Federal Register Vol. 82, No.137,

Title: Plan for Estimating Daily Livestock Slaughter Under Federal Inspection.

OMB Number: 0581-0050.

Expiration Date of Approval: 01-31-2018.

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

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) section 203(g) directs and authorizes the collection and dissemination of marketing information including adequate outlook information, on a market area basis, for the purpose of anticipating and meeting consumer requirements, aiding in the maintenance of farm income, and to bring about a balance between production and utilization.

The USDA issues a Market News report estimating daily livestock slaughter under Federal inspection. This report is compiled by AMS on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the livestock and meat industry. Market News reporting must be timely, accurate, and continuous if it is to be useful to producers, processors, and the trade in general. The daily livestock slaughter estimates are provided at the request of industry and are used to make production and marketing decisions.

The Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter Under Federal Inspection Report is used by a wide range of industry contacts, including packers, processors, producers, brokers, and retailers of meat and meat products. The livestock and meat industry requested that USDA issue slaughter estimates (daily and weekly), by species, for cattle, calves, hogs, and sheep to assist them in making immediate production and marketing decisions and as a guide to the volume of meat in the marketing channel. The information requested from respondents includes their estimation of the current day's slaughter at their plant(s) and the actual slaughter for the previous day. Also, the Government is a large purchaser of meat and related products and this report assists other Government agencies in providing timely information on the quantity of meat entering the processing channels.

The information must be collected, compiled, and disseminated by an impartial third-party, in a manner which protects the confidentiality of the reporting entity. AMS is in the best position to provide this service.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .0333 hours per response.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, individuals or households, farms, and the Federal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 58 respondents.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 260 responses per respondent.

Estimated Number of Responses: 15,080 responses.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 502 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AMS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of AMS estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Certified State Mediation Program (7 CFR 785).

OMB Control Number: 0560-0165.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2017.

Type of Request: Revision and extension.

Abstract: FSA administers the Certified State Mediation Program (Program) according to Subtitles A and B of Title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5106).

To effectively administer the Program, FSA requires an application for recertification, which includes submission of a letter from the State, a letter from the grantee, SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, and SF-425. Approved grantees provide a mid-year report as well as an annual report that includes information on mediation services provided during the preceding Federal fiscal year, assessment of the performance and effectiveness of the State's Program, and any other matters related to the Program as the State elects to include. In addition, approved grantees complete SF-270 to request either advance funding or reimbursement of expenses already paid. The information requested is necessary for FSA to determine the grantee's eligibility and administer the Program effectively.

The number of state-certified mediation programs has increased over the past several years. The increase in burden hours reflects this change.

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

Estimate of Average Time To Respond: Public reporting burden for collecting information under this notice is estimated to average 2.08 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.

Type of Respondents: State.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 164.

Estimated Average Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.50.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 246.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 2.083.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 512.5 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The original Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2017 (82 FR 14217). The 2012 Planning Rule, as amended, requires identification in the initial notice of the amendment of the substantive provisions that are likely to be directly related to the amendment. The Notice of Intent (NOI) did not identify the substantive provisions, and the analysis in the DEIS did not identify nor address the substantive provisions.

As identified in the DEIS, the Ringo Project would be exempt from the following Standard and Guideline of the 1990 Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP):

Scenic Views, Foreground (M9-90; LRMP p. 4-131), “Low intensity prescribed fires will be used to meet and promote the Desired Visual Condition within each stand type. Prescribed fire and other fuel management techniques will be used to minimize the hazard of large high intensity fire. In foreground areas, prescribed fires will be small, normally less than 5 acres and shaped to appear as natural occurrences. . . .” In the Ringo DEIS planning area several of these areas are along major access routes in fire-adapted ponderosa pine and mixed conifer. This site-specific Forest Plan Amendment will modify 242 acres of the Scenic Views, Foreground Standards and Guidelines (M9-90 in Scenic Views, LRMP 4-121) to allow an increase in the size of prescribed burn units while utilizing underburning to mimic natural process and creating a mosaic pattern of burning on the landscape.

Substantive provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that apply to the proposed amendment for Ringo DEIS Purpose and Need are:

219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems.

The following two provisions would be applicable to the effects from implementing this Forest Plan Amendment.

219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses.

219.10(a)(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

Title: Honey and Honey Bee Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0153.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2018.

Type of Request: Intent to revise and extend a currently approved information collection for a period of three years and to merge another approved group of surveys (Colony Loss Surveys) into this request.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, livestock products, prices, and disposition; as well as economic statistics, environmental statistics related to agriculture, and also to conduct the Census of Agriculture.

In this request for renewal of the Bee and Honey (0535-0153) docket, NASS will incorporate the two surveys (operations with fewer than 5 colonies and operations with 5 or more colonies) conducted under the Colony Loss (0535-0255) docket with the honey production surveys included in this docket. The operations with 5 or more colonies will continue to receive quarterly loss questionnaires and an annual honey production survey. The operations with less than 5 colonies will receive one combined, annual questionnaire that contains the same questions as asked under the currently approved dockets. The sample is adjusted so that the same group of operators who qualify for the honey survey also qualify for the loss survey.

The title of this revised docket will now be Honey and Honey Bee Surveys. As pollinators, honey bees are vital to the agricultural industry for producing food for the world's population. USDA, NASS has found that during 2015, colonies losses by quarter ranged from 12 to 18 percent. Overall, from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016, the total number of colonies in the United States decreased by 8 percent.

Additional data is needed to accurately describe the costs associated with pest/disease control, wintering fees, and replacement worker and queen bees. USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with other relevant Federal partners, are scaling up efforts to address the decline of honey bee health with a goal of ensuring the recovery of this critical subset of pollinators. NASS supports the Pollinator Research Action Plan, published May 19, 2015, which emphasizes the importance of coordinated action to identify the extent and causal factors in honey bee mortality.

Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information for operations with five or more colonies is estimated to average 20 minutes per response for the annual Bee and Honey survey and 10 minutes per respondent for the quarterly Colony Loss Survey. Operations with less than five colonies will receive the newly combined questionnaire (Bee and Honey and Colony Loss) which is estimated to average 20 minutes per response. Publicity materials and instruction sheets will account for 5 minutes of additional burden per respondent. Respondents who refuse to complete a survey will be allotted 2 minutes of burden per attempt to collect the data.

Respondents: Farmers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 22,500.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: With an estimated response rate of approximately 80%, we estimate the total burden to be approximately 9,200 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

The Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS) covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in the Retail Trade sector as defined by the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

The Census Bureau selects firms for this survey from the Business Register (BR) using a stratified random sample where strata are defined by industry and annual sales. The BR is the Census Bureau's master business list and contains basic economic information for more than 7.4 million employer business and over 22.5 million non-employer businesses. The BR contains information collected through direct data collections as well as administrative record information from other federal agencies. The Census Bureau updates the ARTS sample quarterly to reflect employer business “births” and “deaths.” The births reflect new employer businesses identified in the Business and Professional Classification Survey; deaths involve deleting firms and subunits of firms identified by their Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) when it is determined they are no longer active.

Through the ARTS survey, the Census Bureau asks firms to provide annual sales, annual e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, sales taxes, total operating expenses, purchases, accounts receivables, and, for selected industries, sales by merchandise line. These data are used to satisfy a variety of public and business needs such as conducting economic market analyses, assessing company performance, and forecasting future demands. The Census Bureau publishes national data from the survey for selected retail trade industries approximately fifteen months after the end of the reference year.

Effective in survey year 2016 (collected in 2017), ARTS no longer includes firms in the accommodation and food services industries. These industries are now part of the Service Annual Survey (SAS). Also effective in survey year 2016, ARTS introduced a new sample and requested that firms provide two years of data in order to link the old and new samples. Linking the samples helps ensure that published estimates continue to be reliable and accurate. In survey year 2017 and subsequent years, ARTS will request only one year of data until a new sample is selected again in five years.

Every five years, in survey years ending in 2 and 7, ARTS requests data on detailed operating expenses from firms. During the survey year 2016 ARTS collection, detailed operating expenses are not collected. The last time ARTS collected detailed operating expenses was in 2013 for the 2012 survey year. The plan is to reinstate these questions in 2018 as part of the 2017 survey year ARTS data collection.

In an effort to reduce burden and meet the changing needs of data users, as of the 2016 survey year the Census Bureau is no longer requesting that department stores provide data regarding sales collected from leased departments.

The ARTS data is only collected electronically using the Census Bureau's secure online reporting instrument (Centurion). This electronic system of reporting is designed to allow respondents easier access, convenience and flexibility. Data is automatically stored and results are available immediately. In rare cases where the company has no access to the Internet, the Census Bureau can arrange for the company to provide data to an analyst via telephone.

The Census Bureau collects this information via the Internet but in rare cases when respondents have no access to the Internet, it is collected by telephone.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0013.

Form Number(s): SA44, SA44-A, SA44-C, SA44-D, SA44-E, SA44-N, SA44-S, SA44-T.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Retail firms located in the United States.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 19,301.

Estimated Time per Response: 201.2 minutes (2017 survey year with additional items collected). 39.1 minutes (2018 and 2019 survey years).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 64,723 hours (2017 survey year with additional items collected). 12,578 hours (2018 and 2019).

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 131 and 182.

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

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

A. Background

MAF/TIGER System is an abbreviation for the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System. It is a digital (computer-readable) geographic database that automates the mapping and related geographic activities required to support the Census Bureau's census and survey programs. The Census Bureau developed TIGER to automate the geographic support processes needed to meet the major geographic needs of the 1990 census: Producing cartographic products to support data collection and map presentations, providing geographic structure for tabulation and dissemination of the collected statistical data, assigning residential and employer addresses to the correct geographic location and relating those locations to the geographic entities used for data tabulation, and so forth. During the 1990s, the Census Bureau developed an independent Master Address File (MAF) to support field operations and allocation of housing units for tabulations. After Census 2000, both the address-based MAF and geographic TIGER databases merged to form the MAF/TIGER System. The contents of the MAF/TIGER System undergo continuous updating and are made available to the public through a variety of TIGER products such as shapefiles, geodatabases, and web map services.

The Census Bureau issued in the Federal Register a notice and request for comment on the limited-access highway code change on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19020). We did not receive any comments on that initial notice, therefore this is an announcement of the upcoming final change. Please see the earlier Federal Register notice (82 FR 19020, April 25, 2017) for a discussion of the proposed changes and rationale for doing so.

The Census Bureau publishes this notice to announce the upcoming change in the classification of limited-access highways in the MAF/TIGER System. Generally, only interstate highways are currently in the S1100 classification, while non-interstate limited-access highways are classified as S1200. This change will make all limited-access highways S1100. The final description of the Primary Roads (S1100) classification is:

The final description makes clear that secondary roads are not limited-access highways. The final description of Secondary Roads (S1200) is:

On February 24, 2017, the Department of Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), in which the Department found that ESB rubber from Korea was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 3 Therefore, the scope of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in April and June 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by a mandatory respondent, LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem), and its U.S. affiliate, LG Chem America, Ltd., for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.4

Because Daewoo International Corporation (Daewoo) and Kumho Petrochemical Co, Ltd (Kumho), mandatory respondents in this investigation, did not provide information requested by the Department, and the Department preliminarily determined Daewoo and Kumho to have been uncooperative, the Department did not verify their books and records and facilities.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for LG Chem, and also the all-others rate.

The Department found in the Preliminary Determination that it was appropriate to apply facts available with adverse inferences to Daewoo and Kumho. No interested parties commented on the preliminary application of adverse facts-available dumping margins to Daewoo and Kumho. For the final determination, the Department has not altered its analysis or decision to apply adverse facts-available to Daewoo and Kumho. For a full discussion of the Department's adverse facts available determination, see the Preliminary Determination.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

For the final determination, the Department assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Daewoo and Kumho. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for LG Chem. Consequently, the rate calculated for LG Chem is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

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

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act, the Department preliminarily found critical circumstances exist with respect to Daewoo and Kumho and do not exist with respect to LG Chem and the non-individually examined companies receiving the “All-Others” rate in this investigation. The Department did not receive comments concerning the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances. For the final determination, the Department continues to find that, in accordance with 735(a)(3) of the Act, critical circumstances exist for Daewoo and Kumho. A discussion of the determination can be found in the “Critical Circumstances” section of the Issues and Decision Memarandum.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Korea as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after, February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

Because of the Department's affirmative determination of critical circumstances for Daewoo and Kumho, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) and (c)(4)(A) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of ESB rubber from Korea, shall continue to apply, for Daewoo and Kumho, to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of the Preliminary Determination.

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this 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 this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Korea no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Background

Goodman is a Chinese producer/exporter of fresh garlic and requested a new shipper review on November 27, 2012, and amended that request on December 6, 2012.1 On January 2, 2013, the Department initiated the requested NSR covering the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012.

On April 21, 2014, the Department issued the Final Rescission. In the Final Rescission, the Department determined that Goodman's sales were not bona fide and, accordingly, rescinded its new shipper review.2 Goodman challenged the Department's findings in the Final Rescission at the CIT.

On March 22, 2016, the CIT remanded for the Department to reconsider its decision.3

Per the Court's instructions, the Department reconsidered its previous analysis and determined, under protest, Goodman's U.S. sales to be bona fide. The Department found Goodman to be eligible for a new shipper review and addressed comments raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs during the new shipper review regarding the preliminarily-calculated rate. In the final remand results filed with the CIT on August 22, 2016 (Final Redetermination), the Department made changes to the surrogate values and re-calculated Goodman's individually-determined antidumping duty rate to be $0.08 per kilogram.

On May 26, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Redetermination in full.4 Thus, the CIT affirmed the $0.08/kg dumping margin the Department calculated for Goodman in the Final Redetermination.

In its decision in Timken,5 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,6 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's May 26, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Final Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Rescission. This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Rescission with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Goodman. Based on the Final Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised dumping margin for Goodman, from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012, is $0.08/kg.

In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margin listed above.

Since the Final Rescission, the Department has not established a cash deposit rate for Goodman.7 Therefore, the Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP, adjusting the cash deposit rate for Goodman to $0.08/kg, effective June 5, 2017.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On February 24, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty LTFV investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), in which the Department found that ESB rubber from Brazil sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 3 Therefore, we did not modify the scope language of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February and March 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent ARLANXEO Brasil S.A. (ARLANXEO Brasil) and its U.S. affiliate, ARLANXEO U.S.A. LLC, for use in the Department's final determination.4 The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verifications, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for ARLANXEO Brasil, and also the all-others rate.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For the final determination, the Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for ARLANXEO Brasil, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for ARLANXEO Brasil is the margin assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

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

On January 25, 2017, the petitioners 5 filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of ESB rubber from Brazil.6 On February 24, 2017, the Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for the mandatory respondent ARLANXEO Brasil or the exporters and producers not individually investigated (i.e., “all-others”). In this final, the Department continues to find that, in accordance with 735(a)(3) of the Act, critical circumstances do not exist for ARLANXEO Brasil or the non-individually examined companies receiving the all-others rate in this investigation. A discussion of the determination can be found in the “Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Brazil as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this 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 this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Brazil no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is August 11, 2017);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is August 28, 2017); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

On June 22, 2017,1 the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of ripe olives from Spain, filed in proper form, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives and its individual members, Bell-Carter Foods, Inc. and Musco Family Olive Co. (collectively, the petitioner). The CVD Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) Petition. The petitioners are domestic producers of processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.”

On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain aspects of the Petition.2 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on June 27, 2017, June 30, 2017, and July 3, 2017.3 On July 5, 2017, Associación de Exportadores e Industiales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), an interested party, requested the Department poll the domestic industry of olive growers and the workers employed by them.4 On July 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments to ASEMESA's polling request 5 final proposed scope language. ASEMESA submitted an additional argument and request for the Department to poll the domestic industry of olive growers on July 10, 2017.6 Also on July 10, 2017, the Department held consultations with respect to the CVD Petition, the Government of Spain (GOS) and the European Commission (EC) provided comments on the countervailability of the alleged programs and requested clarification on the procedural timelines. The GOS and the EC submitted their comments in written form that same day.7 On July 12, 2017, Acorsa USA, Inc., Atalanta Corporation, Mario Camacho Foods, LLC, Mitsui Foods, Inc., and Schreiber Foods International, Inc. revised and resubmitted their July 11, 2017, submission, which was previously rejected. However, this new submission was filed too late for us to consider.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the GOS and the European Union are providing countervailable subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers, producers, or exporters of ripe olives from Spain, and that imports of such ripe olives are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Additionally, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations of subsidy programs in Spain on which we are initiating a CVD investigation.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined by section 771(9)(F) of the Act. As discussed in the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below, the Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to initiation of the requested CVD investigation.

Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of investigation (POI), the period for which we are measuring subsidies, is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

The products covered by this Petition are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives,” from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition accurately reflected the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8 As a result of those exchanges, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition.

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,9 we are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. The Department requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Tuesday, August 1, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and also should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, August 11, 2017, which is ten calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.10

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

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).11 An electronically-filed document must be successfully received, in its entirety, by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOS and the EU of its receipt of the Petition and provided them with the opportunity for consultations regarding the CVD allegations.12 On July 10, 2017, the Department held consultations with the GOS and the EU.13 All letters and memoranda pertaining to these consultations are available via ACCESS.

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.15

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. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that ripe olives, 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. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the domestic like product by its members.17 In addition, we relied on data the petitioner provided estimating the 2016 production of the domestic like product by the only other U.S. processor.18 We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.19

On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from ASEMESA.20 The petitioner responded to the letter from ASEMESA on July 7, 2017.21 On July 10, 2017, we received comments on industry support collectively from ASEMESA, Industria Aceiyunera Merciense, S.A., DCOOOP, S. COOP. AND., Agro Sevilla Aceitunas, SOC. COOP. AND., Plasoliva, S.L., GOYA en Espana, S.A.U., Aceitunas Guadalquivir, S.L., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., Internacional Olivarera S.A., F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., and Aceitunas Sevillanas S.A. (collectively, ASEMESA et al.).22 For further discussion of these comments, see the AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.23 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, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).24 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.25 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.26 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.27

Because Spain 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 Spain 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. The petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.28

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, adverse impact on the domestic industry, including financial performance, production, and capacity utilization, and reduction in olive acreage under cultivation.29 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.30

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

The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of ripe olives in Spain benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOS and the EU. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of ripe olives from Spain receive countervailable subsidies from the GOS and/or the EU, as alleged by the petitioner.

The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws.31 The TPEA does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.32 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.33

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

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

The petitioner named numerous companies as producers/exporters of ripe olives from Spain.34 The Department intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of ripe olives from Spain during the period of investigation under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix.

On July 6, 2017, the Department released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data must do so within three business days of the announcement of the initiation of the CVD investigation.35

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 the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EST, by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOS and the European Commission via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition,36 the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery of the public version to the GOS consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

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

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days of the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of ripe olives in Spain are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.37 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 38 otherwise, the 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 the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. 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 Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit. 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 deadline after which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify the accuracy and completeness of that information. 39 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).40 The Department 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. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing letters of appearance, as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

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

On June 22, 2017,1 the Department received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of ripe olives from Spain, filed in proper form, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives, which consists of domestic processors Bell-Carter Foods, Inc. and Musco Family Olive Co. (collectively, the petitioner). The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition. The petitioners are domestic producers of processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.”

On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain aspects of the Petition.2 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on June 27, 2017, and June 30, 2017.3 On July 5, 2017, Associación de Exportadores e Industiales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), an interested party, requested the Department poll the domestic industry of olive growers and the workers employed by them.4 On July 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments to ASEMESA's polling request 5 and its final proposed scope language. ASEMESA submitted an additional argument and request for the Department to poll the domestic industry of olive growers on July 10, 2017.6 On July 12, 2017, Acorsa USA, Inc., Atalanta Corporation, Mario Camacho Foods, LLC, Mitsui Foods, Inc., and Schreiber Foods International, Inc. revised and resubmitted their July 11, 2017, submission, which was previously rejected. However, this new submission was filed too late for us to consider.

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

The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act. As discussed in the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below, the Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to initiation of the requested AD investigation.

Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

The products covered by this investigation are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives,” from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition accurately reflected the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of those exchanges, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition.

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. The Department requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Tuesday, August 1, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and also should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, August 11, 2017, which is ten calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.9

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

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10 An electronically-filed document must be successfully received, in its entirety, by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

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

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

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristic comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 1, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 11, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above.

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.12

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. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that ripe olives, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.13

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. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the domestic like product by its members.14 In addition, we relied on data the petitioner provided estimating the 2016 production of the domestic like product by the only other U.S. processor.15 We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.16

On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from ASEMESA.17 The petitioner responded to the letter from ASEMESA on July 7, 2017.18 On July 10, 2017, we received comments on industry support collectively from ASEMESA, Industria Aceiyunera Merciense, S.A., DCOOOP, S. COOP. AND., Agro Sevilla Aceitunas, SOC. COOP. AND., Plasoliva, S.L., GOYA en Espana, S.A.U., Aceitunas Guadalquivir, S.L., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., Internacional Olivarera S.A., F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., and Aceitunas Sevillanas S.A. (collectively, ASEMESA et al.).19 For further discussion of these comments, see the AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.20 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, the Department 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 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.22 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.23 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.24

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry, including financial performance, production, and capacity utilization; reduction in olive acreage under cultivation; and magnitude of the alleged margins of dumping.26 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.27

The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of ripe olives from Spain. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

The petitioner based U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values of publicly available import data.28 The petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses to derive the ex-factory net U.S. EP.29

The petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country prices for ripe olives and calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).30 For further discussion of the cost of production (COP) and CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” below.31

As noted above, the petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country prices; accordingly, the petitioner based NV on CV.32 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses and profit. The petitioner calculated the COM based on the input factors of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of ripe olives. The input factors of production were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Spain, during the proposed POI.33 Specifically, the prices for raw materials and packing inputs were valued using publicly available Spanish import data.34 For labor costs, the petitioner multiplied the labor usage factors by Spanish labor rates derived from publicly available sources.35 To determine factory overhead, SG&A, financial expenses, and profit, the petitioner relied on financial statements of a Spanish company that is a producer of comparable merchandise operating in Spain.36

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for ripe olives form Spain are 78.00 and 223.00 percent.37

Based upon the examination of the AD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 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.

The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws.38 The TPEA does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.39 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this AD investigation.40

The petitioner identified numerous companies in Spain as producers/exporters of ripe olives.41 In the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of ripe olives from Spain during the period of the investigation under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix.

We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of this investigation.

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 the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EST, by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) 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 Spain (GOS) and the European Commission via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery of the public version to the GOS consistent with 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 ripe olives from Spain are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.42 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 43 otherwise, the 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 the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. 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 Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit. 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 deadline after which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.44 Parties must use the certifications formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).45 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification requirements.

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

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

Background

On September 17, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended antidumping duty order on woven ribbons from the PRC.1 On September 8, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order.2 On September 27, 2016, Avery Dennison Corporation (Avery Dennison) timely requested a review of four companies: Huzhou BeiHeng, Huzhou Siny, Huzhou Kingdom, and Huzhou Unifull.3 Additionally, on September 30, 2016, Berwick Offray LLC and its subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, LLC (the petitioner) timely requested a review 4 of the producer/exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. (Yama Ribbons). However, the Department determined in the underlying investigation that merchandise produced and exported by Yama Ribbons is excluded from the antidumping duty order; as a result, the Department did not initiate an administrative review on Yama Ribbons.5 On November 9, 2016, the Department initiated a review of four companies: Huzhou BeiHeng, Huzhou Siny, Huzhou Kingdom, and Huzhou Unifull.6 On May 31, 2017, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results by a total of 26 days until June 28, 2017.7 On June 28, 2017, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results by an additional 14 days until July 12, 2017.8

The products covered by the order are narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge. The merchandise subject to the Order is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under HTSUS subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description in the Order remains dispositive.9

Background

On February 24, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping LTFV investigation, as provided by Section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), in which the Department found that ESB rubber from Poland was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Poland. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 3 Therefore, the scope of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February, March, and April 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Synthos Dwory (Synthos), for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.4

The issues raised in the case brief that was submitted by petitioners 5 in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made no changes to the margin calculation for Synthos.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

For the final determination, the Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Synthos, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Synthos is the margin assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Poland as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this 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 this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Poland no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

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

On February 24, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty LTFV investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), in which the Department found that ESB rubber from Mexico was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 3 Therefore, the scope of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in March and April 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira (Negromex) for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Negromex, and also the all-others rate.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

For the final determination, the Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Negromex, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Negromex is the margin assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

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

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Mexico as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this 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 this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Mexico no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

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

On June 29, 2015, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek as a threatened or endangered ESU under the ESA and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The petitioner asserts that (1) the designation of these two winter-run chum salmon populations as an ESU is justified because these populations are the only known winter-run chum salmon populations in the world, (2) a diverging trend in abundance between the Chambers Creek population and the fall-run chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound renders the Nisqually River population as the only viable winter-run population and justifies an ESA listing of the petitioner's proposed ESU as threatened or endangered, and (3) NMFS's “Status Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32)” (Johnson et al. 1997) did not address “global warming” or “climate change.” Copies of the petition are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To identify the proper taxonomic unit for consideration in a salmon listing determination, we apply our Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Under this policy, populations of salmon substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and representing an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species are considered to be an ESU. In our listing determinations for Pacific salmon under the ESA, we have treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a “species,” under the ESA. A species, subspecies, or ESU is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.

To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(i)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible scientific information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific information will not be considered “substantial information.” The “substantial scientific or commercial information” standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action, a petitioned action generally would not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information not previously considered.

In evaluating the petition, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

On March 14, 1994, NMFS was petitioned by the Professional Resources Organization—Salmon (PRO—Salmon) to list Washington's Hood Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened or endangered species under the ESA (PRO—Salmon 1994). A second petition, received April 4, 1994, from the “Save Allison Springs” Citizens Committee (1994), requested listing of fall chum salmon found in the following southern Puget Sound streams or bays: Allison Springs, McLane Creek, tributaries of McLane Creek (Swift Creek and Beatty Creek), Perry Creek, and the southern section of Mud Bay/Eld Inlet. A third petition, received by NMFS on May 20, 1994, was submitted by Trout Unlimited (1994) and requested listing the Hood Canal summer chum. As the result of these three petitions, NMFS assembled a Biological Review Team (BRT) and initiated an ESA status review of all chum salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California. In December 1997, the status review was published as Johnson et al. (1997). In the status review, the BRT identified four ESUs—the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, Hood Canal summer-run ESU, Pacific Coast ESU, and Columbia River ESU. The winter-run chum salmon populations in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek were identified as part of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. Despite these populations being one of the more genetically distinct populations in Puget Sound, the BRT (1) did not consider those differences distinct enough to warrant designating them as a separate ESU and (2) determined that these populations, along with the summer-run Puget Sound populations, reflected patterns of diversity within a large and complex ESU. The BRT determined that the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia chum salmon ESU was not presently at risk of extinction nor was it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The BRT found that the (1) the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia chum salmon ESU's abundance was at or near the historical annual run levels of over one million fish, (2) the majority of the populations had stable or increasing population trends, and (3) all populations with statistically significant trends were increasing. The Pacific Coast chum salmon ESU, with its large geographic area and considerable diversity, was also not considered warranted for ESA listing. The BRT, however, determined that the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU and Columbia River chum salmon ESU are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if present conditions continue. NMFS listed these ESUs as threatened species under the ESA on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14507).

As mentioned above, in analyzing the request of the petitioner, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Because the petition specifically requests listing of an ESU, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the petitioned entities, the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek, constitute an ESU pursuant to our ESU Policy.

When identifying an ESU, our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991) stipulates two elements that must be considered: (1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other nonspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. In terms of reproductive isolation, the ESU Policy states that reproductive isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. Insights into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements of tagged fish, recolonization rates of other populations, measurements of genetic differences between population, and evaluations of the efficacy of natural barriers. In terms of evolutionary legacy of the species, that criterion would be met if the population contributed substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole. To make that determination, the following questions are relevant: Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific populations (genetic component)? Does the population occupy unusual or distinctive habitat (ecological component)? Does the population show evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment (life-history component)?

In evaluating this petition, we looked for information to suggest that the petitioned entities, the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek populations, may qualify as an ESU under both the reproductive isolation and evolutionary legacy of the species criteria of our ESU Policy. Our evaluation is discussed below.

The petitioner asserts that (1) the designation of these two winter-run chum salmon populations as an ESU is justified because they are the only known winter-run chum salmon populations in the world, (2) a diverging trend in abundance between the Chambers Creek population and the fall-run chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound renders the Nisqually River population as the only viable winter-run population and justifies an ESA listing of the petitioner's proposed ESU as threatened or endangered, and (3) Johnson et al. (1997) did not address “global warming” or “climate change.” To make the argument for identifying these two populations as an ESU, the petitioner relies almost exclusively on information from Johnson et al. (1997). The only other information that the petitioner presents is abundance data for the Chambers Creek (1968 through 2008) and Nisqually River (1968 through 2013) winter-run chum salmon populations. To direct our decision, we will first analyze the petition's assertion that these two winter-run chum salmon populations are a separate ESU; and if we determine that to be true, we will then analyze the other two assertions described above.

As stated previously, NMFS received three petitions in 1994 to list several populations of chum salmon in Puget Sound. In response to these petitions and to address general concerns about the species, NMFS assembled a BRT to conduct a status review of chum salmon to identify the ESUs and determine their statuses throughout the Pacific Northwest. The findings were published as Johnson et al. (1997). Based upon genetic, ecological, and life-history components, the BRT was able to analyze and group West Coast chum salmon populations into four different chum salmon ESUs. For these ESUs, the BRT analyzed the following available information.

For the genetic component, the BRT analyzed the genetic variability at 39 polymorphic loci in 153 samples collected from 105 locations in southern British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Phelps et al. 1994; Johnson et al. 1997). Seventy-two of those 105 locations were from Puget Sound including the Chambers Creek and Nisqually River winter-run populations. From that analysis, the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon were determined to be genetically distinct from the other Puget Sound populations and were described as the Hood Canal summer-run ESU. Genetically, the remaining Puget Sound and Hood Canal locations were clustered together with the winter-run chum salmon as genetic outliers most closely related to the fall-run Hood Canal and northern Puget Sound populations. Additional samples and analysis (Phelps 1995) resulted in three distinct clusters of samples: (1) Summer-run chum salmon of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca; (2) Puget Sound fall-run and southern Puget Sound winter- and summer-run chum salmon; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca, coastal Washington, and Oregon fall-run chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997). Recently, Waples (2015) analyzed genetic diversity and population structure from 174 chum salmon individuals at 10 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia locations—including one Hood Canal summer-run ESU location (Hamma Hamma River), the Nisqually River winter-run location, and eight other Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia locations. In a FST matrix and phylogenetic tree analysis, the Hamma Hamma River location was most genetically diverse followed by the Nisqually River winter-run. A principle component analysis (PCA) evaluating the genetic relationships between the individuals from all 10 locations showed that the Hamma Hamma River location was the most genetically distinct with the other nine locations clustered together (including the Nisqually River winter-run). In response to this current petition, NMFS's Northwest Fishery Science Center (NWFSC) examined the available data concerning the winter-run chum salmon from the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek. An analysis of these data (J. Hard, Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist, NWFSC, email September 2, 2015) confirmed the earlier conclusions from Johnson et al. (1997) that “the winter-run fish cluster closely with fall-run fish in Puget Sound and Hood Canal” and that “there is no clear genetic evidence to support the idea that the winter-run chum salmon in Puget Sound are substantially reproductively isolated from other chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound.”

In examining the ecological component, neither the Nisqually River nor Chambers Creek watersheds are isolated geographically or reproductively from other chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound; therefore, it does not qualify as an ESU. While there is no need to determine whether this cluster represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (2nd criterion of the ESU Policy), we include this information in order to be thorough. Both the Nisqually River and Chambers Creek watersheds have supported both summer- and fall-run chum salmon in the past, along with winter-run chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997), so there is nothing unique preventing these watersheds from supporting multiple chum salmon runs. No additional ecological information was provided by the petitioner nor found in our files.

For the life history component, Johnson et al. (1997) stated that “the distinctiveness of the winter-run populations was not sufficient to designate these populations as a separate ESU. Rather, the team concluded that these populations, along with the summer-run populations in southern Puget Sound, reflect patterns of diversity within a relatively large and complex ESU.” No additional life history information was provided by the petitioner nor found in our files; therefore, we find the conclusions in Johnson et al. (1997) remain valid. We conclude that the winter-run cluster does not represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.

After reviewing the genetic, ecological, and life history components of these two winter-run chum salmon populations, we have concluded that these populations are not distinct from the other populations within the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and do not meet our criteria for identification as a separate ESU. Therefore, based upon the information from the petitioner and the data found in our files, we conclude that these populations are not a separate ESU and do not qualify for listing under the ESA.

The petitioner also provided additional information on abundance for the two winter-run chum salmon populations and climate change. Since we determined that these two winter-run chum salmon populations do not qualify as an ESU, these two items were not analyzed.

After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of identifying the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek as an ESU may be warranted. As such, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek populations are “species” eligible for listing under the ESA.

The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web site at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

The primary purpose of the GMT webinars are to prepare for the September 2017 Pacific Council meeting. A detailed agenda for each webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's Web site prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its meetings in 2017.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at 503-820-2411 at least ten business days prior to the meeting date.

The committee will begin with introductions and adoption of agenda, approval of the June 2016 meeting summary, and discuss the use of proxy attendees. The committee will review and discuss agency efforts and identify the agency point person for Fish Measurement (triggerfish) Outreach, Barotrauma and Use of Venting and Descending Tools Outreach, Lionfish Outreach, and Anecdotal (angler reported) Data Collection.

The committee will review the Fisherman's Conservation Best Practices Web page; and discuss any other business.

The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may listen in by registering for Outreach & Education Technical Committee on Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at: https://register .gotowebinar.com/register/2487568475712856322.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Outreach & Education Technical Committee meeting—2017-08”.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Technical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Technical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

Title: Ownership and Control Reports, Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71 (Trader and Account Identification Reports) (OMB Control No. 3038-0103). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Ownership and Control Reports (OCR) rules 1 created new information collection requirements via §§ 17.01, 18.04, 18.05, and 20.5. Specifically, § 17.01 provides for the filing of Form 102A, Form 102B and Form 71, as follows:

• Pursuant to § 17.01(a), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), clearing members, and foreign brokers shall identify new special accounts to the Commission on Form 102A;2

• pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing members shall identify volume threshold accounts to the Commission on Form 102B; and

• pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators shall identify reportable sub-accounts to the Commission on Form 71 when requested via a special call by the Commission or its designee.

Additional reporting requirements arise from § 18.04, which results in the collection of information via Form 40 from and regarding traders who own, hold, or control reportable positions; volume threshold account controllers; persons who own volume threshold accounts; reportable sub-account controllers; and persons who own reportable sub-accounts.

Reporting requirements also arise from § 20.5(a), which requires 102S reporting entities to submit Form 102S for swap counterparty or customer consolidated accounts with reportable positions. In addition, § 20.5(b) requires every person subject to books or records under current § 20.6 to complete a 40S filing after a special call upon such person by the Commission.

In addition to the reporting requirements summarized above, § 18.05 imposes recordkeeping requirements upon: (1) Traders who own, hold, or control a reportable futures or options on futures position; (2) volume threshold account controllers; (3) persons who own volume threshold accounts; (4) reportable sub-account controllers; and (5) persons who own reportable sub-accounts.

A 60-day notice of intent to renew collection 3038-0103 (the “60-Day Notice”) was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 12944 (March 8, 2017). In response to the 60-day Notice, the Commission received four comment letters from four entities, namely (a) the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; (b) the Commercial Energy Working Group; (c) the International Energy Credit Association; and (d) Capital Confirmation, Inc. (non-substantive comment). The comment letters are available through the Commission's Web site at: https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1781.

Burden Statement: The Commission is updating its burden estimates in response to comment letters received. The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Title of Collection: CFPB's Consumer Response Intake Form.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0011.

Type of Review: Extension with change to a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 387,500.

Abstract: The Intake Form is designed to aid consumers in the submission of complaints, inquiries, and feedback and to help the Bureau fulfill its statutory requirements.1 Consumers are able to complete and submit information through the Intake Form electronically on the Bureau's Web site. Alternatively, respondents may request that the Bureau mail a paper copy of the Intake Form, and then mail or fax it back to the Bureau; or call to submit a complaint by telephone. The questions within the Intake Form prompt respondents for a description of, and key facts about, the complaint at issue, the desired resolution, contact and account information, information about the company they are submitting a complaint about, and previous action taken to attempt to resolve the complaint.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback).

OMB Control Number: 3170-0442.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 710,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 118,334.

Abstract: Over the past several years, the CFPB has undertaken a variety of service delivery-focused activities contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-2013 (Dodd-Frank Act). These activities, which include consumer complaint and inquiry processing, referral, and monitoring, involve several interrelated systems.1 The streamlined process of the generic clearance will continue to allow the Bureau to implement these systems efficiently, in line with the Bureau's commitment to continuous improvement of its delivery of services through iterative testing and feedback collection.

This is a routine request for OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information currently approved under this OMB control number. The Bureau is not proposing any new or revised collections of information pursuant to this request.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

Title of Collection: Financial Management Survey.

OMB Control Number: 3045-0102.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Respondents/Affected Public: Organizations that are first time grant recipients to the CNCS.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Total Estimated Frequency: Once.

Total Estimated Average Time per Response: Averages 1.75 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 35 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Organizations that are receiving CNCS grant funds for the first time complete the form. It can be completed and submitted via email. The survey requests some existing organizational documents, such as an IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements. Organizations can provide those documents electronically or submit them on paper. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The renewed information collection includes the correction of minor administrative and typographical errors and simplifies the submission instructions. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on September 30, 2017.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-73 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-67 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-68 with attached Policy Justification.

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

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

Agenda: 9:30 a.m.-9:35 a.m.—DFO Comments to Public Attendees; 9:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.—DBB Study Outbrief on “Implications of Technology on the Future Workforce”; 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.—Public Comments (if time permits); 10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m.—Board Deliberations and Vote.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Steven Cruddas at the number listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 27, 2017 to register and make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Steven Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

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

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: An Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B).

OMB Control Number: 1850-0921.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,568.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 457.

Abstract: This submission requests approval of a third year of select data collection activities that will be used to support the Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B). The evaluation will estimate the impact on school staff practices, school climate, and student outcomes of providing training and support in the MTSS-B framework plus universal (Tier I) positive behavior supports and targeted (Tier II) interventions across two years. The third year of data collection will provide information on sustainability, the capacity of schools to continue implementation after the study-supported training and support are complete, as well as district efforts to scale-up the intervention in other schools.

I. Background and Authority

Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes commercial refrigeration equipment.2 Part C includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part C authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is contained in Title 10 of the CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, “Amended Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers.”

DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered equipment when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).

DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 431.401(l).

The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).

On December 20, 2016, ITW submitted a petition for waiver and interim waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401 pertaining to DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, for their Innopod temperature controlled grocery and general merchandise system (Innopod) basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. ITW's initial petition included twenty-two base model configurations. On May 3, 2017, ITW provided DOE with the complete list of 200 basic models covered by the twenty-two base model configurations. ITW petitioned for a waiver and interim waiver from various DOE test procedure requirements.

DOE's current test procedure references Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006 and Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, which further references American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 72 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.63 (c) and (d)). ITW asserts that these current test procedures do not account for the unique operating characteristics of the Innopod basic models. Because the specific design of this product line contains one or more design characteristics noted in the waiver request, including floating suction temperatures for individual compartments, different typical door-opening cycles, and a high-temperature “ambient” compartment, ITW believes that its petition and combined application meets both conditions of 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1) for granting waivers, on the grounds that: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; and (2) The prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. ITW submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure that allows for testing of its Innopod basic models.

ITW's Innopod basic models include multiple thermally separated, temperature controlled compartments supplied with refrigerant from a single condensing unit. ITW's petition proposes an alternate test using an “inverse refrigeration load” test, various calculations to account for refrigeration system and component energy consumption, and adjustments to the door opening requirements based on typical use in the field. ITW's proposed refrigeration system calculations rely on the current calculations and assumptions used for testing remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

As previously noted, an interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).

DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the basic models identified by ITW in its petition cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by ITW and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these equipment, while alleviating the testing problems associated with ITW's implementation of DOE's applicable commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure for the specified Innopod models. However, DOE has clarified how ITW should determine basic models, as discussed in section III of this notice, and adjusted certain aspects of the requested alternate test procedure regarding ambient test conditions, referenced industry standards, and calculations, as discussed in section IV of this notice. Thus, DOE has determined that ITW's petition for waiver will likely be granted and has decided that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant ITW immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.

ITW's initial petition for waiver and interim waiver, submitted on December 20, 2016, included a list of twenty-two “base model configurations” of its Innopod equipment. However, based on the descriptions of the compartment configurations provided for each base model configuration, DOE expects that the list does not provide each basic model to which the waiver and interim waiver would apply.

Specifically, DOE noted that many of the base model configurations include compartments that are convertible between the freezer and refrigerator temperature operating ranges. With respect to multi-mode operation, DOE has taken the position in the most recent commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule that self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at temperatures that span multiple equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22291 (April 21, 2014).

Additionally, DOE notes that its current regulations allow for the use of alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), which allow manufacturers to simulate the energy use of untested basic models once a manufacturer has a validated AEDM and could be used to simulate results at other rating temperatures. 10 CFR 429.70.

Under DOE's definition of a basic model as “equipment manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source, and that have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption” (10 CFR 431.62), the base model configurations in ITW's initial petition would represent multiple basic models depending on the set point of the convertible compartments. DOE requested that ITW provide an updated list of basic models, consistent with DOE's definition of basic model, that would be covered by the petition for waiver and request for interim waiver. ITW provided DOE with the updated list of basic model numbers on May 3, 2017.

ITW's petition also describes compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and ambient temperature ranges. These compartments would only be considered refrigerator compartments under DOE's definitions (compartments capable of operating at or above 32 °F (±2 °F)). Accordingly, these compartments would only be tested and rated at the refrigerator compartment standardized temperature (38 °F).

For the reasons stated in section II of this notice, DOE has granted ITW's application for interim waiver from testing for its specified commercial refrigeration equipment basic models, with minor modifications to the proposed approach. The substance of the interim waiver is summarized below.

ITW is required to test and rate the specified ITW commercial refrigeration equipment Innopod basic models 3 according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section V, “Alternate Test Procedure.” DOE has revised ITW's proposed test approach to reflect ambient test conditions that are consistent with those required in the DOE test procedure. DOE has determined that the ambient condition requirement would not prevent testing of the Innopod basic models. Additionally, DOE has revised ITW's proposed alternate approach to reference the current version of the AHRI 1200 standard referenced in DOE's existing test procedure. Further, DOE has clarified certain details of the necessary measurements and calculations in the granted interim waiver.

In addition, DOE is requiring that ITW test compartments in all relevant equipment configurations, as required by the current test procedure. Any compartments that are convertible between the refrigerator and freezer operating temperature ranges must be tested and rated under both test settings; however, the compartments in the ITW equipment that are convertible between ambient and refrigerator temperature ranges must be tested only at the refrigerator standardized compartment temperature of 38 °F, as described in section III of this notice.

ITW must make representations about the energy use of these basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such equipment have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR part 429, subpart B.

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. ITW may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic models set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429. See also 10 CFR 431.401(a) and (i).

The interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(h). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 431.401(k).

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment are important for consumers evaluating equipment when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after considering public comments on the petition, DOE will announce its decision as to an alternate test procedure for ITW in a subsequent Decision and Order.

During the period of the interim waiver granted in this notice, ITW shall test the basic models listed in section IV according to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, with some of the modifications to the existing DOE test requirements as specified in ITW's petition. However, DOE is requiring that ITW test its Innopod basic models according to the ambient test conditions as outlined in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 section 4.1.2, which requires a wet-bulb test room temperature of 64.4 °F ± 1.8 °F, rather than the conditions requested in the petition for waiver, which instead specify a test room dew point. Additionally, DOE has revised ITW's proposed alternate approach to reference the current version of the AHRI 1200 standard referenced in DOE's existing test procedure, AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010. DOE has also clarified certain instructions, calculations, and measurements necessary to conduct the alternate test. Accordingly, DOE grants an interim waiver to ITW, but with modifications to ITW's requested approach. The applicable method of test for the specified ITW basic models is the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431, subpart C, appendix B, with the following modifications:

For the purpose of testing and rating, the Ambient (75 °F) compartment is treated as a Medium (Refrigerator at 75 °F) compartment. All volume and energy consumption calculations will be included within the Medium (Refrigerator 38 °F) category and summed with other Medium (Refrigerator 38 °F) compartment calculation(s). Compartments that are convertible between ambient and refrigerator temperature ranges shall be tested at the refrigerator temperature (38 °F). Compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and freezer (0 °F) temperature ranges shall be tested at both temperatures.

Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of ITW's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of ITW commercial refrigeration equipment, and announces DOE's decision to grant ITW an interim waiver from the test procedure for the specified basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE is publishing ITW's petition for waiver in redacted form, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the energy consumption of specific basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE may consider including this alternate procedure in a subsequent Decision and Order based on comments from interested parties. However, DOE has tentatively determined that the alternate procedure proposed by ITW is not entirely acceptable and has provided a modified alternate test procedure as a part of its grant of an interim waiver. DOE will consider public comments on the petition in issuing its Decision and Order.

DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner's representative is Ms. Mary Dane, Agency Approval Engineer, ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC, North American Refrigeration, 4401 Blue Mound Rd., Fort Worth, TX 76106. All comment submissions must include the agency name and Case No. CR-007 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.