Federal Register Vol. 82, No.213,

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-466-4442, conference ID: 3266197. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by November 17, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

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

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-297-0357, conference ID: 7237688. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by December 1, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

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

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-726-2418, conference ID: 9008728. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=251&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance that this project will inform the Commission's FY2018 statutory enforcement report on voting rights and is therefore under a very tight timeline.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-857-6931 and conference call 1528884. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-857-6931 and conference call 1528884.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1040, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=238; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

The merchandise covered by this order are certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7308.20.0020 1 or 8502.31.0000.2 Prior to 2011, merchandise covered by the order was classified in the HTSUS under subheading 7308.20.0000. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.3

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary 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 in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum is identical in content.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner, Wind Tower Trade Coalition, timely withdrew its requests for an administrative review of Vina Halla Heavy Industries Ltd. and UBI Tower Sole Member Company Ltd. within 90 days of the Initiation Notice 4 of this review.5 Accordingly, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to these two companies and the remaining entries subject to the instant review are of wind towers produced in Vietnam with respect to the CS Wind Group where CS Wind Group was (1) the producer but not the exporter, or (2) the exporter but not the producer.6

Based on information CS Wind Group submitted after the initiation of this administrative review, and due to the fact that we have not received any information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating that CS Wind Group had entries where CS Wind Group was (1) the producer but not the exporter, or (2) the exporter but not the producer during the POR, the Department has preliminarily determined that the record evidence indicates that CS Wind Group had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.7

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 27, 2017.1 On August 8, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now October 30, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice, as well as additional language proposed by the Department.6 The Department intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7

The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, the Department calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited (Bombay Dyeing) and Reliance Limited Industries (Reliance) that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. The Department calculated the all-others' rate using a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration.9

The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On June 15, 1987, the Department published the AD order on TRBs from the PRC.1 On July 3, 2017, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the AD order on TRBs from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act).2 On July 10, 2017, the Department received a timely notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from the Timken Company (Timken), a domestic producer and the petitioner in the TRBs less-than-fair-value investigation, within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 On August 2, 2017, Timken filed a timely substantive response with the Department pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The merchandise covered by the Order includes tapered roller bearings and parts thereof. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.5

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked.

The 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 http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the Order is revoked would be up to 60.25 percent.

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

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.281 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

Background

The CVD order on certain lined paper products from India was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2006.1 On July 3, 2017, the Department initiated the second sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.2 On July 18, 2017, we received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and each of its individual members (AASPS, hereinafter referred to as the domestic interested party), an association of domestic producers of lined paper products.3 The domestic interested party claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(F) and (C) of the Act, because it is comprised of an association of U.S. producers of the domestic like product and the individual members of the association, which are manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers in the United States of the domestic like product.4 On August 2, 2017, the domestic interested party submitted its substantive response within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).5 The Department did not receive any substantive response from the Government of India, or Indian producers or exporters of the merchandise covered by the CVD order. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of the CVD order. This approach is consistent with the Department's practice, including the prior sunset review of this CVD order.6 The Department did not conduct a hearing because a hearing was not requested.

The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies,7 composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets,8 including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 83/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product (i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated, included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:

• Unlined copy machine paper;

• writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;

• three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper;

• index cards;

• printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;

• newspapers;

• pictures and photographs;

• desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”);

• telephone logs;

• address books;

• columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data;

• lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: Pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;

• lined continuous computer paper;

• boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper,” and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines;

• Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled,9 measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;

Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following trademarked products:

• FlyTM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a FlyTM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark FlyTM.10

• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a ZwipesTM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark ZwipesTM.11

• FiveStar®AdvanceTM: A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1″ wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 23/8″ from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®AdvanceTM.12

• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar FlexTM.13

Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under headings 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.14 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the CVD order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance 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 on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As a result of this review, the Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

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

We are issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

On April 10, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of an administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from the PRC with respect to 30 companies for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016,1 based on a request by the petitioner.2 On May 11, 2017, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of all 30 companies.3 No other party requested an administrative review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from the PRC covering the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in its entirety.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of solar products from the PRC at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On July 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 On July 18, 2017, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, Electroalloy (a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.), North American Stainless, Outokumpu Stainless Bar, LLC, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) as domestic interested parties, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).2 The petitioners claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic like product in the United States.

On August 2, 2017, we received complete substantive responses for each review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing requested. The Department received no comments on the adequacy of responses in these sunset reviews. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders.

The merchandise subject to the orders is SSB. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, including variances in the Japan order, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 http://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 on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:

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

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

Background

On November 16, 1994, the Department of Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD Order on fresh garlic from the PRC.1 On April 3, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of its fourth five-year (sunset) review of the AD Order on fresh garlic from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2

The Department conducted this sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), because it received a complete, timely, and adequate response from a domestic interested party but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of this sunset review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.3

On October 24, 2017, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD Order on fresh garlic would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(C) of the Act.4

The products subject to the AD Order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.

The scope of the AD Order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed.

The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20,0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700 and 2005.99.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the AD Order garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that effect.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD Order on fresh garlic from the PRC.

CBP will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of continuation of the AD Order on fresh garlic. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the sunset review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

The sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

Background

On March 31, 2015, the Department issued the Final Results. 1 On May 6, 2015, in response to ministerial error allegations, the Department issued the First Amended Final Results and on June 22, 2015, the Second Amended Final Results. 2 Hyosung and Hyundai are Korean producers/exporters of LPTs and were mandatory respondents in the underlying administrative review. In the Second Amended Final Results, the Department assigned dumping margins of 8.23 percent and 12.36 percent to Hyosung and Hyundai, respectively.

On October 7, 2016, the CIT remanded various aspects of the Second Final Results to the Department.3 Specifically, the Court instructed the Department to further address a sequencing issue regarding certain of Hyundai's U.S. sales documents on the record. The Court also directed the Department to further explain: (1) Its treatment of the U.S. commissions of Hyosung and Hyundai; (2) the record basis for such treatment; (3) whether such U.S. commissions resulted in the granting of commission offsets, and (4) the legal and factual basis for the granting or denial of the commission offsets.4

Pursuant to the Remand Order, the Department issued its Final Redetermination, which addressed the Court's holdings and revised the weighted-average dumping margins for Hyosung and Hyundai to 9.09 percent and 13.82 percent, respectively, and the rate assigned to the companies not selected for individual examination to 11.73 percent.5 On October 10, 2017, the CIT sustained in whole the Department's Final Redetermination.6

In its decision in Timken, 7 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 8 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of 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 October 10, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Department's Final Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Second Amended Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Hyosung, Hyundai, and the companies not selected for individual examination. Based on the Final Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised dumping margins for Hyosung, Hyundai, and the companies not selected for individual examination from February 16, 2012, through July 31, 2013, are as follows:

In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, are 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 margins listed above.

Since the Second Amended Final Results, the Department has established new cash deposit rates for the companies listed above.9 Therefore, this Final Redetermination, and as affirmed by the Court, does not change the later-established cash deposit rates for the companies listed above.

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

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 27, 2017.1 On August 8, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now October 30, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice, as well as additional language proposed by the Department. The Department intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight-averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding companies' rates.

The Department preliminarily determines that thefollowing estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The applicant requests a five-year permit to conduct aerial and vessel surveys for North Atlantic right whales (NARW) off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The primary study area is in Florida from St. Augustine to Canaveral National Seashore. Research would mainly occur in coastal waters. Survey platforms include boats, airplanes, aerostats, blimps, and unmanned aircraft systems. Up to 160 NARW could be approached annually (100 via aerial surveys, 60 via vessel surveys) for behavioral observations, photo-identification, counts, and passive acoustic recordings. Up to 10 humpback whales may be encountered annually and would be studied in the same manner as NARW. Bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) dolphins and minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and fin (B. physalus) whales may be incidentally harassed. The objectives of the research are to: (1) Improve knowledge of NARW habitat utilization; (2) help monitor annual reproductive success; (3) develop and implement programs for population monitoring in the portion of the NARW critical habitat between St. Augustine, Florida and Canaveral National Seashore; (4) assist in both pre- and post-tag observations (e.g., documentation of post-tag healing and tag retention) of whales tagged by other permit holders; (5) contribute to the NARW photo-identification catalog; and (6) contribute data on the co-occurrence of NARW and human activities.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibits the `taking' of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides for authorizing incidental take of listed species. The regulations for issuing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

NMFS received a permit application from GSML on February 4, 2016. Based on our review of the application, we requested further information and clarification. On July 22, 2016, GSML submitted supplemental information to its application. NMFS and GSML held further discussions on amount and extent of anticipated takes and clarifications of gear type to be used. On March 16, 2017, NMFS notified GSML of this approach, and GSML confirmed the updated approach on March 21, 2017.

On April 12, 2017, we published a notice of application receipt and requested review and comment on the application and conservation plan in the Federal Register (82 FR 17638). The public comment period for the application and conservation plan ended May 12, 2017.

Through this notice, we are making the Draft EA available for comment and review. The EA analyzes the effects to the human and natural environment caused by the issuance of ITP No. 21293 to GSML for the incidental take of Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment), green (Chelonia mydas North Atlantic Distinct Population Segment), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) associated with the otherwise lawful trawling activities in Florida state waters of Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties to harvest marine organisms for the purpose of supplying entities conducting scientific research and educational activities. As required by regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the conservation plan must specify, based on the best scientific and commercial data available:

• The impact which will likely result from the taking;

• How the applicant will minimize and mitigate those impacts, and the funding available to implement;

• What alternative actions the applicant considered, and why those actions are not being pursued;

• Other measures the Secretary of Commerce may require; and

• All sources of data relied on in preparing the plan.

The conservation plan prepared by GSML describes measures designed to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the incidental take of ESA-listed species.

In preparing the Draft EA, NMFS considered the following 2 alternatives for the action:

Alternative 1—No Action. Under the No Action alternative no ITP would be issued for the incidental take of Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), or loggerhead (Caretta caretta Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment), green (Chelonia mydas North Atlantic Distinct Population Segment), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) associated with the otherwise lawful trawling activities in Florida state waters of Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties to harvest marine organisms for the purpose of supplying entities conducting scientific research and educational activities. GSML would not receive an exemption from the ESA prohibitions against take.

Alternative 2—(Proposed) Issue ITP as Requested in Application. Under Alternative 2, an ITP would be issued to exempt GSML from the ESA prohibition on taking ESA listed species.

The Draft EA presents the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives. Regulations for implementing NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) require considerations of both the context and intensity of a proposed action (40 CFR 1508.27). This alternative would eliminate the possible risk to sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, and benthic habitat associated with the trawling activity. However, it would not allow GSML to conduct its trawling, which would affect its non-profit activities. GSML is engaged in marine education, research, and coastal conservation. Since NMFS has concluded, in its biological opinion, pursuant to section 7(b) of the ESA, that ITP No. 21293, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the leatherback, loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley turtles and Gulf sturgeon and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat, it would be difficult to justify denial of the permit.

NMFS would not issue an ITP under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Because no incidental take permit would be issued, GSML would not receive an exemption from the ESA prohibitions against take; therefore, any incidental takes of ESA listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction would not be exempted. Because this alternative would affect GSML's ability to engage in marine education, research, and coastal conservation, the No Action Alternative would have more of a socio-economic impact than the other alternative.

The issuance of the Permit as Requested in the Application (Alternative 2 Proposed Action) would allow GSML to continue to engage in marine education, research, and coastal conservation. This would result in less socio-economic costs than the No Action alternative (Alternative 1).

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. The application, supporting documents, public comments, and views already received by the agency, as well as those submitted in response to this notice, will be fully considered and evaluated as we prepare the final EA and determine whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. The final NEPA document and ITP determinations will not be completed until after the 30-day comment period ends. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the Federal Register. We will also make any final NEPA documents available to the public.

The initial notice for this public meeting published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50411). The purpose of the meeting was to consider amendments to the swordfish trip limit for the American Samoa longline fishery. This action will be rescheduled for a later regularly scheduled meeting and announced in the Federal Register.

Authority: Section 203 (j)(2)(B)(i) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3805 note) (USMFTA Implementation Act); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.

Background: Article 4.3.3 of the USMFTA provides that, on the request of either Party, the Parties shall consult to consider whether the rules of origin applicable to a particular textile or apparel good should be revised to address issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the territories of the Parties. In the consultations, pursuant to Article 4.3.4 of the USMFTA, each Party shall consider data presented by the other Party that demonstrate substantial production in its territory of a particular fiber, yarn, or fabric. The Parties shall consider that there is substantial production if a Party demonstrates that its domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the fiber, yarn, or fabric in a timely manner. The USMFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim as part of the HTSUS, modifications to the USMFTA rules of origin set out in Annex 4-A of the USMFTA as are necessary to implement an agreement with Morocco under Article 4.3.6 of the USMFTA, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of Section 104 of the USMFTA Implementation Act. See Section 203(j)(2)(B)(i) of the USMFTA Implementation Act. Executive Order 11651 established CITA to supervise the implementation of textile trade agreements and authorizes the Chairman of CITA to take actions or recommend that appropriate officials or agencies of the United States take actions necessary to implement textile trade agreements. 37 FR 4699 (March 4, 1972).

The Government of the United States received a request from the Government of Morocco on October 10, 2017, on behalf of SALSABILE, requesting that the United States consider whether the USMFTA rule of origin for certain knit apparel should be modified to allow the use of certain knit fabrics that are not originating under the USMFTA. The fabrics subject to this request, according to the fabric number in the request and organized by specific apparel end-use, are:

Knit apparel classified in chapter 61 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS):

Fabric 7: Dyed knit fabric of cotton (51-60%), rayon (30-40%), and nylon (4-10%), classified in subheading 6006.22 of the HTSUS.

Knit apparel and accessories classified in chapter 61 of the HTSUS, except babies' socks and booties of heading 6111 and hosiery of heading 6115:

Fabric 8: Knit fabric of rayon (50-84%), polyester (14-49%), and elastomeric (1-10%), classified in subheadings 6004.10, 6005.41, 6005.42, 6005.43, 6005.44, 6006.41, 6006.42, 6006.43, and 6006.44 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 9: Knit fabric of polyester (50-65%), rayon (30-49%), and elastomeric (1-10%), classified in subheadings 6004.10, 6005.36, 6005.37, 6005.38, 6005.39, 6006.31, 6006.32, 6006.33, and 6006.34 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 10: Knit fabric of rayon (90-99%) and elastomeric (1-10%), classified in subheadings 6004.10, 6005.41, 6005.42, 6005.43, 6005.44, 6006.41, 6006.42, 6006.43, and 6006.44 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 11: Knit fabric of rayon (51-84%) and polyester (16-49%), classified in subheadings 6005.41, 6005.42, 6005.43, 6005.44, 6006.41, 6006.42, 6006.43, and 6006.44 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 12: Knit fabric of polyester (51-65%) and rayon (35-49%), classified in subheadings 6005.36, 6005.37, 6005.38, 6005.39, 6006.31, 6006.32, 6006.33, and 6006.34 of the HTSUS; and

Fabric 13: Knit fabric of synthetic fiber (90-99%) and elastomeric (1-10%), classified in subheadings 6004.10, 6005.37, 6005.38, 6005.39, 6006.32, 6006.33, and 6006.34 of the HTSUS.

Knit shirts; blouses; singlets; tank tops and similar garments; pullovers; sweatshirts; waistcoats (vests) and similar articles; tops; dresses; skirts; and divided skirts classified in headings 6104, 6105, 6106, 6109, 6110, and 6114 of the HTSUS:

Fabric 19: Slub jersey fabric, other than warp knit, of rayon (92-98%), polyester (2-3%), and elastomeric (2-5%), weighing 150-200 g/m2, classified in subheadings 6004.10 and 6006.42 of the HTSUS.

Upper body garments classified in headings 6105, 6106, 6109, and 6110 of the HTSUS:

Fabric 17: Knit fabric of cotton (51-70%), rayon (33-49%), and elastomeric (2-7%), weighing up to 275 g/m2, classified in subheadings 6004.10, 6006.21, 6006.22, and 6006.24 of the HTSUS.

Upper body garments classified in headings 6105, 6106, 6109, 6110, and 6114 of the HTSUS:

Fabric 14: Knit jersey fabric, other than warp knit, of lyocell (44-50%), rayon (44-50%), and elastomeric (3-9%), weighing 150-220 g/m2, classified in subheadings 6004.10 and 6006.42 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 15: Slub jersey fabric of cotton (51-65%) and rayon (35-49%), weighing 120-225 g/m2, classified in subheading 6006.22 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 16: Knit jersey fabric, other than warp knit, of rayon (30-36%), acrylic (19-35%), polyester (27-33%), and elastomeric (3-8%), weighing 125-250 g/m2, classified in subheadings 6004.10 and 6006.32 of the HTSUS; and

Fabric 18: Knit jersey fabric, other than warp knit, of polyester (43-46%), rayon (43-45%), flax (5-9%), and elastomeric (4-5%), weighing 125-250 g/m2, classified in subheadings 6004.10 and 6006.32 of the HTSUS.

Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, classified in heading 6110 of the HTSUS:

Fabric 5: Dyed knit fabric of cotton (50-56%), acrylic (34-40%), and polyester (7-13%), classified in subheadings 6006.22 and 6006.32 of the HTSUS.

Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, classified in subheading 6110.30 of the HTSUS:

Fabric 1: Knit fleece fabric of acrylic (67-73%) and viscose (27-33%), weighing 200-280 g/m2, classified in subheading 6001.22 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 2: Dyed knit fabric of nylon (52-58%), wool (27-33%), and acrylic (12-18%), classified in subheading 6006.32 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 3: Dyed knit fabric of nylon (42-48%), viscose (37-43%), and wool (12-18%), classified in subheading 6006.32 of the HTSUS;

Fabric 4: Dyed knit fabric of nylon (41-47%), wool (18-24%), acrylic (18-24%), and mohair (11-17%), classified in subheading 6006.32 of the HTSUS; and

Fabric 6: Dyed knit fabric of polyester (57-63%), wool (27-33%), and nylon (7-13%), classified in subheading 6006.32 of the HTSUS.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the fabrics described above can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 5, 2018. Interested persons are invited to submit such comments or information electronically to [email protected], and/or in hard copy to: Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

If comments include business confidential information, commenters must submit a business confidential version in hard copy to the Chairman of CITA, and also provide a public version, either in hard copy or electronically. CITA will protect any information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. All public versions of the comments will be posted on OTEXA's Web site for Commercial Availability proceedings under the Morocco FTA: http://otexa.trade.gov/Morocco_CA.htm.

Authority: Section 203 (j)(2)(B)(i) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3805 note) (USMFTA Implementation Act); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.

Background: Article 4.3.3 of the USMFTA provides that, on the request of either Party, the Parties shall consult to consider whether the rules of origin applicable to a particular textile or apparel good should be revised to address issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the territories of the Parties. In the consultations, pursuant to Article 4.3.4 of the USMFTA, each Party shall consider data presented by the other Party that demonstrate substantial production in its territory of a particular fiber, yarn, or fabric. The Parties shall consider that there is substantial production if a Party demonstrates that its domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the fiber, yarn, or fabric in a timely manner. The USMFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim as part of the HTSUS, modifications to the USMFTA rules of origin set out in Annex 4-A of the USMFTA as are necessary to implement an agreement with Morocco under Article 4.3.6 of the USMFTA, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of Section 104 of the USMFTA Implementation Act. See Section 203(j)(2)(B)(i) of the USMFTA Implementation Act. Executive Order 11651 established CITA to supervise the implementation of textile trade agreements and authorizes the Chairman of CITA to take actions or recommend that appropriate officials or agencies of the United States take actions necessary to implement textile trade agreements. 37 FR 4699 (March 4, 1972).

The Government of the United States received a request from the Government of Morocco on October 10, 2017, on behalf of MODALINE HOLDING, requesting that the United States consider whether the USMFTA rule of origin for pants classified in HTSUS 6204.61.8010; skirts classified in HTSUS 6204.51.0010; and jackets classified in HTSUS 6204.31.2010 should be modified to allow the use of 83-94% wool/4%-15% nylon/1%-7% spandex woven fabric classified in subheading 5112.19 and 5112.20 of the HTSUS that is not originating under the USMFTA.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the fabrics described above can be supplied by the U.S. domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 5, 2018. Interested persons are invited to submit such comments or information electronically to [email protected], and/or in hard copy to: Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

If comments include business confidential information, commenters must submit a business confidential version in hard copy to the Chairman of CITA, and also provide a public version, either in hard copy or electronically. CITA will protect any information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. All public versions of the comments will be posted on OTEXA's Web site for Commercial Availability proceedings under the Morocco FTA: http://otexa.trade.gov/Morocco_CA.htm.

In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspector General. CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app, as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

The new system of records described in this notice, CIGIE—1—Correspondence Tracking, will enable CIGIE to more efficiently track correspondence received from and sent to entities and individuals, both within and external to the Federal government. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CIGIE has provided a report of this new system of records to OMB and to Congress. The new system of records reads as follows:

In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspector General (OIG). CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app (IG Act), as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

The IG Act established the IC in order to receive, review, and refer for investigation allegations of wrongdoing that are made against Inspectors General and certain staff members of the various OIGs. With the enactment of the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 on December 16, 2016, the IG Act was amended to require the Chairperson of CIGIE to maintain the records of the IC. Previously, such records were required by the IG Act to be maintained by the official of the FBI serving in CIGIE. The new system of records described in this notice, the ICMS (CIGIE-4), will enable CIGIE to track complaints made to the IC and information related thereto. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CIGIE has provided a report of this new system of records to OMB and to Congress. The new system of records reads as follows:

In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspector General. CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app, as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

The new system of records described in this notice, CIGIE—2—Freedom of Information Act—Privacy Act System, will enable CIGIE to better track and index record access requests and administrative appeals under the FOIA, as well as access, notification, and amendment requests and administrative appeals under the Privacy Act. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CIGIE has provided a report of this new system of records to OMB and to Congress. The new system of records reads as follows:

In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspector General. CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app, as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

The new system of records described in this notice, CIGIE—3—Employee-related Records System, will enable CIGIE to more efficiently track current, former, and prospective employee-related records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CIGIE has provided a report of this new system of records to the OMB and to Congress. The new system of records reads as follows:

The inventions listed below are available for licensing: U.S. Patent Number 6,664,915 entitled “Identification Friend or Foe System Including Short Range UV Shield” issued on December 16, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 7,661,271 entitled “Integrated Electric Gas Turbine” issued on February 16, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 6,600,694 entitled “Digital Signal Processor Based Torpedo Counter-measure” issued on July 29, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 6,820,025 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Motion Tracking of an Articulated Rigid Body” issued on November 16, 2004; U.S. Patent Number 6,717,525 entitled “Tactical Vectoring Equipment (TVE)” issued on April 6, 2004; U.S. Patent Number 6,624,780 entitled “False Target Radar Image Generator for Countering wideband and Imaging Radars” issued on September 23, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 7,725,595 entitled “Embedded Communications System and Method” issued on May 25, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 8,443,101 entitled “Method for Identifying and Blocking Embedded Communications” issued on May 14, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 7,675,198 entitled “Inductive Pulse Forming Network for High-current, High-power Applications” issued on March 9, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 8,018,096 entitled “Inductive Pulse Forming Network for High-current, High-power Applications” issued September 13, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 7,074,697 entitled “Doping-assisted Defect Control in Compound Semiconductors” issued on July 11, 2006; U.S. Patent Number 7,089,148 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Motion Tracking of an Articulated Rigid Body” issued August 8, 2006; U.S. Patent Number 7,627,003 entitled “Automatic Clock Synchronization and Distribution Circuit for Counter Clock Flow Pipelined Systems” issued on December 1, 2009; U.S. Patent Number 8,085,817 entitled “Automatic Clock Synchronization and Distribution Circuit for Counter Clock Flow Pipelined Systems” issued December 27, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 8,019,090 entitled “Active Feedforward Noise Vibration Control System” issued September 13, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 8,064,541 entitled “Hyperphase Shift Keying” issued November 22, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 8,050,849 entitled “Method to Reduce Fuel Consumption by Naval Vessels that Operate in Mixed Propulsion Modes” issued November 1, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 8,006,937 entitled “Spacecraft Docking Interface Mechanism” issued October 12, 2010; U.S. Patent Number 7,811,918 entitled “Electric Current Induced Liquid Metal Flow and Metallic Conformal Coating of Conductive Templates” issued on August 30, 2011; U.S. Patent Number 8,467,548 entitled “Miniature Directional Sound Sensor Using Micro-Electro-Mechanical-System (MEMS)” issued on June 18, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,579,535 entitled “Micro-coupling Active Release Mechanism” issued on November 12, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 9,003,627 entitled “Micro-coupling Active Release Mechanism” issued on April 14, 2015; U.S. Patent Number 8,654,672 entitled “Method for Optimal Transmitter Placement in Wireless Mesh Networks” issued on February 18, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,473,826 entitled “Hybrid Soft Decision Hard Decision Reed-Solomon Decoding” issued June 25, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,433,959 entitled “Method for Determining Hard Drive Contents Through Statistical Drive Sampling” issued on April 30, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,446,096 entitled “Terahertz (THz) Reverse Micromagnetron” issued on May 21, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,624,497 entitled “Terahertz (THz) Reverse Micromagnetron” issued on January 7, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,724,598 entitled “Method for Energy-efficient, Traffic-adaptive, Flow-specific Medium Access For Wireless Networks” issued on May 13, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,269,658 entitled “Photonic Analog-to-Digital Conversion Using the Robust Symmetrical Number System” issued on September 18, 2012; U.S. Patent Number 9,194,379 entitled “Field Ionization Based Electrical Space Ion Thruster Using A Permeable Substrate” issued on November 24, 2015; U.S. Patent Number 8,800,930 entitled “Aerial Delivery System with High Accuracy Touchdown” issued on August 12, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,730,098 entitled “Method for Radar Detection of Persons Wearing Wires” issued on May 20, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,525,393 entitled “Bimaterial Microelectromechanical System (MEMS) Solar Power Generator” issued on September 3, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,526,746 entitled “Near Lossless Data Compression Method Using Nonuniform Sampling” issued on September 3, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,489,256 entitled “Automatic Parafoil Turn Calculation Method and Apparatus” issued on July 16, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,437,891 entitled “Method And Apparatus for Parafoil Guidance That Accounts For Ground Winds” issued on May 7, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,818,581 entitled “Parafoil Electronic Control Unit Having Wireless Connectivity” issued on August 26, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 9,331,773 entitled “Instantaneous Wireless Network Established By Simultaneously Descending Parafoils” issued on May 3, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 8,483,891 entitled “Automatically Guided Parafoil Directed to Land on a Moving Target” issued on July 9, 2013; U.S. Patent Number 8,693,365 entitled “Method and Apparatus for State-Based Channel Selection Method in Multi-Channel Wireless Communications Networks” issued on April 8, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,810,121 entitled “Method and Device to Produce Hot, Dense, Long-lived Plasmas” issued on August 19, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,746,120 entitled “Boosted Electromagnetic Device and Method to Accelerate Solid Metal Slugs to High Speeds” issued on June 10, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 8,878,742 entitled “Dipole with an Unbalanced Microstrip Feed” issued on November 4, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 9,038,958 entitled “Method And Apparatus For Contingency Guidance Of A CMG-Actuated Spacecraft” issued on May 26, 2015; U.S. Patent Number 8,880,246 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Spacecraft Maneuvers” issued on November 4, 2014; U.S. Patent Number 9,248,501 entitled “Method for Additive Manufacturing Using pH and Potential Controlled Powder Solidification” issued on February 2, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,234,732 entitled “Explosives Storage System” issued on January 12, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,417,044 entitled “Explosives Storage System” issued on August 16, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,419,920 entitled “Gateway Router and Method for Application-Aware Automatic Network Selection” issued on August 16, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,321,529 entitled “Hybrid Mobile Buoy for Persistent Surface and Underwater Exploration” issued on April 26, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,418,080 entitled “Method and System for Mobile Structured Collection of Data and Images” issued on August 16, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,489,851 entitled “Landing Signal Officer (LSO) Information Management and Trend Analysis (IMTA) Tool” issued on November 8, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,534,863 entitled “Electromagnetic Device and Method to Accelerate Solid Metal Slugs to High Speeds” issued on January 3, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,552,391 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Network Analysis” issued on January 24, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,541,401 entitled “Method and System for Determining Shortest Oceanic Routes” issued on January 10, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,457,900 entitled “Multirotor Mobile Buoy for Persistent Surface and Underwater Exploration” issued on October 4, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,567,112 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Singularity Avoidance for Control Moment Gyroscope (CMG) Systems Without Using Null Motion” issued on February 14, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,594,172 entitled “Solid-state Spark Chamber for Detection of Radiation” issued on March 14, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,563,964 entitled “Method for Computer Vision Analysis of Cannon-launched Artillery Video” issued on February 7, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,721,352 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Computer Vision Analysis of Cannon-launched Artillery Video” issued on August 1, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,727,034 entitled “Unscented Control for Uncertain Dynamical Systems” issued on August 8, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,693,325 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Hybrid Time Synchronization Based on Broadcast Sequencing for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks” issued on June 27, 2017; U.S. Patent 9,590,740 entitled “Method and System for Robust Symmetrical Number System (RSNS) Photonic Direction Finding (DF) System” issued on March 7, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,530,574 entitled “Super Dielectric Materials” issued on December 27, 2016; U.S. Patent Number 9,788,213 entitled “Method for Interference-Robust Transmitter Placement in Wireless Mesh Networks” issued on October 10, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,711,293 entitled “Capacitor with Ionic-solution-infused, Porous, Electrically Non-conductive Material” issued on July 18, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,655,077 entitled “Device and Method for Cellular Synchronization Assisted Location Estimation” issued on May 16, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,656,733 entitled “Life Preserver Location System” issued on May 23, 2017; U.S. Patent Number 9,705,383 entitled “Light Activated Generator” issued on July 11, 2017.

U.S. Patent Application Number 15/188,505 filed on June 21, 2016, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Guidance and Control of Uncertain Dynamical Systems”; U.S. Patent Application Number 14/833,728 filed on August 24, 2015, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Rapid Acoustic Analysis”; U.S. Patent Application Number 14/810,026 filed on July 27, 2015, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Detection of Hazardous Environmental Conditions and Initiation of Alarm Devices”; U.S. Patent Application Number 14/883,384 filed on October 14, 2015, entitled “Wireless Signal Localization and Collection from an Airborne Symmetric Line Array Network”; U.S. Patent Application Number 14/852,734 filed on September 14, 2015, entitled “Network Monitoring Method Using Phantom Nodes”; U.S. Patent Application Number 14/939,032 filed on November 12, 2015, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Computer Vision Analysis of Spin Rate of Marked Projectiles”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/208,784 filed on July 13, 2016, entitled “Unscented Optimization and Control Allocation”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/082,225 filed on March 28, 2016, entitled “Automated Multi-plane Propulsion System”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/131,733 filed on April 18, 2016, entitled “Multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Launcher System”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/137,090 filed on April 25, 2016, entitled “Device and Method for Applying Internal Pressure to a Hollow Cylinder”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/093,047 filed on April 7, 2016, entitled “Light Activated Rotor”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/207,128 filed on July 11, 2016, entitled “AIGaAs/GaAs Solar Cell with Back-surface Alternating Contacts (GaAs BAC Solar Cell)”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/453,198 filed on March 8, 2017, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Determining an Orientation of an Inertial/Magnetic Sensor”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/251,766 filed on August 30, 2016, entitled “High-Altitude Payload Retrieval (HAPR) Apparatus and Methods of Use”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/239,039 filed on August 17, 2016, entitled “Super Dielectric Capacitor”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/620,983 filed on June 13, 2017, entitled “Super Dielectric Capacitor Using Scaffold Dielectric”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/375,279 filed on December 12, 2016, entitled “Method of Electrochemically-Driven Coated Material Synthesis”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/643,135 filed on July 6, 2017, entitled “Closed-Loop Control System Using Unscented Optimization”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/427,858 filed on February 8, 2017, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Operation of a Remote Sensing Platform”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/463,135 filed on March 20, 2017, entitled “Energy Recovery Pulse Forming Network”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/684,359 filed on August 23, 2017, entitled “Wide Bandgap Semiconductor Device With Vertical Superjunction Edge Termination for the Drift Region”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/147,568 filed on May 5, 2016, entitled “MEMS Thermal Creep Cantilever”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/282,460 filed on September 30, 2016, entitled “Emitter-less, Back-surface Alternating Contact Solar Cell”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/251,035 filed on August 30, 2016, entitled “Chemical Method to Create Metal Films on Metal and Ceramic Substrates”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/625,103 filed on June 16, 2017, entitled “Chemical Method to Create High Stability Heterogeneous Carbon-bonded Materials”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/634,079 filed on June 27, 2017, entitled “Direction finding system using two MEMS sound sensors”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/417,307 filed on January 27, 2017, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Detecting a Multi-homed Device using Clock Skew”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/479,053 filed on April 4, 2017, entitled ”Front-Facing Fluoroploymer-Coated Armor Composite”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/593,931 filed on May 12, 2017, entitled “Dynamically Tilting Flat Table to impart a Time-varying Gravity-induced Acceleration on a Floating Spacecraft Simulator”; U.S. Patent Application Number 15/725,025 filed on October 4, 2017, entitled “Systems and Methods for Evaluation of Potentially Irradiated Objects Using Oxygen-17 Detection”; U.S. Patent Application Number 12/460,923 filed on February 26, 2010, entitled “Agile Attitude Control System for Small Spacecraft”; U.S. Patent Application Number 13/374,601 filed on June 22, 2012, entitled “A Method for Amplifying Detonation Power Output By Circumferential Slapper Initiation”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/452,287 filed on January 31, 2017, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Medium Voltage Pulsed Current Supplies Using Wide Bandgap Solid State Devices”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/469,377 filed on March 9, 2017, entitled “Methane/Oxygen Rocket Engine with Specific Impulse Enhancement by Hot Helium Infusion”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/479,381 filed on March 31, 2017, entitled “Phase Coded Time Delayed Transmit-Receive Leakage Cancellation”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/518,881 filed on June 13, 2017, entitled “System and Method for Determining Position Between Two Locations”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/528,699 filed on July 5, 2017, entitled “Method for Autonomous Operations of Large-Scale Satellite Constellations and Ground Station Networks”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/541,364 filed on August 4, 2017, entitled “Low Temperature Metal Printing”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/554,878 filed on September 6, 2017, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Image-Matching Navigation for Aerial Vehicle”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/554,871 filed on September 6, 2017, entitled “Game Theoretic Methodology for Locating Camera Towers and Scheduling Surveillance”; U.S. Patent Application Number 62/570,349 filed on October 10, 2017, entitled “Optimal Control and Computational Algorithm for Solving Energy and Fuel-Optimal Routing Problem for a Vehicle Operating in a Time-varying Energy Field”.

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: Federal Family Educational Loan Program (FFEL)—Administrative Requirements for States, Not-For-Profit Lenders, and Eligible Lenders Trustees.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0085.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 61.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 61.

Abstract: The regulations in 34 CFR 682.302(f) assure the Secretary that the integrity of the program is protected from fraud and misuse of funds. These regulations require a State, not-profit entity, or eligible lender trustee to provide to the Secretary a certification on the State or non-profit entity's letterhead, signed by the State or non-profit's Chief Executive Officer, which states the basis upon which the entity meets the regulations. The submission must include the name and lender identification number(s) for which the eligible designation is being certified. Once an entity is approved it must provide an annual recertification notice identifying the name and lender identification number(s) for which designation is being requested.

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: National Evaluation of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0913.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 23.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 343.

Abstract: This submission requests approval to collect data in support of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program Technical Assistance and Evaluation Project. The i3 Program is designed to support school districts and nonprofit organizations in expanding, developing, and evaluating evidence-based practices and promising efforts to improve outcomes for the nations' students, teachers, and schools. Each i3 grantee is required to fund an independent evaluation. The Technical Assistance and Evaluation Project requires data collection to assess the strength of the evidence produced under the grantees independent evaluations as well as provide a cross-site summary of the findings. Specifically, the data collected will be used to support reviews and reports to ED that: Describe the intervention implemented by each i3 grantee; assess the strength of the evidence produced by each i3 evaluation; present the evidence produced by each i3 evaluation; identify effective and promising interventions; and, assess the results of the i3 Program. We will collect data from the universe of all 172 i3 projects funded under the i3 Program.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including chemical manufacturers, processors and users, consumer product companies, non-profit organizations in the environmental and public health sectors, state and local government agencies, and members of the public interested in the environmental and human health assessment and regulation of chemical substances. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

The docket for the New Chemical Program Implementation meeting (identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0585) and the docket for the meeting regarding approaches for identifying potential candidates for prioritization (identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0586) are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, was signed into law on June 22, 2016. The amendments have enhanced EPA's authority to evaluate chemical substances.

EPA's New Chemicals Review Program has and will continue to support innovation while managing potential risks to human health and the environment from chemical substances new to the marketplace. Under section 5 of TSCA, anyone who plans to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required to provide EPA with notice before initiating the activity.

Additionally, EPA must also be notified before chemical substances are manufactured or processed for a use that the Agency has designated, by rule, as a significant new use. Under the amended law, EPA is now required to make one of several determinations regarding whether the new use or new chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, whether there is insufficient information to allow for a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance, or whether the substance is produced in substantial quantities and may either enter into the environment in substantial quantities or have significant or substantial human exposure.

The amended statute has resulted in significant changes for both the EPA's New Chemicals Review Program and those manufacturers submitting notices prior to commercialization. EPA has worked to keep stakeholders informed of its efforts to implement the statutory changes and will continue this dialogue during the meeting on December 6, 2017. Information obtained during this meeting and collected in the docket will be considered as the Agency works to increase efficiency in its review process under TSCA. An agenda for the meeting and supporting materials will be made available in the docket and on the Agency's Web site in advance of the meeting.

TSCA, as amended, also required that EPA establish procedures for prioritizing and evaluating risks from existing chemical substances. EPA announced its final procedures on June 22, 2017 (see https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/federal-register-notice-procedures-prioritization), and the final procedural rule addressing the prioritization process published in the Federal Register on July 20 2017 (82 FR 33753) (FRL-9964-24). The prioritization process involves a 9-month to 12-month public process, including multiple opportunities for public comment, to designate a chemical substance as either High-Priority for further risk evaluation, or Low-Priority for which risk evaluation is not warranted at the time. In the proposed Prioritization rule, EPA included several provisions intended to convey activities the Agency would expect to undertake prior to initiating prioritization (e.g., potential candidate identification, information gathering/review, etc.). Based on public comments received, EPA determined not to finalize those particular provisions at the time and to engage in further discussions with interested stakeholders.

The purpose of the second meeting is to describe and take comment on a number of possible approaches that could guide the Agency in the identification of potential candidate chemical substances for prioritization. More information on these possible approaches will be made available in the docket and on EPA's Web site prior to the meeting. EPA is fully committed to further dialogue on best practices for these activities, and to carrying out these activities in a transparent, science-based manner, to ensure successful implementation of the prioritization and risk evaluation processes required by section 6 of TSCA.

Additional information on the TSCA amendments can be found at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.

The meetings will both be accessible remotely for registered participants. Registered participants will receive information on how to connect to the meetings prior to their start.

Members of the public may register to attend either or both the New Chemicals Review Program Implementation meeting and or the meeting regarding approaches for identifying potential candidates for prioritization as observers and may also register to provide oral comments and ask questions on the day of the respective meetings, using one of the registration methods described under ADDRESSES. A registered speaker is encouraged to focus on issues directly relevant to the meeting's subject matter. Each speaker is allowed no more than five minutes at each meeting to provide oral comments and ask questions. A speaker must be registered in order to provide oral comments or ask questions during the meetings. To accommodate as many registered speakers as possible, speakers may present oral comments and questions only, without visual aids or written material. Persons registered to speak (as well as others) may submit written materials to the dockets as described under ADDRESSES. Agendas for the meetings and supporting materials will be made available in the dockets and on EPA's Web site in advance of the respective meetings. Additionally, EPA will accept questions from the public in advance of the meetings, and will respond to these questions at the meetings as time allows, if such questions are received by November 20, 2017. Additional information regarding methods of submission of advance questions will be available on EPA's Web site and in the dockets along with the supporting materials.

To attend the meetings in person or to receive remote access, you must register online no later than December 5, 2017, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES. While on-site registration will be available, seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis, with priority given to early registrants, until room capacity is reached. For registrants not able to attend in person, the meetings will also provide remote access capabilities; registered participants will be provided information on how to connect to the meetings prior to its start.

Members of the public may register to attend as observers or to speak if planning to offer oral comments during the scheduled public comment periods. To register for the meetings online, you must provide your full name, organization or affiliation, and contact information.

The Spectrum Act requires the Commission to “reimburse costs reasonably incurred” by broadcast television licensees that are involuntarily reassigned to new channels as a result of the repacking process and by MVPDs in order to continue carrying the signals of licensees reassigned to new channels as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process (together, Eligible Entities). The Incentive Auction Report and Order (FCC-14-50) set forth the process for reimbursing these Eligible Entities. Pursuant to the process established therein, this Public Notice (DA 17-1015) announces an initial allocation of approximately $1 billion, which is based on the total verified demand on the Fund, as of October 10, 2017. Eligible Entities submitted estimates of the expenditures they expect to incur as a result of the post-auction repack. After the Fund Administrator completed its reasonableness review of the estimates, and the Bureau reviewed and verified its recommendations, the total reimbursement demand for the purposes of the initial allocation, as of October 10, 2017, was $1,863,971,470.42. Based on this demand, the initial allocation will give commercial stations and MVPDs access to approximately 52 percent of their currently estimated and verified costs, and noncommercial educational stations access to approximately 62 percent of their currently estimated and verified costs. This Public Notice also announces that each Eligible Entity will receive an email on behalf of the Bureau describing the specific results of the reasonableness review of its estimated costs, which included: The aggregate verified amount for that entity's submitted estimate; where adjustments (if any) were made; and the rationale and amount of the modification to any cost estimate line items. Eligible Entities may view their individual allocations in the CORES Incentive Auction Financial Module pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Financial Procedures Public Notice (DA-17-282). The initial allocation does not reflect the total estimated cost of a station's anticipated expenditures. All stations that are transitioning to new channels should be aware of the applicable phase transition deadlines and plan for and initiate the various stages of their construction project in a timely manner to satisfy them. We have provided several tools that allow us to provide relief to stations that are ultimately unable to satisfy certain deadlines due to circumstances beyond their control, but failure to timely initiate a construction project or undertake necessary steps to complete the transition by the phase transition date due to the amount of the initial allocation or any subsequent allocation will not be weighed favorably as a factor in considering such relief. This is a summary of the FCC's document GN Docket No. 12-268; MB Docket No. 16-306; DA 17-1015 (released Oct. 16, 2017).

Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended, requires ANA to provide notice and allow for comment on its proposed interpretive rules and general statements of policy. On August 14, 2017, ANA published a NOPC with proposed policy and program clarifications for the FY 2018 FOAs. ANA also follows the ACF Tribal Consultation Policy, and sent a Dear Tribal Leader letter informing tribes of the NOPC and made them aware of the September 15 deadline for comment submission. This Notice responds to comments regarding ANA's August 14, 2017, NOPC (82 FR 37861) and the tribal consultation afforded through the Dear Tribal Leader letter issued August 14, 2017. In addition, this notification includes a clarification in a new administrative policy, a modification to the project start date for Native Language programs, and a notification regarding the application period for FY 2018 FOAs.

ANA published a NOPC in the Federal Register on August 14, 2017, with proposed policy and program clarifications, modifications, and activities for the FY 2018 FOAs. ANA sent a Dear Tribal Leader letter electronically and via U.S. mail the same day with the NOPC attached. The NOPC provided proposed clarifications, modifications, and new text for six proposed FY 2018 FOAs. The FY 2018 FOAs are based on the FY 2017 FOAs, previously published as: Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NR-1221); Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance—Esther Martinez Immersion (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NB-1226); Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance (HHS- 2017-ACF-ANA-NL-1235); Social and Economic Development Strategies (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NA-1236); Social and Economic Development Strategies—Alaska (HHS-2015-ACF-ANA-NK- 0960); and Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NC-1263). The public comment period was open for 30 days. ANA also publicized a background call on the NOPC for August 23, 2017, and had 14 callers on the line.

ANA did not receive any feedback on the FOA changes from tribal governments. ANA received one response to the NOPC from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Dakotah Language Institute. Comments expressed concerns or made suggestions about some of the changes. ANA considered the comments and determined there to be none that required changes to any of the FOAs. The following includes comments from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Dakotah Language Institute and responses provided by ANA:

Comment:

Response: The FOAs, which contain the application criteria specific to each program area, are published on an annual basis. Through the NOPC, ANA provided advance notice to applicants about the proposed changes in FY 2018 to its six FOAs. ANA is unable to provide specific language until the publication of the actual FOAs. Therefore, ANA is not able to make changes to the application criteria prior to the effective date.

Comment: Regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Notice inaccurately reflecting the amount of time it takes to file an ANA application:

Response: ANA's FOAs are drafted within the context of a Uniform Project Description (UPD), which serves to provide the overall structure for all applications submitted to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The UPD includes specific standard text that applies to all ACF programs, in combination with program-specific text that is added by individual program offices. The PRA notice is part of the ACF UPD, which is managed ACF-wide, and determined based on the average amount of time it takes to complete the project description and the budget and budget justification for ACF programs as a whole. The estimated burden of 60 hours does not include supplementary information that an applicant may want to include. While there is likely to be variation among different programs and applicants, the average estimated time to complete an application for ACF programs is 60 hours. ANA will forward the comment to the ACF branch that handles the UPD to be considered upon the renewal of the PRA clearance for the UPD.

Comment:

Response: ANA's intent is to provide more universally accepted terminology, especially for evaluation requirements and criteria. Definitions and examples of all new terms will be provided in each of the FY 2018 FOAs. Any new terminology will be addressed in Section I. Program Description of the FOA. ANA will explain each term and include examples of each. Definitions will be included in the appendix of each FOA.

ANA has edited the description of this policy since it was published in the Federal Register, to further clarify the requirements for non-local, national, and regional organizations. If approved, ANA intends to include this policy in all FY 2018 FOAs as stated below:

Prioritized Funding for Community-based Native American Organizations:

Through continued discussions with ANA grantees and stakeholders, ANA has determined that moving the start date from August 1 to July 1 for projects funded under the Native Language Preservation and Maintenance and the Native Language Esther Martinez Immersion programs will align reporting requirements to reduce the number of required federal financial reports, thereby reducing the reporting burden for grantees. In addition, an earlier start date will provide projects with additional time for planning and start up prior to the start of the school year, which marks the beginning of instruction for many Native Language projects. Therefore, ANA intends to implement a July 1 start date for all projects funded under the Native Language Preservation and Maintenance and Native Language Esther Martinez Immersion FOAs for FY 2018.

ANA would like to notify potential applicants that the open application period to respond to FOAs has been updated to a minimum of 60 days to support the timely award of new grants.

For information on the types of projects funded by ANA, please refer to ANA's Web site for information on our program areas and FOAs: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana. Pre-publication information on ANA's FOAs will be available at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html by clicking on `Forecasted” under Opportunity Status and “Administration for Children and Families—ANA [HHS-ACF-ANA]” on the left side of the page. Synopses and application forms will be available on www.Grants.gov.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and review staff entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Sponsor Appeals Above the Division Level.” During the course of review of an investigational new drug application, new drug application, biologics license application, or abbreviated new drug application, a wide variety of important scientific and/or medical issues are considered that are central to product development. Sometimes, a sponsor may disagree with the Agency on a matter, and a dispute arises. Because these disputes often involve complex scientific and/or medical matters, it is critical to have procedures in place to help ensure open and prompt discussion. The procedures and policies described in this guidance are intended to promote rapid and fair resolution of scientific and/or medical disputes between a sponsor and CDER or CBER.

This guidance finalizes the revised draft guidance entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level” issued September 9, 2015, and replaces the guidance of the same name issued February 2000. Based on the docket comments for the revised draft guidance, FDA made clarifications to this guidance. The guidance was also clarified to reflect that it describes the formal dispute resolution procedures only for sponsors that wish to appeal a scientific and/or medical issue regarding their applications regulated by CDER or CBER and does not apply to other individuals or entities. In addition, the guidance was updated to reflect the changes under the 2017 reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) regarding timelines for reviewing disputes involving drug applications covered by GDUFA.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on formal dispute resolution requests for appeals above the division level. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0430. This guidance finalizes a revision of an earlier version of the guidance. This version contains no additional information collections; therefore, it continues to be covered under OMB control number 0910-0430.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Under section 403A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)), States may petition FDA for exemption from Federal preemption of State food labeling and standard-of-identity requirements. Section 100.1(d) (21 CFR 100.1(d)) sets forth the information a State is required to submit in such a petition. The information required under § 100.1(d) enables FDA to determine whether the State food labeling or standard-of-identity requirement satisfies the criteria of section 403A(b) of the FD&C Act for granting exemption from Federal preemption.

In the Federal Register of June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27491), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. We received no comments.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The reporting burden for § 100.1(d) is minimal because petitions for exemption from preemption are seldom submitted by States. In the last 3 years, we have received one new petition for exemption from preemption; therefore, we estimate that one or fewer petitions will be submitted annually.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “ANDAs: Pre-Submission of Facility Information Related to Prioritized Generic Drug Applications (Pre-Submission Facility Correspondence).” The first draft of this document, entitled “ANDAs: Pre-Submission Facility Correspondence Associated with Priority Submissions,” was issued pursuant to 21 CFR 10.115 in June 2017. The docket number has not changed since the first draft of this document was issued, and it is not necessary to resubmit comments already submitted to the docket. The Agency will consider comments submitted with respect to the first draft of this document in finalizing the revised document.

The Agency is issuing this revised draft guidance to describe the process through which prospective generic drug applicants submit facility information in advance of an original ANDA, prior approval supplement (PAS), PAS amendment, or ANDA amendment (hereafter collectively referred to as ANDA). FDA is revising the draft guidance because, after issuance of the original draft guidance, section 505(j)(11) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(11)) as added by section 801 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA) resulted in changes to the pre-submission of facility information.

In 2016 and 2017, FDA, regulated industry, and public stakeholders conducted negotiations concerning reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA II). A chief product of these congressionally mandated discussions was the “GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancements, FYs 2018-2022” (GDUFA II Commitment Letter) available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM282505.pdf. Together, the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 and the GDUFA II Commitment Letter describe FDA's performance goals, as well as changes and improvements to the user fee program.

On August 18, 2017, FDARA, which reauthorized the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (Title III) as well as other provisions related to generic drugs (Title VIII), was signed into law. In particular, section 801 of the FDARA added section 505(j)(11) to the FD&C Act to address priority review of generic drugs. One of the enhancements specified in both Title VIII, section 801 of FDARA, and the GDUFA II Commitment Letter is a mechanism to enable a shorter review goal (priority review goal) for certain priority original ANDAs, PASs, PAS amendments, and ANDA amendments through the pre-submission of facility information, including sections of the ANDA determined to be relevant by FDA. Specifically, this guidance describes:

• The content and format of the facility information that should be submitted to enable FDA's assessment of facilities listed in the pre-submission.

• Timeframes for pre-submitting sections of the ANDA containing complete, accurate information, and the intersection of these timeframes with submission of the ANDA.

• The possible outcomes of the Agency's assessment of pre-submitted ANDA sections containing facility information.

• When and how the Agency notifies an applicant about the status of the pre-submitted ANDA sections containing facility information.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ANDAs: Pre-Submission of Facility Information Related to Prioritized Generic Drug Applications (Pre-Submission Facility Correspondence). It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing the proposed collection of information set forth in this notice of availability that would result from the pre-submission of facility information.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comment on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Title: Draft Guidance for Industry on ANDAs: Pre-Submission of Facility Information Related to Prioritized Generic Drug Applications (Pre-Submission Facility Correspondence).

Description: As described in the draft guidance, section 505(j)(11) of the FD&C Act was added by section 801 of FDARA. Pre-submitting facility information enables the Agency to determine whether inspection of a facility is necessary and, if so, to begin inspection planning in advance of ANDA receipt.

This draft guidance document refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. Existing regulations at 21 CFR 314.94 provide the content and format of an ANDA, and consistent with GDUFA II, this draft guidance describes the relevant sections of an ANDA that should be submitted as part of the pre-submission of facility information. The information collections associated with the submission of these ANDA sections are approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

There are information collections proposed in the draft guidance that are not already addressed under the approved control numbers covering ANDA submissions. Section IV of the draft guidance describes the information that should be included in the pre-submission of facility information to enable FDA's facility assessment:

A. The planned ANDA pre-assigned number to be submitted with the pre-submission, which the applicant must request from FDA before submitting the pre-submission;

B. Cover letter accompanying the pre-submission, which includes a statement of justification for the expedited review request, a statement of inspection readiness, a statement identifying the Reference Listed Drug, and the anticipated date of the applicant's ANDA submission; and

C. Certification statement to be submitted with the applicant's ANDA stating either that the applicant has made no changes to the pre-submitted facility information, or that the only change was made to exclude a facility as described in 505(j)(11)(B) of the FD&C Act. (Changes other than those permitted under 505(j)(11)(B) of the FD&C Act should be identified in the ANDA cover letter. The applicant will also need to confirm the accuracy of the information provided in the Form FDA 356h submitted with the ANDA, and update accordingly.)

Section VI of the draft guidance describes the format used to submit the pre-submission of facility information, which is the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format. Further, as explained in section V of the draft guidance, the pre-submission must be submitted not later than 60 days prior to the planned ANDA submission.

We estimate that a total of approximately 220 applicants (“number of respondents” in table 1) will submit annually approximately 275 pre-submissions as described above and in the draft guidance (“total annual responses” in table 1). We estimate that preparing and submitting the portion of each pre-submission that is not already addressed under approved control numbers covering ANDA submissions will take approximately 1.1 hours (“average burden per response” in table 1). This includes time spent preparing and submitting a cover letter accompanying the pre-submission of facility information. We estimate that approximately 10 percent of applicants will submit statements notifying the Agency that the applicant has decided not to submit an ANDA, and we have incorporated the estimated time to prepare and submit such a statement in table 1.

We estimate that approximately 198 applicants will submit annually approximately 248 certifications (“total annual responses” in table 1) verifying either that the applicant has made no changes to the pre-submitted facility information, or that the only change was made to exclude a facility as described in 505(j)(11)(B) of the FD&C Act. We estimate that preparing and submitting each certification will take approximately 4 hours (“average burden per response” in table 1).

We base our estimates for the number of applicants and the number of pre-submissions on information from our database of annual ANDA submissions, on the criteria set forth in the Agency's Manual of Policies and Procedures 5240.3, Prioritization of the Review of Original ANDAs, Amendments, and Supplements (available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM407849.pdf), and the number of “priority” submissions. Our estimate of the time applicants would need to prepare and submit the portions of each pre-submission not already addressed under approved control numbers covering ANDA submissions, as well as the pre-submission certification statement (referenced in table 1), takes into consideration that much of this content is related to information already gathered for the ANDA submission. We invite comments on these estimates.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This information collection supports Agency regulations and associated guidance. Specifically, section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)) requires that a manufacturer of a dietary supplement making a nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or general well-being claim have substantiation that the claim is truthful and not misleading. A nutritional deficiency claim states a benefit related to a classical nutrient deficiency disease and states how often the disease occurs in the United States. A structure/function claim describes the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans or characterizes how a nutrient or dietary ingredient acts to maintain such structure or function. A general well-being claim describes general well-being from consumption of a nutrient or dietary ingredient.

The guidance document entitled “Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” provides our recommendations to manufacturers about the amount, type, and quality of evidence they should have to substantiate a claim under section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The guidance does not discuss the types of claims that can be made concerning the effect of a dietary supplement on the structure or function of the body, nor does it discuss criteria to determine when a statement about a dietary supplement is a disease claim. The guidance document is intended to assist manufacturers in their efforts to comply with section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances.

Dietary supplement manufacturers collect the necessary substantiating information for their product as required by section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The guidance provides information to manufacturers to assist them in doing so. The recommendations contained in the guidance are voluntary. Dietary supplement manufacturers will only need to collect information to substantiate their product's nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or general well-being claim if they choose to place a claim on their product's label.

The standard discussed in the guidance for substantiation of a claim on the labeling of a dietary supplement is consistent with standards set by the Federal Trade Commission for dietary supplements and other health-related products that the claim be based on competent and reliable scientific evidence. This evidence standard is broad enough that some dietary supplement manufacturers may only need to collect peer-reviewed scientific journal articles to substantiate their claims; other dietary supplement manufacturers whose products have properties that are less well documented may have to conduct studies to build a body of evidence to support their claims. It is unlikely that a dietary supplement manufacturer will attempt to make a claim when the cost of obtaining the evidence to support the claim outweighs the benefits of having the claim on the product's label. It is likely that manufacturers will seek substantiation for their claims in the scientific literature.

The time it takes to assemble the necessary scientific information to support their claims depends on the product and the claimed benefits. If the product is one of several on the market making a particular claim for which there is adequate publicly available and widely established evidence supporting the claim, then the time to gather supporting data will be minimal; if the product is the first of its kind to make a particular claim or the evidence supporting the claim is less publicly available or not widely established, then gathering the appropriate scientific evidence to substantiate the claim will be more time consuming.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

We have retained the currently approved burden estimate for the information collection. Based on our experience with the collection, we estimate that it will take 44 hours to assemble information needed to substantiate a claim on a particular dietary supplement when the claim is widely known and established. We believe it will take closer to 120 hours to assemble supporting scientific information when the claim is novel or when the claim is preexisting but the scientific underpinnings of the claim are not widely established. These are claims that may be based on emerging science, where conducting literature searches and understanding the literature takes time. It is also possible that references for claims made for some dietary ingredients or dietary supplements may primarily be found in foreign journals and in foreign languages or in the older, classical literature where it is not available on computerized literature databases or in the major scientific reference databases, such as the National Library of Medicine's literature database, all of which increases the time of obtaining substantiation.

In the Federal Register of January 6, 2000 (65 FR 1000), we published a final rule (the `structure/function final rule) on statements made for dietary supplements concerning the effect of the product on the structure or function of the body. In that final rule, we estimated that there were 29,000 dietary supplement products marketed in the United States (65 FR 1000 at 1045). Assuming that the flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then 2,900 new dietary supplement products will come on the market each year. The structure/function final rule estimated that about 69 percent of dietary supplements have a claim on their labels, most probably a structure/function claim (65 FR 1000 at 1046). Therefore, we assume that supplement manufacturers will need time to assemble the evidence to substantiate each of the 2,001 claims (2,900 × 69 percent) made each year. If we assume that the 2,001 claims are equally likely to be preexisting widely established claims, novel claims, or preexisting claims that are not widely established, then we can expect 667 of each of these types of claims to be substantiated per year. Table 1 of this document shows that the annual burden hours associated with assembling evidence for claims is 189,428 (the sum of 667 × 44 hours, 667 × 120 hours, and 667 × 120 hours).

We have received an application from Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA). The applicant has agreed to follow all of the conditions in the draft habitat conservation plan for the project. The permit would authorize take of the Santa Barbara distinct population segment of the federally endangered California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the draft Phillips 66 Line 300 Project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We invite public comment on the application, the draft HCP, draft low-effect screening form, and environmental action statement.

The Santa Barbara distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander was listed by the Service as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Under the ESA, protections for federally listed plants differ from the protections afforded to federally listed animals. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)) regarding conservation activities for the California tiger salamander.

The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of the California tiger salamander. The potential take will occur in association with activities necessary for the reconditioning of approximately 2,430 linear feet of the existing 300 Line. The site includes 2.9 acres of suitable upland habitat for the California tiger salamander. The HCP includes avoidance and minimization measures for the covered species and mitigation for unavoidable loss of occupied upland habitat through the purchase of mitigation credits at a Service-approved conservation bank.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that issuance of the incidental take permit is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), nor will it individually or cumulatively have more than a negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, the permit qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

If you wish to comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Specifically, 54 U.S.C. 100506(c)(1) provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition of Tract 101-63 by donation will enable the National Park Service to manage and protect significant resources located in the Obed Wild and Scenic River and is consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Background

Recognizing the continuing need for an integrated and regional approach to water management, wastewater and potable water agencies in the North San Pablo Bay region of California have joined together to propose expansion of existing recycled water use in the region. The North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), established under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in August 2005, now comprises 11 wastewater and potable water utilities as members, and associate member agencies—the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, the Novato Sanitary District, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, the Napa Sanitation District, North Marin Water District, Napa County, Marin County, Marin Municipal Water District, the City of American Canyon, the City of Petaluma, and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The SCWA is also currently acting as the administrative agency. Under the MOU, NBWRA continues to explore opportunities to coordinate “interagency efforts to expand the beneficial use of recycled water in the North Bay Region thereby promoting the conservation of limited surface water and groundwater resources.”

NBWRA developed the regional North Bay Water Recycling Program for expanding cooperative water reuse within the North San Pablo Bay region. The SCWA, as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), completed a Draft EIR/EIS for Phase 1 of the North Bay Water Recycling Program Project (Phase 1 Project). SCWA certified the EIR in December 2009. Reclamation released a Final EIS in June 2010 and signed a Record of Decision in January 2011 for the Phase 1 Project. Reclamation provided funding assistance for Phase 1 under of Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, which provides a mechanism for Federal participation and cost-sharing in approved water reuse projects.

The Phase 2 Program now proposed by NBWRA seeks to increase the beneficial use of recycled water in the North Bay Region beyond Phase 1. Reclamation may also provide funding assistance under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575. The proposed Phase 2 Program would consist of distribution facilities, treatment capacity improvements, and storage (seasonal and operational) to make between 5,039 and 6,516 acre-feet per year of recycled water available for environmental, agricultural, and municipal reuse, consistent with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, pertaining to the use of tertiary-treated recycled water.

At this time, there are no known Indian trust assets or environmental justice issues associated with the Proposed Action.

NBWRA filed a Notice of Preparation (California State Clearinghouse no. 2017072051) on July 20, 2017, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (P.R.C. section 21092, C.C.R. section 15082) and held four public scoping meetings in August 2017. To avoid duplication with State and local procedures, we plan to use the scoping process initiated by NBWRA under CEQA. No additional public scoping meetings are planned at this time. However, Reclamation will fully consider all input received on this notice of intent. The CEQA Notice of Preparation is available at http://www.nbwra.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/NBWRA-Phase-2-NOP.pdf.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Mighty Mug, Inc. on October 31, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of self-anchoring beverage containers. The complaint names as respondents Calvert Retail, Inc. of Montchanin Mills, DE; U.S. Imprints, Inc. of Franklin, TN; RushKing Promotions, Inc. of Brooklyn, NY; GOImprints, Inc. of Franklin, TN; Artful Home, Inc. of Madison, WI; Swag Brokers, LLC of Phoenix, AZ; 4AllPromos, Inc. of Centerbrook, CT; Hirsch Gift, Inc. of Houston, TX; Telebrands, Corp. of Fairfield, NJ; Sunrise Gifts, Inc. of Orlando, FL; Sunrise Gifts and Souvenirs, Inc. of Foley, AL; Motivators, Inc. of Westbury, NY; AnyPromo.com, Inc. of Ontario, CA; Quality Logo Products, Inc. of Aurora, IL; and Shenzhen Smartop Industrial Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3271”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Netlist, Inc. on October 31, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain memory modules and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents SK hynix Inc. of Korea; Sk hynix America Inc. of San Jose, Ca; and Sk hynix memory solutions Inc. of San Jose, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3272”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).