Federal Register Vol. 82, No.88,

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), provides for the collection of fees to cover costs of various inspection, grading, certification or auditing services covering many agricultural commodities and products. The AMA also provides for the recovery of costs incurred in providing laboratory services. The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476) and the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65) provide for classification of cotton and development of cotton standards materials necessary for cotton classification. The Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) provides for futures certification services and the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511s) provides for tobacco inspection and grading. These Acts also provide for the recovery of costs associated with these services.

On November 13, 2014, the Department of Agriculture (Department) published in the Federal Register a final rule that established standardized formulas for calculating the fees charged by AMS user-funded programs (79 FR 67313). Every year since then, the Department has published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the rates for its user -funded programs.

This notice announces the 2017 fee rates for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, and cotton and tobacco on a per-hour rate and, in some instances, the equivalent per-unit cost. The per-unit cost is provided to facilitate understanding of the costs associated with the service to the industries that historically used unit-cost basis for payment. The fee rates will be effective at the beginning of the fiscal year, crop year, or as required by specific laws (June 1 for most cotton programs). The cotton futures-related services effective date has been changed to August 1 to allow for cotton contracts to expire before starting a new fee rate.

The rates reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include the cost of salaries, employee benefits, and if applicable, travel and some operating costs. Indirect or overhead costs include the cost of Program and Agency activities supporting the services provided to the industry. The formula used to calculate these rates also includes operating reserve, which may add to or draw upon the existing operating reserves.

These services include the grading, inspection or certification of quality factors in accordance with established U.S. Grade Standards; audits or accreditation according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles; and other marketing claims. The quality grades serve as a basis for market prices and reflect the value of agricultural commodities to both producers and consumers. AMS' grading and quality verification and certification, audit and accreditation, plant process and equipment verification, and laboratory approval services are voluntary tools paid for by the users on a fee-for-service basis. The agriculture industry can use these tools to promote and communicate the quality of agricultural commodities to consumers. Laboratory services are provided for analytic testing, including but not limited to chemical, microbiological, biomolecular, and physical analyses. AMS is required by statute to recover the costs associated with these services.

As required by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476), consultations regarding the establishment of the fee for cotton classification with U.S. cotton industry representatives are held in the beginning of the year when most industry stakeholder meetings take place. Representatives of all segments of the cotton industry, including producers, ginners, bale storage facility operators, merchants, cooperatives, and textile manufacturers were informed of the fees during various industry-sponsored forums.

AMS calculated the rate for services, per hour per program employee, using the following formulas (a per-unit base is included for programs that charge for services on a per-unit basis):

(1) Regular rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours for the previous year, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

(2) Overtime rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

(3) Holiday rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

When possible, AMS is adjusting the rates to cover all of its expenses and to provide for reasonable operating reserves. Many of these rates were not adjusted for a number of years. In some cases fees are decreased due to efficiencies and cost cutting measures. Applying the formulas described above without consideration of the operating reserves, in some cases, would have resulted in a substantial increase in fees. Last year, AMS started the process of adjusting some of the rates to recover costs associated with providing these services. To avoid an undue burden on industry operations in these cases, AMS started to phase in some of the increases over a multi-year period. AMS continued this process and reassessed whether the fee rates and phase-in period were appropriate based on the formula and established operating reserve. Fees are being adjusted accordingly. Drawing upon the existing operating reserves will not affect AMS' ability to maintain the minimally required operating reserves.

All rates are per-hour except when a per-unit cost is noted. The specific amounts in each rate calculation are available upon request from the specific AMS program.

Title: Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi From Chile.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0374.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the importation of certain fruits and vegetables in accordance with the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-76).

Under these regulations, fresh baby kiwi from Chile may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions, as listed in 7 CFR 319.56-53, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require information collection activities, including an operational workplan, low prevalence production site certification, production site registration, phytosanitary inspections, labeling of containers, identification of fruit in shipping documentation to specify production sites and packing sheds where fruit was processed, and a phytosanitary certificate.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.02 hours per response.

Respondents: Growers and shippers of fresh baby kiwi from Chile and the national plant protection organization of Chile.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 8,243.6.

Estimated annual number of responses: 41,218.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 849 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Title: Importation of Tomatoes With Stems From the Republic of Korea.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0371.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the importation of certain fruits and vegetables in accordance with the regulations contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-76).

Under the regulations, tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea may be imported into the United States under certain conditions, as listed in 7 CFR 319.56-52, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These regulations require information collection activities including inspection, registered pest-exclusionary structures, recordkeeping, trapping, and a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the tomatoes were produced in accordance with the regulations.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.589 hours per response.

Respondents: Growers, importers, and exporters of tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea; and the national plant protection organization of the Republic of Korea.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 3.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 31.7.

Estimated annual number of responses: 95.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 56 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

On April 26, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. On April 27, 2017, the President signed a memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) to proceed expeditiously in conducting his investigation and submit a report on his findings to the President. The President further directed that if the Secretary finds that aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust aluminum imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”), no later than June 29, 2017.

The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the regulations as they affect national security, including the following: (a) Quantity of or other circumstances related to the importation of aluminum; (b) Domestic production and productive capacity needed for aluminum to meet projected national defense requirements; (c) Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce aluminum; (d) Growth requirements of the aluminum industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth; (e) The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the aluminum industry; (f) The displacement of any domestic aluminum causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects; (g) Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy; and (h) Any other relevant factors.

Material that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by §  705.6 of the regulations. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission, then file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission which can be placed in the public file. Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments.

The Bureau of Industry and Security does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view the Bureau's Web page, which can be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ (see “Electronic FOIA” heading). If requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call (202) 482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

Consistent with the interest of the U.S. Department of Commerce in soliciting public comments on issues affecting U.S. industry and national security, the Department is holding a public hearing as part of the investigation. The hearing will assist the Department in determining whether imports of aluminum threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. Public comments at the hearing should address the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security described above. The hearing will be held on June 22, 2017, at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time.

The Department encourages interested public participants to present their views orally at the hearing. Any person wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a written request to the Department of Commerce at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The request to participate in the hearing must be accompanied by a copy of a summary of the oral presentation. The written request and summary must be received by the Department no later than Thursday, June 15, 2017. In addition, the request to speak should contain (1) the name and address of the person requesting to make a presentation; (2) a daytime phone number where the person who would be making the oral presentation may be contacted before the hearing; (3) the organization or company they represent; and (4) an email address.

Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments. Since it may be necessary to limit the number of persons making presentations, the written request to participate in the public hearing should describe the individual's interest in the hearing and, where appropriate, explain why the individual is a proper representative of a group or class of persons that has such an interest. If all interested parties cannot be accommodated at the hearing, the summaries of the oral presentations will be used to allocate speaking time and to ensure that a full range of comments is heard.

Each person selected to make a presentation will be notified by the Department of Commerce no later than 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, June 16, 2017. The Department will arrange the presentation times for the speakers. Persons selected to be heard are requested to bring 20 copies of their oral presentation and of all exhibits to the hearing site on the day of the hearing. All such material must be of a size consistent with ease of handling, transportation, and filing. While large exhibits may be used during a hearing, copies of such exhibits in reduced size must be provided to the panel. Written submissions by persons not selected to make presentations will be made part of the public record of the proceeding. Any person, whether presenting or not, may submit a written statement through June 29, 2017—seven days after the hearing date. Confidential business information may not be submitted at a public hearing. In the event confidential business information is submitted, it will be handled according to the same procedures applicable to such information provided in the course of an investigation. See 15 CFR 705.6. The hearing will be recorded.

Copies of the requests to participate in the public hearing and the transcript of the hearing will be maintained on the Bureau of Industry and Security's Web page, which can be found at http://www.bis.doc.gov (see Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) link at the bottom of the page). If the requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call (202) 482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

The Department reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule their respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. Each speaker will be limited to 10 minutes, and comments must be directly related to the criteria listed in 15 CFR 705.4 of the regulations. Attendees will be seated on a first-come, first-served basis.

A Department official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The presiding officer shall determine all procedural matters during the hearing. Representatives from the Department, and other U.S. Government agencies as appropriate, will make up the hearing panel. This will be a fact-finding proceeding; it will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing. Only members of the hearing panel may ask questions, and there will be no cross-examination of persons presenting statements. However, questions submitted to the presiding officer in writing may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be posed to the presenter. No formal rules of evidence will apply to the hearing.

Any further procedural rules for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding officer.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be received by the Department of Commerce no later than Monday, June 12, 2017, at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Background

On March 27, 1989, the Department published the AD order on steel tubing from Taiwan.1 On January 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD order on steel tubing,2 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

On January 10, 2017, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube, and Searing Industries (collectively, the domestic interested parties) within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers in the United States of a domestic like product.

On February 2, 2017, the Department received a complete substantive response to the Initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day period, specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. 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 AD order on steel tubing from Taiwan.

The product covered by the order is light-walled welded carbon steel pipe and tube of rectangular (including square) cross-section having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. This merchandise is classified under item number 7306.61.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). It was formerly classified under item number 7306.60.5000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 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 Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with March anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

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

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than March 31, 2018.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

The Department's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.11 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 12 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. See 19 CFR 351.302. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On April 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form, on behalf of Waterloo Industries Inc. (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of tool chests.2 The CVD petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of tool chests from the PRC and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).

On April 13 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the Petition.3 On April 13 and 20, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 18 and 21, 2017.5 On April 27, 3017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.6

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of the PRC (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act with respect to imports of tool chests from the PRC, and that imports of tool chests are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.7

Because the Petition was filed on April 11, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.8

The products covered by this investigation are tool chests from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petition, we issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.9

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,10 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,11 all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 22, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 1, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.12 All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

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

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).13 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.14 In response to the Department's letter, the GOC requested that consultations be held.15 Such consultations were held on April 26, 2017.16 The invitation letter and memorandum regarding the consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,17 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.18

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

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that tool chests, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.19

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.20 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from Metal Box International, stating that the company supports the Petition and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.21 The petitioner identifies itself and Metal Box International as the companies constituting the U.S. tool chests industry and states that there are no other known producers of tool chests in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.22

Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.23 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).24 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.25 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.26 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

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

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

The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.28

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining production and shipments; declining net sales; and deteriorating financial performance.29 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.30

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

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

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

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 17 of the 18 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

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

The Department normally selects respondents in a CVD investigation using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data. However, for this investigation, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers the subject merchandise would enter under are basket categories containing many products unrelated to tool chests, and the HTSUS numbers allow for the reporting of differing units of quantity. Therefore, we cannot rely on CBP entry data in selecting respondents. Instead, for this investigation, the Department will request quantity and value (Q&V) information from known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petition. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement & Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

Producers/exporters of tool chests from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than May 11, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

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

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

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

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

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.36 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.37 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

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

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

On September 1, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act).1

As a result of its reviews, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, the Department determined that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy, and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.2

On April 21, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the existing AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

The merchandise covered by the AD and CVD orders is all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.4

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India and the CVD order from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India, and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this continuation.

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

The product covered by this order is silicomanganese from Ukraine. Most silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.8040. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it 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 is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

Because the mandatory respondents ZFP and NFP failed to provide requested information, we preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to these companies, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

We preliminary determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period of August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016:

Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results of review in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily determined each respondent's weighted-average dumping margin based on AFA, as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, there are no calculations to disclose. This meets our regulatory obligation.

Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.2 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.3 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 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.4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

All documents submitted to the Department must normally be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the final results, if we continue to rely on adverse facts available to establish ZFP's and NFP's weighted-average dumping margins we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 163.00 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were exported by ZFP and NFP. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for subject merchandise exported by ZFP and NFP will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 163.00 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

The Petitions

On April 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), filed in proper form on behalf of Waterloo Industries Inc. (the petitioner).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for tool chests from the PRC. The petitioner is a domestic producer of tool chests.2

On April 13 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the Petitions.3 On April 13, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 18 and 20, 2017.5 On April 27, 2017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.6

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

The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.7

Because the Petitions were filed on April 11, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

The products covered by these investigations are tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to and received responses from the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).9 The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 22, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 1, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.10

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

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

The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of tool chests to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

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

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 16, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 23, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the PRC and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.

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

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

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

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

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.15 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from Metal Box International, stating that the company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.16 The petitioner identifies itself and Metal Box International as the companies constituting the U.S. tool chests industry and states that there are no other known producers of tool chests in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.17

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.18 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting that the Department initiate.22

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

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining production and shipments; declining net sales; and deteriorating financial performance.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For the PRC, the petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set produced in, and exported from, the PRC and sold in the United States.26 For Vietnam, the petitioner based EP on pricing information for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set produced in, and exported from Vietnam, and sold in the United States.27 Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, and U.S. inland freight to the customer.28 In addition, for the PRC, the petitioner deducted an amount for the irrecoverable portion of the value added tax in the PRC, consistent with the terms of sale.29

The petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC and Vietnam to be non-market economy (NME) countries as recently as the month before the Petitions were filed with respect to the PRC,30 and as recently as two weeks before the Petitions were filed with respect to Vietnam.31 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for either the PRC or Vietnam has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of these investigations. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

The petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from South Africa is available to value all FOPs.32 The petitioner claims that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Indonesia is available to value all FOPs.33

Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for the PRC and Indonesia as a surrogate country for Vietnam for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences.34 The petitioner asserts that the production process for tool chests is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the PRC.35 The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from South Africa.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Vietnamese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences.36 The petitioner asserts that the production process for tool chests is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the Vietnam.37 The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Indonesia.

For the PRC, the petitioner valued direct materials based on publicly-available import data for South Africa obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period September 2016 through February 2017 (i.e., the most recent six month period for which data were available).38 The petitioner excluded all import data from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.39 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.40 The petitioner stated that the Chinese producers use a more expensive powder coat process to paint subject tool chests than the petitioner who uses a less expensive electrophoretic (e-coat) process.41 Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its actual e-coat paint usage to reflect the additional material required under the Chinese producers' powder coat paint process.42 The petitioner made offsets to cost for steel scrap generated by the production process, using its own experience and valued at the average cost of scrap imported into South Africa from GTA.43

For Vietnam, the petitioner valued direct materials using public import data for Indonesia obtained from GTA for the period February 2016 through July 2016 (i.e., the most recent six-month period for which data were available).44 The petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.45 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.46 The petitioner stated that the Vietnamese producers use a more expensive powder coat process to paint subject tool chests than the petitioner who uses a less expensive e-coat process.47 Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its actual e-coat paint usage to reflect the additional material required under Vietnamese producers' powder coat paint process.48 Finally, the petitioner made an offset to cost for steel scrap generated in the production process, estimated using its own production experience and valued at the average cost of scrap imported into Indonesia from GTA.49 The Department determines that the surrogate values used by the petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

For the PRC, the petitioner relied on 2012 data published by the International Labour Organization, inflated to 2016 using the South African Consumer Price Index.50 For Vietnam, the petitioner relied on 2017 data published by the World Bank in Doing Business 2017: Indonesia (DBI). 51 As noted above, because producers in the PRC and Vietnam use a powder coat method to paint subject tool chests, which is more labor-intensive, the petitioner adjusted its actual labor usage for the e-coat process to reflect its actual labor usage experience in its powder painting line.52

For the PRC, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into South Africa. The petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated usage rate.53 The petitioner valued electricity using an average per-kilowatt-hour electricity cost obtained from Doing Business 2017: South Africa. The petitioner applied that rate to the kilowatt hours of electricity that the petitioner estimated it consumed.54

For Vietnam, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into Indonesia.55 The petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated usage rate.56 The petitioner valued electricity using a per-kilowatt-hour electricity cost in Indonesia in effect during the POI obtained from DBI. 57 The petitioner applied that rate to the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that the petitioner estimated it consumed.58

For the PRC, the petitioner determined the FOPs for packing materials based on its own experience in packing its products.59 The petitioner indicated the packing materials would be cardboard shipping boxes, polybags, and Styrofoam, and valued them based on South African import values.60

Background: On October 30, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Program Integrity and Improvement final regulations (80 FR 67125). These final regulations contained provisions governing cash management, including the establishment of new rules regarding financial accounts marketed to students receiving title IV program funds under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The final regulations were intended to ensure that students have convenient access to their title IV, HEA program funds, do not incur unreasonable and uncommon financial account fees on their title IV, HEA program funds, and are not led to believe they must open a particular financial account to receive their Federal student aid.

As part of the Secretary's effort to ensure that title IV recipients are informed but not misinformed about the terms of financial accounts offered to them through their institution, § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) requires that prior to the student opening an account offered by a financial account provider, institutions list and identify the major features and commonly assessed fees associated with each financial account offered under a T1 or T2 arrangement, as well as the URL where the complete terms and conditions of each account may be obtained. The regulations do not require institutions to adopt the Secretary's format for this information once it is published in the Federal Register, but it does state that institutions that do meet the format, content, and update requirements in the Secretary's format will be deemed in compliance with the requirements of the regulations, with respect to the major features and assessed fees associated with the account offered pursuant to the T1 or T2 arrangement.

If an institution chooses to use its own format to comply with the disclosure requirements in § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2), or a format provided by its financial account provider, the institution must list the major features, commonly assessed fees, and the URL where the terms and conditions of each account may be obtained.

In the preamble of the final regulations, we committed to work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to ensure that the disclosures required under § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) do not conflict with theirs. We also assured stakeholders that, to the maximum extent possible, the disclosures would be as similar as possible to the CFPB's requirements to mitigate confusion and administrative burden. We believe that the proposed format described below meets those goals.

After consultation with the CFPB, the Secretary seeks feedback from the public regarding the proposed format, content, and update requirements for the disclosures. We propose that, in cases where the account provided is a prepaid account, as addressed in the CFPB's notice of final rule and official interpretations for Prepaid Accounts under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (81 FR 83934), each institution's financial account provider can include, in the student choice menu described in § 668.164(d)(4)(i), the CFPB's appropriate short-form disclosure as described in 81 FR 83934. If an institution offering a prepaid card under its T1 or T2 arrangement meets the disclosure requirements established by the CFPB in 81 FR 83934, it would be in compliance with § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(2) of the cash management final regulations. However, because § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(A)(1) requires that institutions disclose in writing that students do not need to use a particular account to receive their Federal student aid, institutions using the CFPB disclosure template must also display a message, along with the disclosure, stating that students do not need to use the prepaid account to receive Federal student aid. We also recommend including, along with the message, a note that directs students to ask about other ways to receive their Federal student aid. We remind institutions that the CFPB's short-form template was not drafted to implement the Department's cash management regulations; accordingly, institutions using that template should not regard it as authorizing T1 or T2 arrangements that feature imposition of any fees otherwise prohibited under § 668.164(e) or (f), as applicable.

For institutions whose financial account provider either does not offer a prepaid account or chooses not to use the CFPB's short-form disclosure template, we propose the following format:

We propose that institutions choosing to use this form would be required to comply with the following instructions:

• The institution's disclosure must list the following fees: Periodic fees, per purchase fees (including point-of-sale fees), ATM withdrawal fees, cash reload fees, ATM balance inquiry fees, customer service fees, and inactivity fees. These fees are referred to as “static fees” because all institutions using the Secretary's format must list these fees on the disclosure, even if the amount of the fee is zero or the fee relates to a feature that is not offered as part of the specific account. In cases where the amount of any fee could vary, the disclosure must show the highest amount the account provider may charge for that fee, followed by a symbol, such as an asterisk, linked to a statement explaining that the fee could be lower depending on how and where the account is used. The asterisk would be included, for example, if point-of-sale fees differ depending on whether the cardholder is required to provide a PIN or signature. In cases where a static fee is not imposed, the institution may demonstrate that the fee is not applicable by placing “N/A” or an equivalent designation in the appropriate field.

• The disclosure must include the number of fee types the accountholder may be charged under the specific account program, excluding those fees that are either disclosed on the form or in close proximity as described below.

• The disclosure must also list the two additional fee types, if any, that generated the highest revenue from accountholders during the previous 24 months excluding static fees, any purchase price, any activation fees, and any fee types that generated less than five percent of the total revenue from accountholders, as well as the amounts of such additional fees. The two additional fee types would be determined for the specific financial account program or across programs with the same fee schedule. Institutions must ensure that the financial account provider reviews their fee revenue periodically and that they assist the institution in updating the disclosure if needed.

• The disclosure must include statements regarding linked overdraft credit features, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation/National Credit Union Administration insurance, and a link to the terms and conditions of the account.

• The disclosure must include a written statement that students do not have to accept the T1 or T2 account and may recommend that students ask about other ways to receive their Federal student aid.

• In close proximity to the disclosure, though not necessarily within the disclosure itself, the institution must disclose the financial account provider's name, the name of the account, for T2 accounts any purchase price for the account (such as a fee for acquiring an access device or a replacement for an access device), and any fee for activating the account. If the financial account is a T1 account, the institution must also use this space to disclose that a student accountholder may access his or her title IV, HEA program funds in part and in full up to the account balance via domestic withdrawals and transfers free of charge, during the student's entire period of enrollment following the date that such title IV, HEA program funds are deposited or transferred to the financial account, as required under § 668.164(e)(2)(v)(C). We also remind institutions that any account that falls under the definition of a T1 account may not charge fees for opening or activating the financial account or initially receiving or activating an access device, nor for overdrafts or fees assessed on point-of-sale transactions.

We request assistance from the community in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed format, content, and update requirements. Specifically, the Secretary requests information on whether—

1. We have included all relevant fee information in the disclosures;

2. The disclosures would be inappropriate for a particular type of account;

3. Simply placing a “$0” or “N/A” in a place where no fee is charged would suffice to convey all of the necessary information;

4. There is a preferred start date for the requirement to include the two additional fee types that generated the highest revenue from accountholders during the previous 24 months;

5. Any conflict exists regarding other regulatory requirements, particularly with the proposal to allow institutions to use the CFPB disclosures described in 81 FR 83934 for this purpose;

6. Students may find the disclosures confusing or unhelpful and, if so, whether the commenter can suggest specific alternatives;

7. There are any other potential problems with including this format within the student choice menu to satisfy the requirements in § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2); or

8. Opportunities exist to further streamline the format of the template to reduce administrative burden.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

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: Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments).

OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 450.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 236.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine how state agencies, school districts, local operating agencies, and schools implement education and transition programs for children and youth who are migratory students under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Title I, Part C.

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: Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (recruitment and study design phase).

OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 685.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 310.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine districts that have implemented weighted student funding (WSF) systems. In doing so, the study team will investigate how these systems for funding schools have been implemented, the benefits in terms of enhanced school funding equity and improved resource allocation practices through more equitable distributions of funding to schools and increased principal autonomy, and the challenges each district may have faced in undertaking such a reform. To this end, the study team will conduct site visits to a set of nine case study districts that will involve in-person interviews with district officials and school staff involved in WSF system administration. In addition, the study team will collect and review relevant extant data (budget and audited expenditure files) and administer surveys to a nationally representative sample of principals and school district administrators.

Title: FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0246.

Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725E information collection requirements, as modified by Docket No. RD17-5-000.

Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725E is required to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). Section 215 of the FPA buttresses the Commission's efforts to strengthen the reliability of the interstate grid through the grant of new authority by providing for a system of mandatory Reliability Standards developed by the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional Entity.1 A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority from the ERO.2 On June 8, 2008, the Commission approved eight regional Reliability Standards submitted by the ERO that were proposed by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).3

WECC promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection. WECC is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement. In addition, WECC provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the WECC Bylaws.

There are several regional Reliability Standards in the WECC region. These regional Reliability Standards generally require entities to document compliance with substantive requirements, retain documentation, and submit reports to WECC.

BAL-002-WECC-2a (Contingency Reserve) 4 requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to document compliance with the contingency reserve requirements described in the standard.

• BAL-004-WECC-02 (Automatic Time Error Correction) requires balancing authorities to document that time error corrections and primary inadvertent interchange payback were conducted according the requirements in the standard.

• FAC-501-WECC-1 (Transmission Maintenance) requires transmission owners with certain transmission paths to have a transmission maintenance and inspection plan and to document maintenance and inspection activities according to the plan.

• IRO-006-WECC-2 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow (USF) Relief) 5 requires balancing authorities and reliability coordinators document actions taken to mitigate unscheduled flow.

• PRC-004-WECC-2 (Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation) 6 requires transmission owners, generator owners and transmission operators to document their analysis and/or mitigation due to certain misoperations on major transfer paths. This standard requires that documentation be kept for six years.

• VAR-002-WECC-2 (Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR)) 7 requires generator operators and transmission operators to provide quarterly reports to the compliance monitor and have evidence related to their synchronous generators, synchronous condensers, and automatic voltage regulators.

The associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in the standards above are not being revised, and the Commission will be submitting a request to OMB to extend these requirements for three years. The Commission's request to OMB will also reflect the following:

• Eliminating the burden associated with regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a, which is being retired (addressed in Docket No. RD16-10); 8 and

• Implementing the regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 and the retirement of regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2 (addressed in Docket No. RD17-5 and discussed below).

On March 10, 2017, NERC and WECC filed a joint petition in Docket No. RD17-5-000 9 requesting Commission approval of: (a) Regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 (Power System Stabilizers), and (b) the retirement of then-existing regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2. The petition states: “Regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 establishes the performance criteria for power system stabilizers to help ensure the Western Interconnection is operated in a coordinated manner under normal and abnormal conditions.” VAR-501-WECC-3 was approved by order in Docket No. RD17-5-000 on April 28, 2017. In this document, we provide estimates of the burden and cost related to those revisions to FERC-725E.

Type of Respondents: Balancing authorities, reserve sharing groups, transmission owners, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators, and generator owners.

Estimate of Annual Burden 10 : Details follow on the changes in Docket No. RD17-5-000, and on the continuing burdens, which will be submitted to OMB for approval in a consolidated package under FERC-725E.

Estimate of Changes to Burden Due to Docket No. RD17-5: The joint petition requested Commission approval of regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 and retirement of then-existing regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2. The estimated effects on burden and cost 11 are as follow:

Estimate of Continuing Annual Burden for Renewal and New Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3: 13 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden and cost 14 as follows for FERC-725E. (This information will be submitted to OMB for approval.) These estimates reflect:

• Reliability Standards in FERC-725E which continue and remain unchanged (BAL-002-WECC-2a, BAL-004-WECC-02, FAC-501-WECC-1, IRO-006-WECC-2, PRC-004-WECC-2, and VAR-002-WECC-2);

• Removal of burden due to the retirement of TOP-007-WECC-1a (discussed in Docket No. RD16-10-000)

• Additional burden due to VAR-501-WECC-3, and removal of burden due to the retirement of VAR-501-WECC-2 (detailed above and in Docket No. RD17-5-000).

(The burdens and costs related to TOP-007-WECC-1a and VAR-501-WECC-2 [the standards being retired] are omitted from the table below, which describes the new and continuing information collection requirements.)

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

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.

Type of Meeting: Open.

Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC office (202) 508-3840; by email: [email protected] or via the OTC Web site at http://www.otcair.org.

This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of December 15, 2016. In that document, EPA requested comment on its preliminary determination on whether a revision of the standards for determining the manufacturers and processors which qualify as small manufacturers and processors for purposes of TSCA sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) was warranted. On December 7, 2016, EPA also submitted a consultation request to the SBA on the adequacy of the current standards and requested a response within 15 business days of receipt (Ref. 1). EPA had intended to add SBA's response to the docket to give the public an opportunity to review the response to inform their comments on EPA's preliminary determination. EPA received feedback on the consultation request on behalf of the SBA Administrator on April 5, 2017 (Ref. 2), concluding the consultation with SBA. Consistent with section 8(a)(3)(C), EPA is providing public notice and an opportunity for comment on its preliminary determination after consultation with the Administrator of SBA.

EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 15 days to May 24, 2017.

To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of December 15, 2016 (81 FR 90840) (FRL-9956-03). If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

A. Purpose

To protect the Government's interest and to ensure timely delivery of items of the requisite quality, contracting officers, prior to award, must make an affirmative determination that the prospective contractor is responsible, i.e., capable of performing the contract. Before making such a determination, the contracting officer must have in his possession or must obtain information sufficient to satisfy himself that the prospective contractor: (i) Has adequate financial resources, or the ability to obtain such resources; (ii) is able to comply with required delivery schedule; (iii) has a satisfactory record of performance; (iv) has a satisfactory record of integrity; and (v) is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under appropriate laws and regulations. If such information is not in the contracting officer's possession, it is obtained through a preaward survey conducted by the contract administration office responsible for the plant and/or the geographic area in which the plant is located. The necessary data is collected by contract administration personnel from available data or through plant visits, phone calls, and correspondence. This data is entered on Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408 in detail commensurate with the dollar value and complexity of the procurement. These standard forms are not cumulative. The surveying activity completes only the applicable standard form(s) necessary to determine contractor responsibility in each case.

Number of Respondents: 1,116.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,116.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 26,784.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 558.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 558.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 13,392.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 372.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 372.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 8,928.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 372.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 372.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 8,928.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 558.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 558.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 13,392.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 744.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 744.

Hours per Response: 24.

Total Burden Hours: 17,856.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0011, Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408), in all correspondence.

The NACMH is a non-discretionary advisory body mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Title 42 U.S.C. 218, to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS and the Administrator of HRSA regarding the organization, operation, selection, and funding of migrant health centers and other entities funded under section 330(g) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254b). The NACMH Charter requires that the Council meet at least twice per year to discuss services and issues related to the health of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers and their families and to formulate their recommendations to the HHS Secretary and HRSA Administrator. The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general business activities. The Council will also hear presentations from Federal officials and experts on agricultural worker issues, including the status of agricultural worker health at the local and national levels. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

Public Participation: Members of the public will not be able to provide oral comments during the meeting. Please provide any written questions or comments for the NACMH to the DFO using the address and phone number provided above by May 23, 2017. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the DFO at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP and maintains the maps that depict flood hazard information. In 44 CFR 65.3, communities are required to submit technical information concerning flood hazards and plans to avoid potential flood hazards when physical changes occur. In 44 CFR 65.4, communities are provided the right to submit technical information when inconsistencies on maps are identified. In order to revise the Base (l-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), and floodways presented on the NFIP maps, a community must submit scientific or technical data demonstrating the need for a revision. The NFIP regulations cited in 44 CFR part 65 outline the data that must be submitted for these requests. This collection serves to provide a standard format for the general information requirements outlined in the NFIP regulations, and helps establish an organized package of the data needed to revise NFIP maps.

Title: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0016.

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-27, Overview and Concurrence Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27A, Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27B, Riverine Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27C, Coastal Analysis Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27D, Coastal Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27E, Alluvial Fan Flooding Form.

Abstract: The forms in this information collection are used to determine if the collected data will result in the modification of a BFE, a SFHA, or a floodway. Once the information is collected, it is submitted to FEMA for review and is subsequently included on the NFIP maps. Using these maps, lenders will determine the application of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and insurance agents will determine actuarial flood insurance rates.

Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government and Business or Other for-Profit Institutes.

Number of Respondents: 5,291.

Number of Responses: 5,291.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,107.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $1,108,050. The cost to developers for engineer's services include scoping, surveying cross-sections, developing hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and preparing work maps and reports documenting the engineering analysis and results is estimated to be $22,010,000. The cost to the Federal Government is $24,559.06.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.