreement to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the RCDI program for Congress.

Contact the Rural Development office in the State where the applicant's headquarters is located. A list of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

No reimbursement will be made for any funds expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement unless the intermediary is a non-profit or educational entity and has requested and received written Agency approval of the costs prior to the actual expenditure.

This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement.

The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditures prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

The paperwork burden has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0575-0180.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, this funding announcement has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 (“Environmental Policies and Procedures”). The Agency has determined that (i) this action meets the criteria established in 7 CFR 1970.53(f); (ii) no extraordinary circumstances exist; and (iii) the action is not “connected” to other actions with potentially significant impacts, is not considered a “cumulative action” and is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the action does not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, awards for financial and technical assistance under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation.

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-3027, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of the alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

On January 12, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of barium chloride from India, filed in proper form on behalf of Chemical Products Corporation (the petitioner), a domestic producer of barium chloride. 1 The Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of barium chloride from India. 2

On January 14 and 19, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition. 3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 19 and 24, 2022. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India (GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of barium chloride in India, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the barium chloride industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested CVD investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on January 12, 2022, the period of investigation (POI) for this CVD investigation is January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

The product covered by this investigation is barium chloride from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 7 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 22, 2022, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 8 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 4, 2022, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

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

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 9 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 10

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOI of the receipt of the Petition and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition. 11 Commerce held consultations with the GOI on January 27, 2022. 12

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 14

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

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that barium chloride, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 16

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2021. 17 The petitioner provided information from the ITC's fifth sunset review of barium chloride from the People's Republic of China, published in June 2021, in which the ITC found that Chemical Products Corporation was the only domestic producer of barium chloride; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 18 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 19

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 23

Because India is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 24

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by significant volume of subject imports; increasing market share of subject imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; inventory levels; declines in production, shipments, and revenues; and lost sales and revenues. 25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26

Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of barium chloride from India benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of these initiations.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 42 of the 43 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

In the Petition, the petitioner named 22 companies in India as producers/exporters of barium chloride. 27 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation.

In the event Commerce determines that the number of Indian producers or exporters is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of barium chloride from India during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix.

On January 26, 2022, Commerce released CBP data for U.S. imports of barium chloride from India under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this investigation. 28 Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, via ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. We intend to select respondents within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOI via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

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

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of barium chloride from India are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 29 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 30 Otherwise, this CVD investigation will proceed according to the statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  31 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 32 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits only in limited cases where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. 33

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 34 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 35 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On August 6, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 These final results cover 87 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded. On September 7, 2021, the following parties submitted case briefs: (1) Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (Kingtom);  2 (2) Global Aluminum Distributor, LLC;  3 and (3) JL Trading Corp., Puertas Y Ventanas JM Inc., and Industrias Feliciano Al Inc. 4 Additionally, on September 7, 2021, Hialeah Aluminum Supply, Inc. and Classic Metals Suppliers Corp. filed a letter in lieu of a case brief. 5 On September 16, 2021, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner) submitted a rebuttal brief. 6 On November 17, 2021, Commerce extended the deadline for these final results until February 2, 2022. 7 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

A complete summary of the events that occurred since publication of the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8 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. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by the Order is aluminum extrusions, which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and that we addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made no changes for these final results.

In the Preliminary Results, we determined that none of the companies for which an administrative review was requested, and not withdrawn, was entitled to a separate rate. We therefore preliminarily determined that 85 companies listed in Appendix III of the Preliminary Results were not eligible for a separate rate in this administrative review. 10 For these final results of review, we have made no changes to our preliminary separate rate analysis  11 and continue to find that the 85 companies listed in Appendix II of this notice are not eligible for a separate rate in this administrative review.

We continue to determine for these final results that the 85 companies listed in Appendix II are part of the China-wide entity in this administrative review. 12

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 13 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in the instant review, and because Commerce did not self-initiate such a review, the entity is not under review, and the entity's current rate ( i.e., 86.01 percent)  14 is not subject to change.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that Anderson International and Sunvast Trade Shanghai did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 15 As we received no information to contradict our preliminary determination of no shipments with respect to these two companies, we continue to find that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Accordingly, we will issue appropriate instructions for these two companies that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification. 16

Because no company established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, for these final results, Commerce did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for separate-rate recipients. Furthermore, because the China-wide entity is not under review, we made no adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the China-wide entity pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Consistent with its recent notice, 17 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). These final results of review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, where we have determined that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number ( i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 18

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the China-wide entity (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter (or, if unidentified, that of the China-wide entity); and (4) for the China-wide entity, the cash deposit rate will be 86.01 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction or return of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the destruction or return 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 sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On January 12, 2022, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of barium chloride from India, filed in proper form on behalf of Chemical Products Corporation (the petitioner), a domestic producer of barium chloride. 1 The Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of barium chloride from India. 2

On January 14 and 24, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition. 3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 19, 20, and 25, 2022. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of barium chloride from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the barium chloride industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigation. 5

Because the Petition was filed on January 12, 2022, the period of investigation (POI) for this AD investigation is January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

The product covered by this investigation is barium chloride from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information, 7 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 22, 2022, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 8 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 4, 2022, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 9 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 10

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of barium chloride to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

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

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 22, 2022, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 11 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 4, 2022, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the AD investigation.

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 12 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 13

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

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. 14 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that barium chloride, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 15

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2021. 16 The petitioner provided information from the ITC's fifth sunset review of barium chloride from the People's Republic of China, published in June 2021, in which the ITC found that Chemical Products Corporation was the only domestic producer of barium chloride; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 17 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 18

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 21 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 22

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 23

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; increasing market share of subject imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; inventory levels; declines in production, shipments, and revenues; and lost sales and revenues. 24 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 25

The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate this LTFV investigation of imports of barium chloride from India. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

The petitioner based export price (EP) on the average unit value (AUV) of publicly available import data for barium chloride from India during the POI and made adjustments for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price. 26

The petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for barium chloride sold or offered for sale in India were below the cost of production (COP). Consequently, the petitioner based NV on constructed value (CV). 27 For further discussion of CV, see “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section below. 28

As noted above, the petitioner provided information indicating that sales or offers for sale of barium chloride in India were made at prices below COP. Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV. 29 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing; selling, general, and administrative expenses; financial expenses; and profit. 30

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of barium chloride from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV based on CV in accordance with section 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for barium chloride from India is 233.34 percent. 31

Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating this LTFV investigation to determine whether imports of barium chloride from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petition, the petitioner named 22 companies in India as producers and/or exporters of barium chloride. 32 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving a market economy country, in the event Commerce determines that the number of Indian exporters or producers is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of barium chloride from India during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix.

On January 26, 2022, Commerce released CBP data on U.S. imports of barium chloride from India under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this investigation. 33 Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, via ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. We intend to select respondents within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of India via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of barium chloride from India are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 34 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated. 35 Otherwise, this AD investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  36 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 37 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits only in limited cases where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. 38

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 39 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 40 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On August 5, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 For details regarding the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The scope of the Order covers dry xanthan gum, whether or not coated or blended with other products. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. 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. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co., Ltd. did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. As we received no information to contradict our preliminary determination with respect to this company, we continue to find that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we corrected certain ministerial errors in the calculation of Fufeng's, 4 one of the mandatory respondents, weighted-average dumping margin. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

No parties commented on our preliminary separate rate findings. Therefore, we have continued to grant Meihua  5 and Fufeng (the mandatory respondents), and two other companies/company groups listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below separate rate status. However, we have continued to deny separate rate status to A.H.A. International Co., Ltd., Hebei Xinhe Biochemical Co., Ltd., Greenhealth International Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong), and Nanotech Solutions SDN BHD.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. When the rates for individually examined companies are all zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that Commerce may use “any reasonable method” to establish the all others rate.

We calculated a zero percent dumping margin for one of the mandatory respondents in this review, Fufeng, and we based the other mandatory respondent, Meihua's, dumping margin on total AFA. Therefore, we assigned the separate rate respondents a dumping margin equal to the simple average of the dumping margins for Fufeng and Meihua, consistent with the guidance in section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 6

We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), within five days of the publication this Federal Register notice, we will disclose to the parties to this proceeding, the calculations that we performed for these final results of review.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication date of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 7 For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter ( i.e., at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate ( i.e., 154.07 percent). 8

For any individually-examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 9

For respondents not individually examined in this administrative review that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the simple average of the dumping margins assigned to the mandatory respondents in the final results of this review.

For the respondents not eligible for a separate rate and that are part of the China-wide entity, we intend to instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 154.07 percent ( i.e., the China-wide entity rate) to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were exported by these companies.

Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review that is listed for the exporter in the table; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters not listed in the table above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the China-wide entity, which is 154.07 percent; and (4) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return 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 these final results of administrative review and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

On August 6, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results for this administrative review. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. This review covers two mandatory respondents: Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Prosperity) and Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui). 2 We received case briefs from AK Steel Corporation, California Steel Industries, and Steel Dynamics, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), Yieh Phui, and Prosperity. 3 We received rebuttal briefs from Yieh Phui and the petitioners. 4 On November 19, 2021, we extended the deadline for the final results of this review to February 2, 2022. 5 A complete summary of the events that occurred since publication of the Preliminary Results is found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by the Order is flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000. The products subject to the orders may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive. 7

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8 A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached in the appendix to this notice. 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 System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to the preliminary weighted-average margin calculation for Prosperity, and we made two changes to the preliminary weighted-average margin calculation for Yieh Phui. For detailed information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that Synn made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 9 As we have not received any information to contradict this determination, nor comment in opposition to our preliminary finding, we continue to determine that Synn made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with our practice, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of subject merchandise produced by Synn, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual respondents not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents which we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act establishes a preference to avoid using rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available (FA) in calculating an all others rate. Accordingly, Commerce's practice in administrative reviews has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins for the companies selected for individual examination in the administrative review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. 10 For these final results of review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for both mandatory respondents which is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of FA. 11 Accordingly, Commerce assigns to the company not examined in this review ( i.e., Sheng Yu Steel Co., Ltd.) a dumping margin of 3.10 percent, which is the weighted average of the dumping margins calculated using the public ranged sales data of Prosperity and Yieh Phui.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020:

We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed for these final results within five days of the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 12 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondents for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, or for entries associated with Synn, who had no shipments during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 13

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.66 percent, 14 the all-others rate from the Amended Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On January 13, 2022, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from India and Russia, filed in proper form on behalf of Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC (the petitioner), a domestic producer of sodium nitrite. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from India and Russia. 2

Between January 18 and 27, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires and telephone calls. 3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 20, 21, 24, and 26, 2022. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India (GOI) and the Government of Russia (GOR) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of sodium nitrite in India and Russia, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the sodium nitrite industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 5

Because the Petitions were filed on January 13, 2022, the period of investigation (POI) for these CVD investigations is January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

The product covered by these investigations is sodium nitrite from India and Russia. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 7 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 22, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 4, 2022, which is ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

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

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 8 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 9

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOI and the GOR of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions. 10 Commerce held consultations with the GOI and the GOR on January 28, 2022. 11 On February 1, 2022, the GOI submitted pre-initiation consultation comments. 12

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 14

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

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that sodium nitrite, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 16

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own total production of sodium nitrite during the calendar year 2021. 17 The petitioner also provided an estimate of the 2021 production for the only other known U.S. producer of sodium nitrite, SABIC Innovative Chemicals US, LLC. 18 The petitioner then compared its own production to the total volume of sodium nitrite produced by the U.S. industry. 19 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 20

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, General Issues Errata, Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions. First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 23 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 24

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

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 25

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; declining market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment; and decline in sales revenues and negative impact on operating profits. 26 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 27

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of sodium nitrite from India and Russia benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI and the GOR, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of these initiations.

Based on our review of the CVD Petition on sodium nitrite from India, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 21 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the CVD Petition on sodium nitrite from Russia, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on ten of the 11 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on ten of the programs and to not initiate on one program, see the Russia CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

In the Petitions, the petitioner identified four companies in India and one company in Russia as producers/exporters of sodium nitrite. 28 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation.

In the event Commerce determines that the number of Indian producers/exporters is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, 29 Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of sodium nitrite from India during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On January 25, 2022, Commerce released CBP data for U.S. imports of sodium nitrite from India under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. 30 Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. We intend to select respondents within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

In the Petition, the petitioner named only one company as a producer/exporter of sodium nitrite in Russia, UralChem, JSC. 31 Furthermore, we placed CBP import data onto the record of this proceeding, which corroborates the existence of UralChem, JSC as the sole producer/exporter in the foreign market, 32 and we currently know of no additional producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Russia. Accordingly, Commerce intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation ( i.e., the company referenced above). As noted in the aforementioned Russia CBP Import Data Release Memo, we invite interested parties to comment on this issue within three days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding respondent selection for Russia. Because we intend to examine all known producers/exporters, if no comments are received or if comments received further support the existence of this sole producer/exporter in Russia, we do not intend to conduct respondent selection and will proceed to issuing the initial countervailing duty questionnaire to the company identified. However, if comments are received that create a need for a respondent selection process, we intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

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

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

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

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  35 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 36 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits only in limited cases where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 37

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 38 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 39 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letters of appearance).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

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

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

In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

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

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. 1 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial Section D responses.

Opportunity To Request a Review: Not later than the last day of February 2022, 2 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in February for the following periods:

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

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

As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), Commerce clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. 3

This review covers 22 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two companies, Industeel Belgium S.A. (Industeel) and NLMK Clabecq S.A./NLMK Plate Sales S.A./NLMK Sales Europe S.A./NLMK Manage Steel Center S.A./NLMK La Louviere S.A. (collectively, NLMK Belgium), for individual examination. The producers and/or exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

On August 6, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 In September 2021, Nucor Corporation (the petitioner), AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger), Industeel, and NLMK Belgium submitted case and rebuttal briefs. 2 For a description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 On November 30, 2021, we extended the deadline for the final results by 60 days, until February 2, 2022. 4

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the order are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances from Belgium. Products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule on the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. 5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6 Interested parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims from Dillinger and Industeel France S.A.S. (Industeel France). In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Dillinger and Industeel France had no reviewable transactions during the POR. Therefore, because the record indicates that these companies did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we continue to find that Dillinger and Industeel France had no reviewable transactions during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with Commerce's practice, we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Dillinger or Industeel France, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate. 7

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the preliminary weighted-average margin calculations for NLMK Belgium and for those companies not selected for individual review. 8

We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020:

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), or determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

Consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we determined the weighted-average dumping margin for each of the non-selected companies by using the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for Industeel France and NLMK Belgium in this administrative review.

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the simple average of the cash deposit rates calculated for Industeel and NLMK Belgium. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 9

Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. As indicated above, for Dillinger and Industeel France, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Dillinger or Industeel France, but exported by other parties, at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.40 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

This review covers one producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry S.A. (Corinth). On August 6, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 In September 2021, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners  2 and Corinth. 3 On October 26, 2021, we held a public hearing to discuss interested parties' comments. 4 For a description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 On November 19, 2021, Commerce extended the final results of this review by 60 days, until February 2, 2022. 6

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by this order is welded carbon and alloy steel line pipe (other than stainless steel pipe), more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in nominal outside diameter (large diameter welded line pipe), regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, grade, end finish, or stenciling. Large diameter welded pipe may be used to transport oil, gas, slurry, steam, or other fluids, liquids, or gases.

The large diameter welded line pipe that is subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.1060, and 7305.19.5000. Merchandise currently classifiable under subheadings 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090, 7305.39.1000 and 7305.39.5000 and that otherwise meets the above scope language is also covered. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 7

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8 Interested parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we find it appropriate to apply a dumping margin based on total adverse facts available (AFA) to Corinth, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 9 For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margin to the firm listed below for the period April 19, 2019, through April 30, 2020:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied total AFA to the sole mandatory respondent in this review in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the AFA dumping margin is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Because we are applying total AFA as to Corinth's entries for this POR, we will instruct CBP to apply an assessment rate to all entries Corinth produced and/or exported equal to the dumping margin indicated above.

Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Corinth will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.26 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

On January 13, 2022, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from India and Russia filed in proper form on behalf of Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC (the petitioner), a domestic producer of sodium nitrite. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of sodium nitrite from India and Russia. 2

Between January 19 and 27, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires and telephone calls. 3 The petitioner filed responses to the supplemental questionnaires on January 21, 24, and 27, 2022. 4