Federal Register Vol. 83, No.117,

Title: Acreage/Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI).

OMB Number: 0563-0084.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2018.

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

Abstract: The currently approved information collection of OMB Number 0563-0084 is up for renewal and we are requesting an extension for 3 years. FSA and RMA are requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the information collection request associated with ACRSI. FSA and RMA have established the procedures, processes, and standards to simplify commodity and acreage reporting by producers, eliminate or minimize duplication of information collection by multiple agencies, and reduce the burden on producers, allowing producers to report this information through FSA county office service centers, insurance agents, or through precision ag technology capabilities. FSA and RMA implemented a streamlined reporting solution to establish a common data collection and reporting capability that supports USDA's programs.

RMA is continuing to improve the existing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved information collections for RMA, 0563-0053, Multiple Peril Crop Insurance, acreage information, generally collected from the respondent during a personal visit to the FSA Service Center and again from the respondent during a personal visit with the insurance agent.

The forms are still available to accommodate respondents with no internet access and those who wish to continue to personally visit the FSA Service Center and insurance agent to report this common information.

Information reported to the common data collection and reporting capability (otherwise known as the Clearinghouse) are shared by both FSA and RMA, as well as other USDA agencies, such as NRCS and NASS that have the authority and need for such information. In each phase of system implementation, some or all of the commodity and acreage information in the existing approved information collections are reported through this solution. Furthermore, the information collected are the same as the information currently approved. Additionally, the respondent will continue to report their common information one time through a single source thereby reducing the respondent's burden of reporting such common information and eliminating the duplicate reporting that may be currently required. The information collected will continue to be the same as the information currently approved and are used in the same manner it would be used if reported separately to each agency. The producers are continuing to use their precision-ag systems, farm management information systems, or download data files to directly report certain commodity and acreage information needed to participate in USDA programs.

The information being collected may consist of, but not be limited to: Producer name, customer/tax ID, state, county, commodity name, commodity type or variety, intended use, date planted, planted acreage, and land location (which may include legal description, FSA farm number, FSA tract number, FSA field number, geospatial as-planted field boundaries, Resource Land Unit, etc.).

FSA and RMA are continuing to implement the ACRSI initiative in phases. The first phase was initiated in the fall of 2011 in Dickenson, Marion, McPherson, and Saline Counties in Kansas, and only for the collection of information from producers regarding winter wheat. The second phase was implemented in the spring of 2015 in 30 counties of Illinois and Iowa covering 9 crops. The third phase was implemented in the fall of 2015 in all counties of 15 states covering 9 crops. The fourth phase was implemented in the spring of 2016 in all counties nationwide covering 13 crops and about 90 percent of reported acreage. The fifth phase was implemented in the fall of 2016 expanding nationwide coverage to 16 crops and about 93 percent of reported acreage. The sixth phase was implemented in the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018 expanding nationwide coverage to 25 crops and about 94 percent of reported acreage. To ensure statutory criteria are met for Federal crop insurance, FSA and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs, the collection of commodity and acreage information is necessary. This is not a request for a change, addition, or deletion to the currently approved information collections.

However, the existing approved information collection will be updated, modified or eliminated, as applicable, to reflect the reduction in burden on the respondents when the solution is fully implemented.

Respondents: Producers.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents Utilizing the Web-Based Single Source Reporting System and Benefiting From Sharing Information Between Agencies: 501,012.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents Utilizing the Web-Based Single Source Reporting System and Benefiting From Having That Information Shared Between Agencies: 1,377,783 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Grazing Permit Administration Forms.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2018.

Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This information collection extension is necessary to continue allowing proper administration of livestock grazing programs on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Domestic livestock grazing occurs on approximately 94 million acres of NFS lands. Grazing on NFS lands is subject to authorization and administrative oversight by the Forest Service. The information collected by the Forest Service is the minimum required for issuance and administration of grazing permits, including fee collections, as authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1700 et seq.) and United States Department of Agriculture regulations at 36 CFR 222, subparts A and C. Similar information is not available from any other source. Some of the forms have been updated for technical corrections; these edits do not change the intent, amount, or type of information collected from the public.

Forest Service officials currently use the following forms to collect the information necessary to administer this program.

FS-2200-0001; Refund, Credit, or Transfer Application collects the following information:

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes to complete the form.

• Name and mailing address;

• Permit number;

• National Forest or Grassland and Ranger District;

• Purpose of application: Credit on next year's fees, refund of overpaid fees, or transfer of credit to another account;

• Information on the allotment: number of cattle, horses, or sheep;

• Period rangeland not used;

• Reason for less use than permitted; and

• Signature of Permittee.

Information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate a grazing permittee's request for refund, credit, or transfer of the unused potion of the preceding season's grazing fees paid to the Forest Service for the occupancy of the National Forest System lands by permitted livestock.

FS-2200-0002; Application for Temporary Grazing or Livestock Use Permit collects the following information:

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes to complete the form.

• Name and address of applicant;

• Type, amount, and location of requested grazing;

• Period of use; and

• Grazing allotment.

Information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to determine whether individuals qualify for a temporary grazing or livestock use permit, which authorizes grazing on certain NFS lands for a period not to exceed one year. The Forest Service uses the information on this form to determine whether the applicant is likely to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions.

FS-2200-0012; Waiver of Term Grazing Permit enables the Forest Service to terminate an individual's grazing privileges on certain NFS lands based upon that individual's sale or transfer of base property, permitted livestock, or both to another individual who desires to acquire a new grazing permit. The waiver enables the Forest Service to cancel the grazing permit held by the individual who sold or transferred the base property, permitted livestock, or both; and to identify the individual who acquired the base property, permitted livestock, or both as the preferred applicant for a new grazing permit.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 30 minutes to complete the form.

FS-2200-0013; Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit Privileges collects information on loans made to permittees. The Forest Service uses the information to record the name and address of a permittee's lender, the amount of the loan, and the due date for repayment. The information assists Agency officials in determining whether to hold in escrow, on behalf of the lender, all of the privileges associated with the grazing permit except the privilege to graze. The Forest Service uses the collected information to (1) notify the lender of important issues associated with the administration of the grazing permit and (2) facilitate the transfer of a grazing permit to the lender if the permittee defaults on the loan.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes to complete the form.

FS-2200-0016; Application for Term Grazing Permit collects the following information:

Estimate of Annual Burden: 30 minutes to complete the form.

• Name and address of applicant;

• Type, amount, and location of requested grazing;

• Period of use; and

• Grazing allotment.

The information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate an applicant's eligibility and qualification to hold a term grazing permit authorizing the use of National Forest System lands for livestock grazing purposes, to determine the applicant's ability to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions, and to notify the applicant in writing of matters associated with the administration of permitted grazing including, but not limited to, bills for the fees associated with the permitted grazing.

FS-2200-0017; Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit collects the following information:

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes to complete the form.

• Name and address of applicant;

• Type, amount, and location of requested grazing;

• Period of use; and

• Grazing allotment.

The information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate an applicant's eligibility and qualification to hold a term private land-grazing permit, which authorizes the use of National Forest System lands and private lands owned or controlled by the applicant for livestock grazing purposes. The information also enables the Forest Service to determine the applicant's ability to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions, and to notify the applicant in writing of matters associated with the administration of permitted grazing.

FS-2200-0025; Ownership Statement by Corporation, Partnership, or Other Legal Entity collects the following information:

Estimate of Annual Burden: 10 minutes to complete the form.

• Name of corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

• The title, signing authority, mailing address, shares owned, or percent of ownership of each stockholder, partner, or member of the entity.

The information on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate whether a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity is eligible and qualified to hold a term grazing permit authorizing grazing on certain National Forest System lands, whether the entity is authorized to conduct business in the state in which the National Forest System lands to be grazed are located, and which shareholders, partners, or members are authorized to sign official documents on behalf of the legal entity.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, Families, or Businesses (especially those owning and operating ranches and farms).

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,290.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 504 hours.

Comment is invited: Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden 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 to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-334-3020 and conference call ID: 8405258. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-334-3020 and conference call ID: 8405258.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=272 click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Agenda: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. (EDT)

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-298-3457 and conference call ID number: 5788080. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-298-3457 and conference call ID number: 5788080.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments. The comments should be submitted within approximately 30 days after the planning meeting and may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-741-4240 and conference ID: 4020227. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-741-4240 and conference ID: 4020227.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=253, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

Background

On November 28, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this countervailing duty investigation, as provided by section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in which Commerce found that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ripe olives from Spain.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

The product covered by this investigation is ripe olives from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice during the scope comment period.4 For the Preliminary Determination, Commerce did not modify the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. However, the issue of cocktail mixes arose in the context of the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation on ripe olives from Spain. In the April 3, 2018, post-preliminary we issued with respect to the scope of the investigation, we found that: (i) Ripe olives contained in cocktail mixes are in the scope, but that the remaining ingredients are not in the scope, and (ii) we clarified the scope by adding language concerning ripe olives contained in cocktail mixes.5 As a result of our analysis of comments received in response to this post-preliminary analysis, we have modified the scope of this investigation for this final determination. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.6

Commerce is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient) and that the subsidy is specific. For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decisions Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February and March 2018, we conducted verification of the information submitted by the European Commission, the Government of Spain, and the mandatory respondents Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L. (AG), Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP.And. (Agro Sevilla) and Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L. (Camacho) for use in Commerce's final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by the respondents.

The subsidies programs under investigation and all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

If necessary information is not available on the record, or an interested party withholds information, fails to provide requested information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a proceeding by not providing information, or information provided cannot be verified, Commerce will apply facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available and, because certain respondents did not cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Commerce's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 A full discussion of our decision to rely on adverse facts available is presented in the “Application of Facts Otherwise Available and Use of Adverse Inferences” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on Commerce's analysis of the comments received and its findings at verification, Commerce made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for AG, Agro Sevilla and Camacho.8 In addition, Commerce revised the subsidy rate calculations for the respondents to reflect the reliance on partial facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Because of these changes to the estimated subsidy rate for each mandatory respondent we have also revised the subsidy rate applicable to all other prroducers and exporters (the all-others rate).

Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated subsidy rate for all exporters or producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those exporters and producers individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated individually estimated countervailable subsidy rates for AG, Agro Sevilla and Camacho, that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Because there are three estimated subsidy rates available and doing so would not reveal business proprietary information, we calculated the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the individually estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each respondent's business proprietary data for the merchandise under consideration.9

We determine that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise under consideration from Spain that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after November 28, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, effective March 28, 2018, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries at that time, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries between November 28, 2017, and March 27, 2018.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a final affirmative injury determination we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ripe olives from Spain no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination.

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

This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On May 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of steel propane cylinders from the People's Republic of China (China), and antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand filed in proper form on behalf of Worthington Industries and Manchester Tank & Equipment Co. (the petitioners).1 The petitioners are domestic producers of steel propane cylinders.2

The petitioners amended the scope of the petitioners on May 24, 2018.3 On May 25, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the petition.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on May 30, 2018.5 On May 30, 2018, the petitioners submitted certain revisions to the scope.6

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of steel propane cylinders in China and imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic steel propane cylinders industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. We also find that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of this CVD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.7

Because the petition was filed on May 22, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.8

The products covered by this investigation are steel propane cylinders from China. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the petition is an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.9 As a result of these exchanges, the scope of the petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope), including comments on whether it is appropriate to refer to the subject merchandise as “steel propane cylinders” (emphasis added) or just as “steel cylinders,” given that the petitioners intend to cover all products that meet the physical description of the scope regardless of whether they ultimately contain or transport compressed or liquefied propane gas. 10 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,11 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit comments within 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. As such, scope comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 2, 2018.12 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 12, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.13

Commerce 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 Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations, in accordance with the filing requirements, discussed immediately below.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations.15 The GOC did not request consultations.16

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,17 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.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 petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.19 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel propane cylinders, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.20

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2017.21 The petitioners state that there are no other known producers of steel propane cylinders 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 Commerce indicates that the petitioners have 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, Commerce 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, Commerce determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.27

Because China is “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 China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners allege 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 petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.28

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of imports from the subject countries; the domestic industry's reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; a negative impact on the domestic industry's production, shipments, capacity utilization, and financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.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

Based on our examination of the petition, we find that it meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. We find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the subsidy programs alleged in the petition. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of steel propane cylinders from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the China 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 no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

The petition named ten companies in China as producers/exporters of steel propane cylinders.31 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice for a CVD investigation and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of steel propane cylinders from China during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix.

On June 6, 2018, Commerce released CBP data from China under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.32 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

All respondent selection comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the petition was provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each named exporter as provided under 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 steel propane cylinders from China is materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.34 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 35 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.36 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in 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. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in 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. Parties should 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.37 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).38 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce 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 and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

Background

On January 26, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this LTFV investigation in which Commerce found that ripe olives from Spain were sold at LTFV.1 For a summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2

The product covered by this investigation is ripe olives from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice during the scope comment period.4 In the context of supplemental questionnaire responses, two of the three mandatory respondents in the LTFV investigation reported sales of cocktail mixes but stated that they believe cocktail mixes are not within the scope of the investigation. In response, the petitioner 5 commented that the respondents cannot unilaterally determine whether cocktail mixes are outside the scope. For the Preliminary Determination, we did not modify the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. We included all sales of cocktail mixes and their associated costs in our margin calculations, and solicited further information from parties concerning cocktail mixes for purposes of the final determination. In the April 3, 2018, post-preliminary analysis we issued with respect to the scope of the investigation, we found that: (i) Ripe olives contained in cocktail mixes are in the scope, but that the remaining ingredients are not in the scope, and (ii) we clarified the scope by adding language concerning ripe olives contained in cocktail mixes.6 As a result of our analysis of comments received in response to this post-preliminary analysis, we have modified the scope of this investigation for this final determination. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.7

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February and March 2018, we conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondents Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L. (AG), Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Andalusia (Agro Sevilla),8 and Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L. (Camacho) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondents.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for AG, Agro Sevilla and Camacho.9 In addition, we revised the margin calculations for Camacho to reflect the application of partial facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers or exporters (the all-others rate).

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all exporters or producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters or producers individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Because there are three estimated weighted-average dumping margins and doing so would not reveal business proprietary information, we calculated the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each company's business proprietary data for the merchandise under consideration.10

We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ripe olives from Spain as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 26, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above under Final Determination will be equal to their respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; (3) for all other producers or exporters of ripe olives to the United States, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the all-others rate.

Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value (NV) exceeds the U.S. price as shown above, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion CVD investigation. Consistent with Commerce's practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, Commerce instructs CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin, less the amount of the CVD determined to constitute an export subsidy.17 Therefore, in the event that a CVD order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation on ripe olives from Spain,18 Commerce will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the estimated weighted-average dumping margin column in the rate chart, above.

These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

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

On November 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the United Arab Emirates, covering the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017.1 On November 30, 2018, Commerce received a timely request from the petitioners 2 for an AD administrative review of two companies: JBF RAK LLC (JBF) and Flex Middle East FZE (Flex),3 and JBF submitted a timely request for an AD review of itself.4 On January 11, 2018, pursuant to the requests from interested parties, Commerce published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to JBF and Flex.5 On April 11, 2018, the petitioners withdrew their requests for reviews of JBF and Flex.6

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Commerce initiated the instant review on January 11, 2018, and the petitioners withdrew their request on April 11, 2018, which is within the 90-day period and is thus timely. Because the petitioners' withdrawal of their requests for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of Flex, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Flex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). JBF did not withdraw its request for review of itself. As such, the instant review will continue with respect to JBF.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Flex will be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of antidumping duties assessed.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On May 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel propane cylinders from People's Republic of China (China), Taiwan, and Thailand, and a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of steel propane cylinders from China filed in proper form on behalf of Worthington Industries and Manchester Tank & Equipment Co. (the petitioners).1 The petitioners are domestic producers of steel propane cylinders.2

The petitioners amended the scope of the petitions on May 24, 2018.3 On May 25 and 31, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the petitions.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on May 30 and June 1, 2018.5

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand 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, the domestic industry producing steel propane cylinders in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. We also find that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6

Because the petitions were filed on May 22, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Taiwan and Thailand investigations is April 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018.7 Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China investigation is October 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018.

The products covered by these investigations are steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the petitions, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the petitions is an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8 As a result of these exchanges, the scope of the petitions was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the petitions. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope), including comments on whether it is appropriate to refer to the subject merchandise as “steel propane cylinders,” (emphasis added) or just as “steel cylinders,” given that the petitioners intend to cover all products that meet the physical description of the scope regardless of whether they ultimately contain or transport compressed or liquefied propane gas.9 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 2, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.11 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 11, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.12

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

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and 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 exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Commerce requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of steel propane cylinders to be reported in response to Commerce'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 costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

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

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 2, 2018, which is the first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 11, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the China, Taiwan, and Thailand 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, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

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

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

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel propane cylinders, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.17

In determining whether the petitioners have 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 the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2017.18 The petitioners state that there are no other known producers of steel propane cylinders in the United States; therefore, the petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.19

Our review of the data provided in the petitions and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the petitions.20 First, the petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions.23 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.24

The petitioners allege 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 petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of imports from the subject countries; the domestic industry's reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; a negative impact on the domestic industry's production, shipments, capacity utilization, and financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.26 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.27

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand. 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 China and Thailand, the petitioners based export price (EP) on pricing information for steel propane cylinders produced in, and exported from, those countries and sold or offered for sale in the United States.28 For China, the petitioners also based EP on the average unit values (AUVs) of publicly-available import data.29 For Taiwan, the petitioners based EP on the AUV of publicly-available import data.30

Where appropriate, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses consistent with the terms of sale.31

For Taiwan and Thailand, the petitioners based normal value (NV) on home market prices obtained through market research for steel propane cylinders produced in and sold, or offered for sale in each country within the proposed POI.32 The petitioners calculated net home market prices, adjusting as appropriate for delivery terms and other price adjustments.33 For Taiwan and Thailand, the petitioners provided information indicating that the prices were below the cost of production (COP), and therefore, the petitioners also calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).34 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” below.35

With respect to China, Commerce considers China to be an NME country.36 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in China is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.37

The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of identical merchandise.38 The petitioners provided publicly-available information from Thailand to value all FOPs and derive surrogate financial ratios.39 Therefore, based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use Thailand as the primary surrogate country 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 within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by producers/exporters in China was not reasonably available, the petitioners relied on their own product-specific consumption rates to estimate the FOPs for the manufactuers in China.40 The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Thailand, as noted above.41 The petitioners used the average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.42 The petitioners relied upon the financial statements of three Thai producers of steel propane cylinders, to value overhead; selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; and profit.43

As noted above, for Taiwan and Thailand, the petitioners obtained home market prices but demonstrated that these prices were below the COP during the POI; therefore, the petitioners also based NV on CV pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; profit; and packing expenses.

For Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on a domestic producer's own input factors of production and usage rates for raw materials, labor, energy, and packing.44 The petitioners valued the input factors of production using publicly available data on costs specific to Taiwan, during the proposed POI.45 Specifically, the petitioners based prices for raw material and packing inputs on publicly available import data for Taiwan.46 The petitioners valued labor and energy costs using publicly available sources for Taiwan.47 The petitioners calculated factory overhead, SG&A, financial expenses, and profit for Taiwan based on the experience of producers in Taiwan of comparable merchandise (e.g., light steel frames, fire-proof doors, various machines, metal building structure assembly, steel wire products, other metalwork, etc.).48

For Thailand, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the domestic producers' own input factors of production and usage rates for raw materials, labor, energy, and packing.49 The petitioners valued input factors of production using publicly available data on costs specific to Thailand, during the proposed POI.50 Specifically, the petitioners based the prices for raw material and packing inputs on publicly available import data for Thailand.51 The petitioners valued labor and energy costs using publicly available sources for Thailand.52 The petitioners calculated factory overhead, SG&A (including financial expenses), and profit for Thailand based on the experience of a Thai producer of steel propane cylinders.53

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel propane cylinders for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) China: 55.41 to 108.60 percent; 54 (2) Taiwan: 27.19 to 66.20 percent; 55 and (3) Thailand: 47.67 to 122.48 percent.56

Based upon the examination of the petitions, we find that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

The petitions named ten companies in China, eleven companies in Taiwan, and four companies in Thailand as producers/exporters of steel propane cylinders.57 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of steel propane cylinders from Taiwan and Thailand during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix.

We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO on the record within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

All respondent selection comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the dates noted above. We intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

With respect to respondent selection for China, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration in accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries. In the event Commerce determines that it cannot individually examine each company, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on the responses received. For the China investigation, Commerce will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the petitions. In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's website at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

Producers/exporters of steel propane cylinders from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant exporters/producers in China no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 25, 2018, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice. Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. Commerce requires that companies from China submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.

Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been provided to the governments of China, Taiwan, and Thailand via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to each exporter named in the petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

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

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and/or Thailand are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.59 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.60 Otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 61 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.62 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by 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. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in 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. Parties should 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 these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.63 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).64 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 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 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On September 12, 2001, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on solid grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine.1 On June 12, 2013, Commerce published its most recent continuation of the order.2 On May 1, 2018, Commerce initiated a sunset review of this order.3

We did not receive a notice of intent to participate from domestic interested parties in this sunset review. As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), Commerce determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review, and on May 18, 2018, notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty order.4

Scope of the Order: The products covered by this antidumping duty order are solid, fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (“ammonium nitrate” or “subject merchandise”) products, whether prilled, granular or in other solid form, with or without additives or coating, and with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. Specifically excluded from the scope is solid ammonium nitrate with a bulk density less than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly referred to as industrial or explosive grade ammonium nitrate). The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 3102.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Determination To Revoke: Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, Commerce shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, issue a final determination revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in this sunset review, Commerce finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this sunset review. Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking this antidumping duty order.

Effective Date of Revocation: The effective date of revocation is June 12, 2018, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the most recent notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), Commerce intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 days after the publication of this notice, to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after June 12, 2018. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. Commerce will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests of review.

This five-year (sunset) review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On December 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pencils from China for the POR December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016.1

On December 29, 2017, Dixon Ticonderoga Company (the petitioner) requested an administrative review of the order with respect to entries of subject merchandise made by Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Rongxin), Wah Yuen Stationery Co. Ltd., and any affiliated entities including but not limited to Shandong Wah Yuen Stationery Co. Ltd. and Tianjin Tonghe Stationery Co. Ltd. (collectively, the Wah Yuen entity).2 On January 2, 2018, Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC) requested an administrative review of itself.3 On February 23, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review with respect to (1) Rongxin, (2) the Wah Yuen entity, and (3) SFTC.4 On April 9, 2018, SFTC withdrew its request for an administrative review.5 On May 23, 2018, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of Rongxin and the Wah Yuen entity.6 No other party requested an administrative review of this order.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, SFTC and the petitioner timely withdrew their requests by the 90-day deadline and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pencils from China for the POR December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017, in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of pencils from China during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The proposed Enhancement of Survival Permit and Agreement are intended to promote the survival and recovery of endangered CCC coho salmon and threatened CCC steelhead.

Enhancement of Survival Permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and regulations governing ESA-listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-227). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the ESA. Safe Harbor Agreements, and the subsequent Enhancement of Survival Permits that are issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by assuring property owners that they will not be subjected to increased property-use restrictions as a result of their efforts to attract listed species to their property and increase the numbers or distribution of these species already on their property. Application requirements and issuance criteria for Enhancement of Survival Permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 222.308(b), 222.308(c), and the Announcement of Final Safe Harbor Policy published on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32717). These permits allow any necessary future incidental take of covered species above the mutually agreed-upon baseline conditions for those species in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permits and accompanying agreements.

An interested party may submit data, views, arguments, or a request for a hearing with respect to the action proposed in the application or related matters. Anyone requesting a hearing on a matter pursuant to this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that matter would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

Ms. Barbara Banke, Trustee of Barbara R. Banke Revocable Trust, (Applicant) is requesting an Enhancement of Survival Permit and approval of an associated proposed Agreement that was developed by NMFS and the Applicant. The Enhancement of Survival Permit will facilitate implementation of the Agreement that is expected to promote the recovery of the covered species on non-Federal property within the Yellowjacket Creek and Kellogg Creek on the Applicant's Kellogg Ranch. Yellowjacket Creek and Kellogg Creek are tributaries to Redwood Creek, thence Maacama Creek, thence the Russian River in Sonoma County, California.

The proposed duration of the Agreement and the associated Enhancement of Survival Permit is 25 years. The proposed Enhancement of Survival Permit would authorize the incidental taking of CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead that may be associated with covered activities including beneficial management activities, routine land use activities, and the potential future return of the enrolled property to baseline conditions at the end of the Agreement, as defined in the Agreement. The Agreement specifies the beneficial management activities to be carried out on the enrolled property, and schedule for implementing those activities. The Agreement is expected to promote the recovery of CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead within the Applicant's Kellogg Ranch.

The Agreement requires that the Applicant maintain baseline condition for the covered species habitat on the enrolled property. NMFS has reviewed the baseline condition for the enrolled property as it is defined in the Agreement. The Agreement also contains a monitoring component that requires the Applicant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that the baseline levels of habitat for the covered species occurs on the enrolled property. Results of the monitoring efforts will be provided to NMFS by the Applicant in an annual report for the duration of the 25-year permit term.

Upon approval of this Agreement, and consistent with the NMFS's Safe Harbor Policy, NMFS will issue an Enhancement of Survival Permit to the Applicant. The Enhancement of Survival Permit will authorize the Applicant to take CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead incidental to the implementation of the covered activities specified in the Agreement, incidental to other lawful uses of the enrolled property, and to return to baseline conditions if desired at the end of the Agreement. In addition to meeting other criteria, actions to be performed under the Enhancement of Survival Permit must not jeopardize the existence of Federally listed species.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 to examine an application for patent and, when appropriate, issue a patent. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 301 and 37 CFR 1.501 govern the ability of a person to submit into the file of an issued patent (1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which the person making the submission believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the issued patent and (2) statements of the owner of the issued patent filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the USPTO in which the owner of the issued patent took a position on the scope of any claim of the issued patent.

The public may use this information collection to aid in ascertaining the patentability and/or scope of the claims of the issued patent. The USPTO may use this information during subsequent reissue or reexamination proceedings. The USPTO's use of the statements of the patent owners ((2) above) will be limited to determining the meaning of a patent claim in ex parte reexamination proceedings that already have been ordered and in inter partes review and post grant review proceedings that already have been instituted.

Electronically via the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web). By facsimile, mail or hand delivery, if the submitter chooses to submit the information in paper form.

OMB Number: 0651-0067.

IC Instruments and Forms: PTO/SB/42.

Type of Review: Extension of a Currently Existing Collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 response per year.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public 10 hours to respond to the items in this collection. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the document, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 1,000 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hour) Cost Burden: $438,000. The USPTO expects that attorneys will completed the instruments associated with this information collection. The professional hourly rate for intellectual property attorneys in private firms is $438. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $438,000 per year.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $11.50. There are no capital startup, maintenance or operating costs, or filing fees associated with this information collection.

There are postage costs associated with this information collection. Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO expects that approximately 98 percent of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically via the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web). The USPTO is estimating that all of the submissions in this collection that are not submitted electronically will be submitted by mail, for a total of 2 mailed submissions. The average first clast postage cost for a one-pound mailed submission in a flat rate envelope will be $5.75, and the USPTO is estimating that none of the mailed submissions will exceed one pound. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the mailed submissions in this collection will be $11.50.

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

Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The information in this system will be used to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of an academic language intervention on EL students' and disadvantaged non-EL students' language and reading skills.

The study will address the following central research questions: What is the impact of the academic language intervention on student achievement? What is the impact of the academic language intervention on classroom instruction? Was the academic language intervention implemented with fidelity? Is there variation in the implementation or impact of the academic language intervention?

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 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. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations 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 this 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 information in this system will be used to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of departmentalizing instruction (where each teacher specializes in teaching one subject to multiple classes of students) in elementary schools to inform effective teacher and school improvement strategies.

The study will address the following central research questions: What is the impact of departmentalization in grades 4 and 5 on teacher practices and student achievement? Do the impacts of departmentalization differ based on whether principals have access to teacher effectiveness scores when assigning teachers to subjects? Secondary research questions for the study are: How do schools structure departmentalization? What challenges and benefits do principals and teachers perceive in switching to departmentalization? How do principals' actual assignment of teachers to subjects compare with assignments based solely on baseline teacher effectiveness scores?

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 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. You may access the official editions of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations for free 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 the 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Research, Delegated the Duties of the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a new system of records to read as follows:

I. Background and Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619, sec. 441 (Nov. 9, 1978), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of industrial equipment. This equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, the focus of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results reflecting the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs during a representative average use cycle, and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for walk-in doors is contained in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A.

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 431.401 provide that upon receipt of a petition, DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedure, or that the prescribed test procedure evaluates the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(l) As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. Id.

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

When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).

On January 9, 2018, HH Technologies filed a petition for waiver and a petition for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to walk-in doors set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A. (HH Technologies, No. 1 at pp. 1-7 3 ) Appendix A accounts for the power consumption of all electrical components associated with each door and discounts the power consumption of electrical components based on their operating time by an assigned PTO value. 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, section 4.5.2. Section 4.5.2 specifies a PTO of 25% for “other electricity-consuming devices” (i.e., electrical devices other than lighting or anti-sweat heaters) that have demand-based controls, and a PTO of 0% for other electricity-consuming devices without a demand-based control. As described in its petition, the walk-in door basic models specified by HH Technologies are automated and designed with microprocessor controls that use motion sensor inputs to trigger a door motor, which is considered to fall within the category of “other electricity-consuming devices with demand-based control.” 4 HH Technologies states that the controller standby power is continuous with motor power consumed solely for door openings and closing.

In its petition, HH Technologies states that the DOE test procedure does not represent the power consumption saved by automated door controls in high traffic applications. HH Technologies notes that its performance data show that its doors are cycled (i.e., opened and closed) between 100 and 300 times per day. HH Technologies adds that the doors specified in its petition have a 10-second cycle time (5 seconds to open and 5 seconds to close). Assuming door-cycling frequency at the upper end of the range (300 cycles per day), HH Technologies calculates that the total run time of the motor would be approximately 50 minutes (0.83 hours) per day. HH Technologies states that for the remaining 23.2 hours, the drive motor is disengaged and the controller is on standby. Based on this standby time, HH Technologies petitioned DOE to apply a PTO value of 96% for the automated walk-in door motors of the basic models specified in its petition.

DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the specified basic models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. The doors specified in its petition are motor-operated with a demand-based control. As described by HH Technologies the motor does not operate for 96% of the day, but the DOE test procedure specifies a 25% PTO value for this type of electrical device. While DOE believes the energy consumption from the motor and controls should be accounted for as part of the door's daily energy consumption, DOE agrees with HH Technologies that the PTO value specified by the test procedure would grossly overestimate the power consumption associated with the motor and controls.

In assessing HH Technologies' proposed PTO value, DOE considered the key factors affecting the daily run time of a door motor: The door's length of motion, motor speed, and use frequency. In addition to the material submitted by HH Technologies, DOE reviewed HH Technologies' public-facing materials, including websites, product specification sheets, and installation and operation manuals. DOE used these materials in its assessment of HH Technologies' proposed PTO. All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket.5

First, DOE considered the length of motion for the models listed in the petition. All of the models listed in HH Technologies' waiver are in either the RS-500 or RS-600 series of its RollSeal brand. Unlike typical horizontally-sliding walk-in doors, RollSeal doors consist of three layers of fabric that are rolled vertically from the top of the door frame to the floor, where a seal is created. Therefore, the length of motion for RollSeal doors is equivalent to the door height. HH Technologies' petition proposes to apply a uniform PTO value to all of the listed basic models, with heights ranging from 60 to 144 inches for RS500 models and 84 to 144 inches for RS600 models. Therefore, assuming the most consumptive scenario, DOE used the tallest door height, i.e. longest length of motion (144 inches), to evaluate HH Technologies' proposed PTO.

Second, DOE considered the motor speed for the models listed in the petition. HH Technologies' product literature indicates that both RS-500 and RS-600 models are sold with multiple options for raising the door—both motorized and non-motorized: Intelli-Drive/SC325 (“Intelli-Drive”) motor, Jackshaft Operator Gear Head (“Jackshaft”) motor, or Manual Chain Hoist (not electricity-consuming and therefore not considered).6 HH Technologies' product literature indicates that the door speed differs between motor options—the Jackshaft motor option has a slower listed door speed for all models listed in the waiver, operating at 10 inches per second for RS-500 models and 20 inches per second for RS-600 models. HH Technologies did not specify a motor type in its petition and therefore DOE understands that HH Technologies intends to apply a uniform PTO value to all of the listed basic models, irrespective of motor type. Therefore, assuming the most consumptive scenario, DOE used the slowest motor available for the listed models (RS-500 Jackshaft motor, 10 inches per second) to evaluate HH Technologies' proposed PTO.

Finally, DOE considered the use frequency of the types of doors listed in HH Technologies petition. Although not in the context of electricity-consuming devices, DOE previously considered the operational characteristics of passage and freight doors in proposing a procedure to determine the energy use associated with infiltration resulting from the opening of the walk-in doors. 75 FR 55068, 55085 (September 9, 2010) (“September 2010 SNOPR”) (supplemental proposal discussing potential assumptions to apply to address air infiltration across door types). In that context, DOE proposed, based on market research and stakeholder feedback, that passage and freight doors have 60 and 120 openings per day, respectively. Id. 7 DOE used its previously proposed use frequencies as a reference point for evaluating HH Technologies' petition. Some of the models listed in the petition meet the definition of a freight door, “a door that is not a display door and is equal to or larger than 4 feet wide and 8 feet tall” (10 CFR 431.302). Therefore, assuming the most consumptive scenario, DOE counted 120 cycles per day to evaluate HH Technologies' proposed PTO.

In order to evaluate the PTO value HH Technologies requested to use, DOE used the door characteristics DOE identified in its review of HH Technologies marketing materials and the door use frequency DOE proposed in the September 2010 SNOPR to calculate a PTO value for comparison. Applying the most consumptive scenario as discussed above, i.e. a 144-inch-tall RS500 door with a motor speed of 10 inches per second that undergoes 120 cycles per day, would yield a PTO value of 96%, which is consistent with the value set forth in HH Technologies' petition. Accordingly, DOE believes that the PTO value that HH Technologies seeks to use is appropriate.

In its petition, HH Technologies also noted that the door controller continuously draws a small amount of standby power. DOE assumes that the controller standby power consumption is negligible relative to motor power consumption during opening and closing operations (i.e., the controller has a low amount of energy use relative to the energy use of the motor used to open and close the door). Therefore, DOE believes that the proposed PTO value, which was calculated assuming a conservatively high door use frequency, sufficiently captures this minimal standby power consumption.

DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). As discussed above, under the current DOE test procedure, the specified HH Technologies basic models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. The PTO value suggested by HH Technologies allows for an accurate estimation of its walk-in door motor's energy use, and alleviates the problems with walk-in door testing identified by HH Technologies for the basic models specified in its petition. Thus, it appears likely that HH Technologies' petition for waiver will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant HH Technologies immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by HH Technologies in a subsequent Decision and Order.

In its petition, HH Technologies suggests that the basic models listed in its petition be tested according to the test procedure for walk-in doors prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, except that the PTO value for door motors is modified from 25% to 96% for freight and passage doors.

For the reasons stated above, DOE is granting HH Technologies an interim waiver for the walk-in door basic models specified in its petition. DOE's Interim Waiver Order lists the basic models to which the interim waiver applies, and provides that the applicable method of test for those basic models is the test procedure for walk-in doors prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, except that the PTO specified in section 4.5.2 “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors” of that procedure is 96% for door motors rather than the prescribed 25%.

HH Technologies is required to use the alternate test procedure to test and rate the walk-in door basic models as specified in DOE's Interim Waiver Order. HH Technologies is permitted to make representations of the energy use of the specified basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.53.

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

Unless otherwise rescinded or modified, the interim waiver shall remain in effect until such time as when DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in the waiver and use of the amended test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, the petitioner may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if the petitioner discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. See 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2). Furthermore, the interim waiver is conditioned upon the validity of the door motor performance characteristics, statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by HH Technologies.

DOE is publishing HH Technologies' petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv), absent any confidential business information. HH Technologies did not request any of the information in its petition to be considered confidential business information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this document, to determine the efficiency of HH Technologies' specified basic models of walk-in doors. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Interim Waiver Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 18, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Brian Peppers, [email protected], 1733 County Road 68, Bremen, AL 35033.

Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

HH Technologies submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver from DOE's test procedure for walk-in cooler doors in accordance with the provisions at 10 CFR 431.401.

The current DOE test procedure, Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431—Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers accounts for the thermal transmittance of walk-in cooler doors plus the power consumption from any electrical components associated with the door. The test procedure discounts the power consumption of electrical components based on their operating time by an assigned PTO value. Section 4.5.2, Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors, specifies a PTO of 25% for “other electricity consuming devices” (i.e., electrical devices other than lighting or anti-sweat heaters) that have demand based controls, and a PTO of 0% for other electricity consuming devices without a demand based control.

The RollSeal Door is an automated system utilizing microprocessor controls and proprietary sealing technology minimizing infiltration losses from high traffic loading and unloading of Walk-In Cooler (WIC) doors. The microprocessor utilizes motion sensor inputs that trigger a door motor output for demand based control. The controller standby power is continuous with motor power consumed solely for door openings and closing. Standby controller power is minimal while the drive motor comprises the largest demand KW. For a typical stand-alone cooler, the controller and drive motor are installed external to the cooler.

The door control sequences, stocking scenarios and typical door passages for high traffic applications are described below:

The microprocessor controller has a delay that will close the door after a given time. For the below calculations, this delay is factory set to 45 seconds. The door takes 5 seconds to open as well as 5 seconds to close. The only time the motor is running is during this 5 second open or close sequence due to the fact that the motor is disengaged while the door is in the delay at the top of the cycle. Performance data collected over time shows the door is typically cycled between 100 and up to 300 times per day depending on the degree of traffic. With a total open and close cycle being 10 seconds and this cycle being initiated at an upper limit of 300 times per day, the total run time of the motor is found to be approximately 50 minutes per day or 0.83 hours per day. The remaining 23.2 hours, the drive motor is disengaged and the controller is on standby. This 100 to 300 passage approximation comes from a combination of all applications from Employee Passages to Freight Passages with 300 cycles being the conservative upper limit. Table 1 shows PTO Calculations.

As shown in Table 1, the PTO Value is based on the total standby time for a given day. The current test procedure for demand based controls does not represent the power consumption saved by automated door controls in high traffic applications. Therefore, HH Technologies requests a waiver to use a minimum PTO value of 96% where drive motor “off time” is over 23 hours even with exceedingly high door cycles. The request applies to Section 4.5.2 (a.3). However, it is suggested a stand-alone door motor energized only during either opening or closing of the door results in a significantly less “on” time even with shorter door opening cycles.

HH Technologies also request an interim waiver for its models listed in this petition. Based on its merits, the petition for waiver is likely to be granted. It is essential the interim waiver be granted, as HH Technologies plans to distribute models that subject to the energy conservation standards for which compliance was required on June 26, 2017. Without waiver relief, HH Technologies will be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for these important products and would suffer economic hardship. HH Technologies would be subject to requirements which should not be applied to such products.

The brand(s) and basic models for which a waiver is requested include:

Manufacturers of other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States that incorporate design characteristics similar to those found in the basic models that are the subject of this petition include: ASIDOORS, JAMISON, CHASE DOORS, HERCULES, EDEY, and FRANK.

Section 209(c) of title 35 of the United States Code gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.

Pyrochem Catalyst Company, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention and has a plan for commercialization of the invention. DOE intends to grant the license, upon a final determination in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless within 15 days of publication of this notice, NETL's Technology Transfer Program Manager (contact information listed above) receives in writing any of the following, together with supporting documents:

(i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or

(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.

The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and subject to a negotiated royalty. The exclusive fields of use are: For use in internal combustion engines. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the license if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c) that the license is in the public interest.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-0800; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Legal Collections; (3) Type of Request: Renewal and Revision; (4) Purpose: To continue to maintain DOE control and oversight of DOE and its contractor's invention reporting and related matters; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 1700; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 2040; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,260; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $994,500.00.

Title: FERC-917 (Non-discriminatory Open Access Transmission Tariff) and FERC-918 (Information to be Posted on OASIS & Auditing Transmission Service Information).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0233.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-917 and FERC-918 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

Type of Respondents: Public Utilities transmission providers.

Estimate of Annual Burden: This Errata Notice adds the missing cost data and corrects other figures.

The corrected table follows.1

Title: FERC-921, Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-921 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The collection of data in the FERC-921 is an effort by the Commission to detect potential anti-competitive or manipulative behavior or ineffective market rules by requiring Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to electronically submit, on a continuous basis, data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Individual datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or retained by the market monitoring units (MMUs). The Commission directed each RTO and ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver such data to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU to deliver such data directly to the Commission. All data for this collection has (and is expected to continue to) come from each RTO or ISO and not the MMUs. Therefore, any associated burden is counted as burden on RTO and ISO.

Each RTO or ISO may make changes to their individual markets with Commission approval. Each RTO or ISO may also change the data being sent to the Commission to ensure compliance with Order No. 760. Such changes typically require respondents to alter the ongoing delivery of data under FERC-921. For this reason, the burden estimate has been updated to reflect the incremental burden associated with such changes. The burden associated with a changes varies considerably based on the significance of the specific change, therefore, the estimate reflects the incremental burden for an average change. Based on historical patterns of change, staff estimates there to be about one and a half changes per RTO or ISO per year.

Public Comments on 60-day Notice and FERC Response: The Commission received comments from one commenter who is also a subject respondent, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. They wrote: “The Commission should continue to require the ongoing delivery of data in the same manner that the data is currently delivered, in accordance with FERC Order No. 760 and FERC-921.” This comment clearly supports the Commission's request to extend the information collection without change.

Type of Respondents: Regional transmission organizations and independent system operators.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 The Commission estimates the average annual burden and cost 2 for this information collection as follows.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0207.

Title: Part 11—Emergency Alert System (EAS), Order, FCC 16-32.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 63,084 respondents; 3,588,240 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017 hours-100 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, annual reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third-party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 606 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 140,606 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: State EAS Plan data and any aggregation of such data will have the same level of confidentiality as data filed in the ETRS, i.e., the Commission will share individual and aggregated data on a confidential basis with other federal agencies and state governmental emergency management agencies that have confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the Freedom of Information Act.

Needs and Uses: Part 11 contains rules and regulations addressing the nation's Emergency Alert System (EAS). The Emergency Alert System (EAS) provides the President with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public during periods of national emergency over broadcast television and radio, cable, direct broadcast radio and other EAS Participants, as defined in Section 11.11(a) of the Commission's rules. The EAS also provides state and local governments and the National Weather Service with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the public concerning emergency situations posing a threat to life and property. The manner in which the EAS delivers alerts to the public is set forth in State EAS Plans, which are drafted by State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs), the entities required to submit State EAS Plans to the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) under Section 11.21 of the Commission's rules.

In this Order, the Commission adopts a rule obligating SECCs to file State EAS Plans electronically through the new Alert Reporting System (ARS), rather than in paper-based filings, the method currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this collection. For the required electronic filing, the Commission has developed a proposed reporting template, attached as Appendix D to the April 10, 2018 Order, and seeks Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the proposed template as a modification of a previously approved information collection. The proposed template will decrease the paperwork burden associated with this collection over time, and there is no change to any other reporting obligation in this collection. The information sought in this collection is necessary and vital to the effective electronic filing of State EAS Plans in the ARS, which will replace paper-based filing requirements, minimize the burdens on SECCs, and allow the Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other authorized entities to better access and use up-to-date information about the EAS, thus increasing its value as a tool to protect life and property for all Americans.

The following information collections contained in Part 11 may be impacted by this rule amendment: To establish a mandatory electronic test reporting system that EAS participants must utilize to file identifying and test result data as part of their participation in the national EAS test. The Commission noted that this electronic submission system would impose a lesser burden on EAS test participants because they could input electronically (via a web-based interface) the same information into a confidential database that the Commission would use to monitor and assess the test. This information would include identifying information such as station call letters, license identification number, geographic coordinates, EAS designation (Local Primary, National Primary, etc), EAS monitoring assignment, as well as a 24/7 emergency contact for the EAS Participant. The only difference, other than the electronic nature of the filing, would be the timing of the collections. Test participants would submit the identifying data.

These rules may impact currently existing paperwork collection requirements as discussed below.

Section 11.15 requires a copy of the EAS operating handbook to be located at normal duty positions or EAS equipment locations when an operator is required to be on duty. The handbook must be immediately available to staff responsible for authenticating messages and initiating actions. Copies of the handbook are posted on the Commission's website and can be obtained at https://www.fcc.gov/general/emergency-alert-system-eas.

Section 11.21 requires that state and local EAS plans be reviewed and approved by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security, prior to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.

Section 11.34 requires manufacturers to include instructions and information on how to install, operate and program an EAS Encoder, EAS Decoder, or combined unit and a list of all State and county FIPS numbers with each unit sold or marketed in the U.S. This requirement would be done in the normal course of doing business.

All EAS Participants are responsible for ensuring that EAS Encoders/Decoders and Attention Signal generating and receiving equipment used as part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations/systems are in operation. EAS Participants must determine the cause of any failure to receive the required tests or activations. When the EAS is not operating properly, section 11.35 requires appropriate entries be made in the station/system logs indicating why any tests were not received for all broadcast streams and cable systems. All other EAS Participants must also keep record indicating reasons why any tests were not received and these records must be retained for two years, maintained at the EAS Participant's headquarters, and made available for public inspection upon reasonable request.

Section 11.35 also requires that entries be made in the station/system logs, and records of other EAS Participants, when the EAS Encoder/Decoder becomes defective showing the date and time the equipment was removed and restored to service. If replacement of defective equipment is not completed within 60 days, an informal request shall be submitted to the District Director of the FCC field office. For DBS and SDARS providers, this informal request shall be submitted to the District Director of the FCC field office serving the area where their headquarters is located. This request must explain what steps have been taken to repair or replace the defective equipment, the alternative procedures being used while the defective equipment is out of service and when the defective equipment will be repaired or replaced.

Section 11.41 allows all EAS Participants to submit a written request to the FCC asking to be a Non-Participating National source. In addition, a Non-Participating National source that wants to become a Participating National source must submit a written request to the FCC.

Section 11.42 allows a communications common carrier to participate in the national level EAS, without charge. A communications common carrier rendering free service is required to file with the FCC, on or before July 31st and January 31st of each year, reports covering the six months ending on June 30th and December 31st respectively. These reports shall state what free service was rendered under this rule and the charges in dollars which would have accrued to the carrier for this service if charges had been collected at the published tariff rates if such carriers are required to file tariffs.

Section 11.43 allows entities to voluntarily participate in the national level EAS after submission of a written request to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Section 11.51 requires that EAS equipment be operational, ready to monitor, transmit and receive EAS electronic signals. Cable and wireless cable systems, both analog and digital, can elect not to interrupt EAS messages from broadcast stations based upon a written agreement between all concerned. Furthermore, cable and wireless cable systems, both analog and digital, can elect not to interrupt the programming of a broadcast station carrying news or weather-related emergency information with state and local EAS messages based upon a written agreement between all concerned. These written agreements are contained in state and local franchise agreements.

Section 11.51 also requires all actions to be logged when manual interruption of programming and transmission of EAS messages is used. Estimates for testing are included in the estimate for section 11.61.

Section 11.52 requires all EAS Participants to monitor two EAS sources. If the required EAS sources cannot be received, alternate arrangements or a waiver may be obtained by written request to the FCC's EAS office. In an emergency, a waiver may be issued over the telephone with a follow-up letter to confirm temporary or permanent reassignment. In addition, EAS Participants are required to interrupt normal programming either automatically or manually when they receive an EAS message in which the header code contains the event codes for emergency action notification, emergency action termination and required monthly test for their state or state/county location.

Section 11.54 requires EAS Participants to enter into their logs/records the time of receipt of an emergency alert notice and an emergency action termination messages during a national level emergency.

Section 11.55 requires EAS participants to monitor their emergency alert system upon receipt of a state or local area EAS message. Stations/systems must also enter into their logs/records the time of receipt of an emergency alert message. If an SDARS licensee or DBS provider is unable to receive and transmit state and local EAS messages, it must inform its subscribers, on its website, and in writing on an annual basis of which channels are and are not capable of supplying state and local EAS messages.

Section 11.61 requires EAS Participants to conduct periodic EAS tests. Tests of the EAS header codes, attention signal, test script and EOM code are required to be performed monthly. Tests of the EAS header codes and end of message codes are made at least once a week. National primary sources shall participate in tests as appropriate. DBS providers, Class D non-commercial educational FM stations and low power TV stations are not required to transmit this test but must log receipt of the test. The FCC may request a report of the tests of the national primary sources. In addition, entries must be made in stations/systems logs/records as previously stated.

This information is used by FCC staff as part of routine inspections of EAS Participants. Accurate recordkeeping of this data is vital in determining the location and nature of possible equipment failure on the part of the transmitting or receiving entity. Furthermore, since the national level EAS is solely for the President's use, its proper operation must be assured.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0233.

Title: Part 54—High-Cost Loop Support Reporting to National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA).

Form Number(s): FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508 and FCC Form 509.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,095 respondents; 3,616 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-22 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 214, 218-220, 221(c), 254, and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 41,070 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No assurance of confidentiality has been given regarding the information. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

Needs and Uses: In order to determine which carriers are entitled to universal service support, all rate-of-return regulated (rate-of-return) incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) with the loop cost and loop count data required by section 54.1305 for each of its study areas and, if applicable, for each wire center as that term is defined in 47 CFR part 54. See 47 CFR 54.1305 and 54.5. The loop cost and loop count information is to be filed annually with NECA by July 31st of each year, and may be updated occasionally pursuant to section 54.1306. See 47 CFR 54.1306. Pursuant to section 54.1307, the information filed on July 31st of each year will be used to calculate universal service support for each study area and is filed by NECA with the Commission on October 1 of each year. See 47 CFR 54.1307. An incumbent LEC is defined as a carrier that meets the definition of “incumbent local exchange carrier” in section 51.5 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 51.5.

In March 2016, the Commission adopted the Rate-of-Return Reform Order to continue modernizing the universal service support mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 (2016) (Rate-of-Return Reform Order and Further Notice). The Rate-of-Return Reform Order replaces the Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS) mechanism with the Connect America Fund—Broadband Loop Support (CAF-BLS) mechanism. While ICLS supported only lines used to provide traditional voice service (including voice service bundled with broadband service), CAF-BLS also supports consumer broadband-only loops. FCC Forms 507, 508, and 509 include additional line counts, forecasted cost and revenues, and actual cost and revenue data associated with consumer broadband-only loops necessary for the calculation of CAF-BLS. We propose to move the requirements associated with FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509 under OMB Control Number 3060-0986 into this collection.

The Commission therefore proposes to revise this information collection. Any increased burdens are associated with the moving of these requirements and forms into this information collection.

How to register for the meeting: All ACBCYW Meeting participants must register online at least 7 business days in advance at https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/what_cdc_is_doing/conference.htm. Please complete all the required fields before submitting your registration, and submit no later than July 31, 2018.

Purpose: The committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Assistant Secretary for Health; and the Director, CDC, regarding the formative research, development, implementation and evaluation of evidence-based activities designed to prevent breast cancer (particularly among those at heightened risk) and promote the early detection and support of young women who develop the disease. The advice provided by the Committee will assist in ensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, and dissemination of credible appropriate messages and resource materials.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on current and emerging topics related to breast cancer in young women. These will include public health communication, breast cancer in young women digital and social media campaign, CDC updates, and updates from the field. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.