Federal Register Vol. 83, No.34,

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

The Agency received seven comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2017 (82 FR 57423). The comments were not related to the collection package or to USDA.

Current Actions: Revision and Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

Type of Review: Revision and Extension.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Average Expected Annual Number of activities: 20.

Respondents: 30,000.

Annual responses: 30,000.

Frequency of Response: Once per request.

Average minutes per response: 30.

Burden hours: 15,000.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF) and swine vesicular disease (SVD). These are dangerous and communicable diseases of swine.

Within part 94, § 94.9 contains requirements governing the importation of pork and pork products from regions where CSF exists. Section 94.10 contains importation requirements for swine from regions where CSF is considered to exist. Section 94.12 contains requirements governing the importation of pork or pork products from regions where SVD exists. Section 94.14 prohibits the importation of domestic swine which are moved from or transit any region in which SVD is known to exist.

In accordance with §§ 94.9(a)(1) and 94.10(a)(1), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains a web-based list of regions which the Agency considers free of CSF. Sections 94.9(a)(2) and 94.10(a)(2) state that APHIS will add a region to this list after it conducts an evaluation of the region and finds that CSF is not present.

Similarly, in accordance with § 94.12(a)(1), APHIS maintains a web-based list of regions which the Agency considers free of SVD. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section states that APHIS will add a region to this list after it conducts an evaluation of the region and finds that SVD is not present.

The regulations in § 92.2 contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region (as well as for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region). If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, APHIS believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a document published in the Federal Register. Following the close of the comment period, APHIS will review all comments received and will make a final determination regarding the request that will be detailed in another document published in the Federal Register.

The Government of Japan has requested that APHIS evaluate the CSF and SVD disease status of the country. In response to Japan's request, we have prepared an evaluation, titled “APHIS Evaluation of the Classical Swine Fever and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of Japan” (September 2017). Based on the evaluation, we have determined that Japan is free of both CSF and SVD. APHIS has also determined that the surveillance, prevention, and control measures implemented by Japan are sufficient to minimize the likelihood of introducing CSF and SVD into the United States via imports of species or products susceptible to these diseases. Our determination supports adding Japan to the web-based lists of regions which APHIS considers free of CSF and SVD.

Therefore, in accordance with § 92.2(e), we are announcing the availability of our evaluation of the CSF and SVD status of Japan for public review and comment. We are also announcing the availability of an environmental assessment (EA), which has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provision of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The evaluation and EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.) The documents are also available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Information submitted in support of Japan's request is available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the disease status of Japan with respect to CSF and SVD in a subsequent notice.

I. Background Child Nutrition Programs' Nutrition Standards

One of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) highest priorities is to ensure that participants in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (collectively referred to as the Child Nutrition Programs) receive wholesome, nutritious, and tasty meals. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) authorize FNS to establish meal patterns and nutrition standards (collectively referred to as meal patterns) for the Child Nutrition Programs. The NSLA requires FNS to develop meal patterns that are consistent with the recommendations of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Dietary Guidelines) and current nutrition research.

The Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns establish the foods and minimum serving sizes that must be served for a meal or snack to be reimbursable. The meal patterns are currently based on food groups (components), not individual nutrients. A reimbursable meal or snack includes a certain amount (or combination) of vegetables, fruits, fluid milk, grains, and meats or meat alternates (e.g., protein foods, such as chicken, and dairy foods, such as yogurt). Each Child Nutrition Program has individualized meal patterns for the various age and grade groups that participate in the Program. The meal patterns were created to enable children to be self-sufficient by providing the adequate and consistent levels of foods and nutrients children need to learn and grow, as well as help children build healthy habits that can last a lifetime.

Crediting is the process established by FNS to determine how individual foods contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns. A food is considered creditable when it meets the minimum standards that count toward a reimbursable meal or snack. Generally, this means foods are grouped into categories of similar foods which are credited in a similar way.

The main focus of FNS' crediting system is to provide simple information that allows Child Nutrition Program operators to (1) easily plan menus with foods and quantities that meet the meal patterns, and (2) offer foods in a way that encourages healthy habits and teaches children how to build balanced meals. Crediting information is conveyed through resources such as FNS' Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs and other technical assistance materials.

A number of factors impact how foods credit toward a reimbursable meal. It is critical that crediting decisions be made on the fullest range of factors possible to ensure transparency and consistency in the crediting process. The overall nutrient profile of a food is a primary consideration. Foods in each food component are based on a range of nutrients instead of an individual food's nutrient profile. For example, foods in the meats/meat alternates component are grouped based on a collection of nutrients that include protein, B vitamins, selenium, choline, phosphorus, zinc, and copper. Therefore, different varieties of meat (e.g., lean beef versus turkey) are not currently evaluated separately based on their protein content. The volume or weight of the food is also an important factor in making crediting determinations. All meats/meat alternates and grains are credited in ounces equivalencies. Fruits, vegetables, and fluid milk are credited based on volume served.

In addition, foods that credit toward a reimbursable meal in the Child Nutrition Programs sometimes have a Federal standard of identity. Standards of identity are established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). They are mandatory requirements that determine what a food must contain to be marketed under a certain name. For example, for a product to be labeled peanut butter, it must meet the standard of identity requirements that specify the amount and type of ingredients that may be included. Standards of identity assist FNS in crediting because they provide a common standard under which specific foods are made. This allows FNS to set crediting policy with confidence that products from all manufacturers will have the same characteristics and, thus, make a consistent contribution to the meal patterns. There are some products on the commercial market that do not have an FDA or FSIS standard of identity, but have industry-defined standards. FNS first considers Federal standards of identity when making crediting decisions. When a Federal standard of identity does not exist, then FNS may use industry standards for production to better understand the manufacturing process.

FNS also considers the customary use of a product. For example, some foods are typically consumed as a snack food and have not been considered appropriate for including as part of a meal in the Child Nutrition Programs. Therefore, they are currently not creditable. This is discussed more in section II. Questions and Answers. Finally, FNS considers the role of the Child Nutrition Program in teaching children healthy eating habits when making crediting decisions.

FNS' objective in issuing this Request for Information is to receive input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders to assist FNS in making informed decisions on how FNS' crediting system can best address today's evolving food and nutrition environment, ensure children have access to the nutrition they need, and offer excellent customer service to those operating and benefitting from the Child Nutrition Programs. It is important that FNS' crediting system balances the nutritional needs of the Child Nutrition Programs' participants, as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines, and the need to offer flexibility and a wide range of choices. FNS recognizes that new or reformulated food products are regularly entering the food market. These new or reformulated food products can offer more choices to menu planners and children.

FNS is especially interested in understanding both the possible benefits and any negative impacts associated with potential changes to how certain foods may or may not credit. As such, FNS is seeking feedback from all interested stakeholders on the questions listed below. Some questions address specific foods due to a high volume of interest in those products. However, FNS is open to feedback about the creditability of other food products as well (see Questions 20-25) and crediting process in general. Additionally, while all comments are welcome, FNS is particularly interested in comments that are consistent with the current statutory framework for the Child Nutrition Programs.

FNS currently considers the following factors when making crediting decisions:

• Volume or weight of the food. All meats/meat alternates and grains are credited in ounces. Fruits, vegetables, and fluid milk are credited based on volume served. However, dried fruit credits at twice the volume served and raw, leafy greens credit as half the volume served. Additionally, tomato puree and tomato paste credit as if they were reconstituted, instead of as volume served.

1. Is it appropriate to continue to credit foods based on the volume or weight served, with the few exceptions discussed above? Why or why not?

2. What are the benefits and negative impacts of having different crediting values for different forms of vegetables and fruits?

• Overall nutrient profile. Foods in each component are based on a range of nutrients instead of an individual food's nutrient profile. For example, foods in the meats/meat alternates component are grouped based on a collection of nutrients that include protein, B vitamins, selenium, choline, phosphorus, zinc, copper, and vitamins D and E. Generally, FNS has not considered fortification in the creditability of foods.

3. Should fortification play a role in determining if and how a food is credited in the Child Nutrition Programs? Why or why not?

4. Is the presence of certain nutrients more important than other nutrients when determining if and how a food credits in the Child Nutrition Programs? Why or why not?

• Federal standards of identity and industry standards of production. Many creditable food products in the Child Nutrition Programs have Federal standards of identity or industry standards for production. Standards of identity assist FNS in crediting because they ensure food products with the same name have the same characteristics and, therefore, make a consistent contribution to the meal patterns.

5. If a food product does not have a Federal standard of identity or industry standards for production, how could these food products credit in the Child Nutrition Programs? Please be as specific as possible.

• Customary use of the food product. Some foods are generally consumed as snacks and, therefore, have not been considered appropriate for service in the Child Nutrition Programs. In other cases, the volume of food required to meet the minimum serving size would be unreasonably large. In other cases, such products do credit. For example, tortillas and tortilla products, such as taco shells, may credit as a grain item in the Child Nutrition Programs because in certain cultures they are served as the grain component of a meal. (Please see below for more information about snack-type foods.)

6. Is it appropriate to continue to consider the customary use of a product when determining how a food credits in the Child Nutrition Programs? Why or why not?

• The role of the Child Nutrition Program in teaching children healthy eating habits. Meals and snacks served in the Child Nutrition Programs act as a teaching tool for children by visually demonstrating how to build a healthy, balanced meal with the key food groups and amounts recommended by the Dietary Guidelines. For example, although pasta made from lentils has a standard of identity and may be used in all Child Nutrition Programs, in order for the pasta to credit as a vegetable, it must be served with another vegetable, such as broccoli or tomato sauce, to help children recognize the vegetable component. Likewise, lentil pasta can credit as a meat alternate if it is served with another meat/meat alternate, such as chicken or black beans.

7. What role should such educational considerations play in determining the creditability of a food in the Child Nutrition Programs?

8. Are there other factors FNS should consider in determining how foods credit in the Child Nutrition Programs? Why or why not?

9. Are there additional ways FNS can make the crediting process more simple, fair, or transparent? Please be as specific as possible.

Shelf-stable, Dried or Semi-dried Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Snacks, and Surimi: Currently, shelf stable, dried and semi-dried meat, poultry, and seafood products, such as beef jerky or summer sausage, (collectively referred to as dried meat/poultry/seafood snacks) currently do not credit towards the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns. These foods have a Federal standard of identity that varies widely, there is a wide variety of industry standards for production, and they are typically seen as snack-type foods. However, FNS understands these products may be appealing to some Child Nutrition Program operators because dried meat/poultry/seafood snacks are shelf stable, work well with alternative meal delivery methods, such as breakfast in the classroom and lunches for field trips, and provide more choices to menu planners and children. Similarly, surimi, which is whitefish that is processed to resemble more expensive seafood and labeled as “imitation,” such as imitation crab, does not credit towards the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns. Surimi lacks an FDA standard of identity and there is a wide variety of industry standards for production. Additionally, foods labeled as “imitation” may have significantly different nutrition profiles than the foods they are meant to replace. To assist reviewers in adequately compiling public feedback, please provide separate comments on dried meat/poultry/seafood snacks, and imitation crab.

10. Are Child Nutrition Program operators currently offering any of these foods as an extra item that does not contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns? If so, which ones?

10a. If yes, how are they being served (e.g., as an extra component at snack) and how often?

11. Should FNS allow any of these foods to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns? Why or why not?

12. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, how should they be credited? Be as specific as possible, such as the volume or weight needed, or a specific nutrient content.

12a. Is there an ingredient or processing method that would qualify or disqualify these products?

13. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, would Child Nutrition Program operators incorporate these foods into menus to meet the meats/meat alternates requirement? Why or why not?

13a. If yes, how would they be served (e.g., at snack, as part of a reimbursable lunch)?

14. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, how would this impact the Child Nutrition Programs, including its participants and operators? What are the potential benefits and negative impacts?

Yogurt: Yogurt may be used to meet all or part of the meats/meat alternates component. It may be plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened, traditional (non-strained or non-thickened) or Greek or Greek-style (high protein, strained or thickened). Four ounces (weight) or 1/2 cup (volume) of traditional or high protein yogurt is credited as one ounce equivalent of meat alternate. This crediting was based on public comment (62 FR 10187, April 1997) and acknowledges the relatively low levels of iron and niacin in yogurt compared to other foods from the meats/meat alternates component. Since then, high protein yogurt has increased in popularity and availability. As such, FNS was asked to consider whether it would be beneficial to allow a lesser volume of high protein yogurt to credit toward the meat/meat alternate component compared to traditional yogurt. The rationale for this request was that high protein yogurt contains a higher level of protein per ounce versus traditional yogurt. Currently, crediting has not been based on an individual food's nutrient profile, or any one nutrient. That is, the contribution of a food towards the meat/meat alternate requirement is not based solely on the grams of protein. For example, different varieties of meat (e.g., lean beef versus turkey) are not evaluated separately based on their protein content.

15. Are Child Nutrition Program operators currently offering high protein yogurt as part of a reimbursable meal?

16. Should FNS create a separate crediting standard for high protein yogurt that is different than the crediting standard for traditional yogurt for the Child Nutrition Programs? Why or why not?

17. If high protein yogurt is allowed to contribute differently to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns than traditional yogurt, how should high protein yogurt be credited? Be as specific as possible, such as the volume or weight needed.

17a. Is there an ingredient or processing method that could qualify or disqualify a particular yogurt from crediting in the Child Nutrition Programs (e.g., a particular thickening agent could disqualify a high protein yogurt)?

18. If high protein yogurt is allowed to contribute differently to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns than traditional yogurt, would Child Nutrition Program operators take advantage of using it to meet the meats/meat alternates requirement? Why or why not?

18a. If yes, how would Child Nutrition Program operators serve it (e.g., at snack, as part of a reimbursable lunch)?

19. If high protein yogurt is allowed to contribute differently to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns than traditional yogurt, how would this impact the Child Nutrition Programs, including its participants and operators, as well as food manufacturers? What are the potential benefits and negative impacts?

In the past, FNS has chosen not to credit a small number of other foods in the Child Nutrition Programs because these foods do not meet the requirement for any food component in the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns. For various reasons this has occurred, including being considered snack-type foods, lacking a standard of identity, or because the volume of food required to meet the minimum serving size would be unreasonably large. For example, foods such as popcorn, vegetable chips (does not include chips made from grain such as tortilla chips), bacon, and tempeh are currently not creditable for the aforementioned reasons. A list of various foods that do not currently credit in the Child Nutrition Programs is available in FNS' Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs under “Other Foods” (see https://fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/tn/fbg-section5-other.pdf). Comments on any foods currently not creditable in the Child Nutrition Programs are welcome, using the following questions as a guide.

20. Are Child Nutrition Program operators currently offering any of these foods as an extra item that does not contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns? If so, which ones?

21. Should FNS allow any of these foods to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns? Why or why not? If so, which ones?

22. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, how should they be credited? Be as specific as possible, such as the volume or weight needed, or a specific nutrient content.

22a. Is there an ingredient, processing method, or nutrient standard (e.g., sodium content) that should qualify or disqualify any of these foods?

23. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, would Child Nutrition Program operators incorporate them into menus to meet the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns? Why or why not?

23a. If yes, how would they be served (e.g., as part of a reimbursable snack)?

24. If any of these foods are allowed to contribute to the Child Nutrition Programs' meal patterns, how would this impact the Child Nutrition Programs, including its participants and operators, as well as food manufacturers? What are the potential benefits and negative impacts?

25. Are there additional products not mentioned in this request for information that are currently not creditable, but you would wish to provide comments on? Please be as specific as possible.

FNS appreciates your thoughtful and responsive comments. FNS welcomes comments from all interested stakeholders and will consider all of them carefully. Your comments are essential to enabling FNS to provide first rate customer service to those we serve.

This meeting is free and open to the public. Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations should contact the Midwest Regional Office prior to the meeting to make appropriate arrangements. Members of the public are invited to make statements during an open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office no later than March 31, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Alabama Advisory Committee link (https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=233&aid=17) Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30116(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2017 for each state and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table.

I have certified these estimates for the Federal Election Commission.

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 8, 2017.1 On November 27, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation.2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now February 12, 2018.3

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Petitions

On January 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of large diameter welded pipe (welded pipe) from China, India, Korea, and Turkey, filed in proper form on behalf of Berg Steel Pipe Corp., Dura-Bond Industries, Stupp Corporation, American Cast Iron Pipe Company, and Skyline Steel (collectively, the petitioners).1 The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey. The petitioners are domestic producers of welded pipe.2

Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations is now February 9, 2018.3

On January 23 and 26, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 25, 26, and 29, 2018.5 On February 5, 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 Governments of China, India, Korea, and Turkey (GOC, GOI, GOK, and GOT, respectively) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of welded pipe in China, India, Korea, and Turkey, and imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic welded pipe 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 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. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.7

Because the Petitions were filed on January 17, 2018, the period of investigation for each of the investigations is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

The product covered by these investigations is large diameter welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey. 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 products 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).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 March 1, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 12, 2018, which is the next business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.11

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

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 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, GOI, GOK, and GOT of the receipt of the Petitions, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions. 13 Consultations were held with the GOI on February 2, 2018; with the GOK on January 26, 2018; and with the GOT on January 30, 2018.14 The GOC did not request consultations.

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,15 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.16

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.17 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that welded pipe, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.18

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 Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their own 2017 shipments of the domestic like product and 2017 shipments by supporters of the petitions.19 The petitioners compared the total quantity of these shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.20 The petitioners explained that they relied on shipment data because production data for the entire domestic industry are not available.21 In addition, the petitioners provided a comparison of their own production and shipment data to demonstrate that shipments are a reasonable proxy for data on production of welded pipe.22 We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.23

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, Industry Support Supplement, Scope and Industry Support Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.24 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).25 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.26 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.27 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

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 CVD investigations that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.28

In letters dated January 25, January 29, and February 5, 2018, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (collectively, Borusan), a Turkish producer and exporter, submitted comments on industry support. The petitioners responded to these comments in the Scope and Industry Support Supplement, dated February 5, 2018. For further discussion of these comments, see Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.

Because India, China, Korea, and Turkey are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India, China, Korea, and Turkey 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.29 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The petitioners have adequately demonstrated that subject imports from India, which has been designated as a least developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceeded the negligibility threshold of four percent during the period of investigation.30

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and a negative impact on the domestic industry's U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, production, and financial performance.31 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.32

Based on the examination of the Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC, GOI, GOK, and GOT, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made pursuant to the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.33 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.34

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 27 of the 28 alleged programs, and to partially initiate on the 28th program. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see China CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 70 of the 72 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 20 of the 21 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Korea CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 15 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

The petitioners named 157 companies in China,35 26 companies in India,36 28 companies in Korea,37 and 13 companies in Turkey,38 as producers/exporters of welded pipe. Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. 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 welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey 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 February 1, 2018 (for India and Korea), February 2, 2018 (for China), and February 6, 2018 (for Turkey), Commerce released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these CVD investigations.39 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.

Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize 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), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been provided to the GOC, GOI, GOK, and GOT 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 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.40 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.41 Otherwise, these 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). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 42 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.43 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.44 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).45 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 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 July 27, 2015, Commerce issued the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,1 in which it determined, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), that 46 products produced by Maquilacero to specification A-513 did not meet the exclusion for “mechanical tubing” in the scope of the Order, 2 and were, therefore, within the scope of the Order. In particular, Commerce relied upon a prior scope ruling pertaining to certain mechanical tubing products produced by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc. (Prolamsa), which was conducted under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2), and which defined “mechanical tubing” as tubing that met a variety of physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics, and was stenciled.3 Commerce found that Maquilacero's tubing was not stenciled, and, thus, was not “mechanical tubing.” 4 Maquilacero challenged Commerce's final scope ruling before the CIT.

On August 30, 2017, the Court remanded the Maquilacero Scope Ruling to Commerce.5 Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not “properly consider how the mention of stenciling came to be found in the ruling excluding Prolamsa's pipe from the Order,” particularly given that stenciling “does not change the inherent quality or the intended use of the product.” 6 As such, the Court concluded that “the imposition of a requirement {(i.e., stenciling)} having nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing and that appeared in the Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling by chance { } was unreasonable.” 7 Thus, the Court found “that Commerce's ruling unlawfully expanded the scope of the Order to include {Maquilacero}'s merchandise,” 8 and remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce to “(1) not impose a stenciling requirement, and (2) find that Maquilacero's tubing is excluded from the Order based on its analysis found on pages 6-9 of the Final Scope Ruling.” 9 In particular, the Court instructed Commerce to “find plaintiff's products are excluded from the Order using the same analysis in the Final Scope Ruling and that is found in this opinion.” 10

Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Commerce issued the Final Remand Results.11 Consistent with the Court's instructions, Commerce found that the 46 products included in Maquilacero's scope ruling request are excluded from the Order, because those products meet all physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of mechanical tubing, notwithstanding that the products are not stenciled. On February 9, 2018, the Court sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results in their entirety.12

In its decision in Timken, 13 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 14 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's February 9, 2018, judgment in Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce's decision in the Final Remand Results that the 46 products included in Maquilacero's scope ruling request are excluded from the Order constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the 46 products at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is amending its final scope ruling. Commerce finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products addressed in the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the 46 products subject to Maquilacero's scope ruling request. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of the 46 products at issue without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries.

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

On January 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of large diameter welded pipe (welded pipe) from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey, filed in proper form on behalf of American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Berg Steel Pipe Corp., Dura-Bond Industries, Skyline Steel, and Stupp Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).1 The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey. The petitioners are domestic producers of welded pipe.2

Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations is now February 9, 2018.3

On January 23, 24, 29, 30, and February 6, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 25, 26, 29, and 30, and February 1, 5, and 6, 2018.5 Also on February 5, 2018, the petitioners submitted certain revisions to the scope.6

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey 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 welded pipe 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. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.7

Because the Petitions were filed on January 17, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Canada, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey investigations is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China investigation is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

The product covered by these investigations is welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey. 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 products 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).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 March 1, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 12, 2018, which is the next business day after 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.11

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

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 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 will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of welded pipe 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 welded pipe, 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 March 1, 2018. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 12, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey 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,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14

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

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

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion in the Assessment webinar are as follows:

1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.

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

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

The SSPC meeting will be held between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on March 5, 2018. The 128th SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 6-8, 2018. The Executive, Budget and Legislative Standing Committee meeting will be held on March 13, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The portion of the Executive, Budget and Legislative Standing Committee meeting from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 302(i)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The Pelagic and International Standing Committee will be held on March 13, 2018, between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. The 172nd Council meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 14-16, 2018. On March 14, 2018, the Council will host a Fishers Forum between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. All times listed are local island times.

Agenda items noted as “Final Action Items” refer to actions that result in Council transmittal of a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the MSA. In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council and its advisory bodies will hear recommendations from Council advisors. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Background documents will be available from, and written comments should be sent to, Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220 or fax: (808) 522-8226.

Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 172nd meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

On November 8, 2017, a notice was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 51822) that a request for an amendment Permit No. 21158 to conduct research on Weddell seals had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The permit amendment authorizes an increase in takes of seal pups authorized to be flipper tagged from a total of 675 to a total take of 1,000 pups. This field season the research team has observed an abnormally high number of pups and current take numbers are not be adequate to meet the stated scientific goals of tagging all pups produced in the Erebus Bay colonies each year. This increase is only for the 2017-18 field season and not for the duration of the permit. At the end of the public comment period, we will assess all substantive comments received and if warranted, further amend the permit in response to those comments.

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

The Bureau has supervisory authority over insured depository institutions and credit unions with total assets over $10 billion and their affiliates, as well as non-depository financial institutions, regardless of size, in certain specific markets including mortgage companies (originators, brokers, servicers, and offerors of loan modifications or foreclosure relief services), payday lenders and private education lenders. The Bureau also has supervisory authority over non-depository larger participants of other markets as the Bureau defines by rule. To date, this includes larger participants in the consumer reporting, debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfer, and automobile finance markets. Additionally, the Bureau has authority over service providers of the above referenced supervised entities, and service providers to a substantial number of depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less. More detail regarding the Bureau's supervisory authority can be found principally at 12 U.S.C. 5514-5516 and 12 CFR parts 1090 and 1091.

The Bureau is, as described below, issuing this request for information seeking public comment on how best to achieve meaningful burden reduction or other improvement to the processes used by the Bureau to supervise for compliance with Federal consumer financial law (Supervision Program) while continuing to meet the Bureau's statutory and regulatory objectives and ensuring a fair and transparent process for supervised entities.

The Bureau is using this request for information to seek public input regarding its Supervision Program. The Bureau's ability to supervise entities is an essential part of the Bureau's statutory mission of enforcing Federal consumer financial laws. The Bureau engages in supervisory activities in accordance with applicable law and in furtherance of its statutory mandate. The Bureau understands, however, that the Bureau's supervisory activities can impose burdens on entities. The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may include supervised entities or companies supervised by other agencies, compliance professionals or members of the bar who represent these entities, individual consumers, consumer advocates, regulators, and researchers, or members of academia.

To allow the Bureau to evaluate suggestions more effectively, the Bureau requests that, where possible, comments include:

• Specific suggestions regarding any potential updates or modifications to the Bureau's Supervision Program, consistent with the Bureau's statutory objectives, and including, in as much detail as possible (though without disclosing CSI), potential updates or modifications, supporting data or other information on impacts and costs, or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies with similar authorities; and

• Specific identification of any aspects of the Bureau's Supervision Program that should not be modified, consistent with the Bureau's statutory objectives, and including supporting data or other information on impacts and costs, or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies with similar authorities.

The following list represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of Bureau processes related to its Supervision Program that may be deserving of more immediate focus. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these topics or others, the Bureau requests that commenters identify with specificity the Bureau regulations or practices at issue, providing legal citations where appropriate and available. Please feel free to comment on some or all of the topics below, but please be sure to indicate on which area you are commenting. As noted in the instructions above, please refrain from revealing CSI in your public comment.

The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its Supervision Program, including but not limited to:

1. The timing, frequency, and scope of supervisory exams.

2. The timing, method or process used by the Bureau to collect information and documents from a supervised entity prior to the commencement of an examination. Typically, the Bureau sends an examination Information Request (IR) to a supervised entity prior to the commencement of an examination. An IR is a list of information and documents that the supervised entity is asked to provide to the Bureau for off-site review or to make available when examiners are onsite at the entity. An IR is typically sent to an entity at least 60 days prior to the onsite start of an examination.

3. The type and volume of information and documents requested in IRs.

4. The effectiveness and accessibility of the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual (Exam Manual). The Exam Manual provides internal direction to supervisory staff, including summaries of statutes and regulations and specific examination procedures for use by examiners in conducting exams. It is published on the Bureau's website to promote transparency and assist the public in understanding how the Bureau oversees supervised entities.

5. The efficiency and effectiveness of onsite examination work. Typically, while onsite, examination teams may review documents and data, hold meetings with management, conduct interviews with staff, make observations, and conduct transaction testing.

6. The effectiveness of Supervision's communications when potential violations are identified, including the usefulness and content of the potential action and request for response (PARR) letter. A PARR letter provides an entity with notice of preliminary findings of conduct that may violate Federal consumer financial laws and advises the entity that the Bureau is considering taking supervisory action or a public enforcement action based on the potential violations identified in the letter. Supervision invites the entity to respond to the PARR letter within 14 days and to set forth in the response any reasons of fact, law or policy why the Bureau should not take action against the entity. The Bureau often permits extensions of the response time when requested.

7. The clarity, organization, and quality of communications that report the results of supervisory activities, including oral communications from examiners and Supervisory Letters and Examination Reports.

8. The clarity of matters requiring attention (MRA) and the reasonability of timing requirements to satisfy MRAs. An MRA is used to address violation(s) of Federal consumer financial law or compliance management weaknesses. MRAs often require a written response to the Bureau and will include a due date for completion.

9. The process for appealing supervisory findings.

10. The use of third parties contracted by supervised entities to conduct assessments specified in MRAs, or to assess the sufficiency of completion of an MRA.

11. The usefulness of Supervisory Highlights to share findings and promote transparency. The Bureau periodically publishes Supervisory Highlights to apprise the public about its examination program, including the concerns that it finds during the course of its work.

12. The manner and extent to which the Bureau can and should coordinate its supervisory activity with Federal and state supervisory agencies, including through use of simultaneous exams, where feasible and consistent with statutory directives.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance System (APACS); OMB Control Number 0701-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain PII information which is used by in-country U.S. Embassy approvers to grant country travel clearances, Geographical Combatant Commands approvers to grant theater travel clearances and by the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy approvers to grant special area travel clearances. Aircrew PII information is used for verification, identification and authentication of travelers for aircraft and personnel travel clearances, as required by DoDD 4500.54E, DoD Foreign Clearance Program.

Affected Public: DoD-sponsored contractors and DoD-sponsored foreign nationals.

Annual Burden Hours: 15,400.

Number of Respondents: 30,800.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 30,800.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Travel clearance approvers are professionals who provide coordinate and grant applicable travel clearances for DoD personnel foreign travel to all overseas locations.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Record of Military Processing—Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 1966; OMB Control Number 0704-0173.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to comply with regulations in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C., Sections 504, 505, 508, 12102; Title 14 U.S.C., Sections 351 and 632; and 50 U.S.C. Appendix Section 451, which requires applicants to meet standards for enlistment into the Armed Forces. This information collection is the basis for determining eligibility of applicants for enlistment in the Armed Forces and is needed to verify data given by the applicant and to determine his/her qualification of enlistment. The information collected aids in the determination of qualifications, term of service, and grade in which a person, if eligible, will enter active duty or reserve status.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 141,000 hours.

Number of Respondents: 423,000

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 423,000.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondents are individuals applying to serve in the United States Armed Forces. The primary purpose of this information collection is to gather the necessary data for determining eligibility in the Armed Forces and for establishing personnel records on those enlisted. The DD Form 1966 is the main source document for military enlistment or continued military service records. The information collected is used to feed other DoD and service-specific forms that later would be used to issue identification cards and receive benefits associated with military service.

In FR Doc. No. 2017-28425, in the Federal Register of January 3, 2018 (83 FR 356), we make the following correction:

On page 357, in the middle column under the heading How is it submitted?, in the sentence “For overnight delivery mail to: FISAP Administrator, 2429 Military Road, Suite 200, Niagara Falls, NY 14304,” we remove “14304” and replace it with “14302”.

Program Authority: Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

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

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

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

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

Title of Collection: Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate.

OMB Control Number: 1870-0503.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4.

Abstract: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has enforcement responsibilities under several civil rights laws, including Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. To meet these responsibilities, OCR collects assurances of compliance from applicants for Federal financial assistance from, and applicants for funds made available through, the Department of Education, as required by regulations. These entities include, for example, State educational agencies, local education agencies, and postsecondary educational institutions. If a recipient violates one or more of these civil rights laws, OCR and the Department of Justice can used the signed assurances of compliance in an enforcement proceeding.

Type of Award: Formula grant.

Available Funds: The Administration has requested $87,753,000 for SRSA in FY 2018. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: $0-$60,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 4,000.

The FY 2018 SRSA grant awards will be made under title V, part B, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. L. 114-95).1

For FY 2018, an LEA (including a public charter school that meets the definition of LEA in section 8101(30) of the ESEA) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if it meets one of the following criteria:

(a)(1) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600; or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

(2) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

(b) The LEA is a member of an educational service agency (ESA) that does not receive SRSA funds, and the LEA meets the eligibility requirements described in (a)(1) and (2) above.

(c) The LEA meets the requirements for a hold harmless award as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA. These are LEAs that are no longer eligible for the SRSA program because of amendments made under the ESSA to the locale code methodology and designations referenced in section 5211(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ESEA. However, these LEAs may receive a FY 2018 award at a reduced rate as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA.

Under 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible entity that submits an application.

In FY 2018, all LEAs eligible to receive an SRSA award are required to submit an SRSA application in order to receive SRSA funds, regardless of whether the LEA received an award or submitted an application in any previous year.2 This includes LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2018 award under the hold harmless provision, dual-eligible LEAs that choose to participate in the SRSA program instead of the RLIS program, and SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of ESAs that do not receive SRSA funds. In the case of SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of SRSA-eligible ESAs, the respective LEAs and ESAs must coordinate directly with each other to determine which entity will submit an SRSA application, as both entities may not apply for or receive SRSA funds. Additionally, we note that dual-eligible LEAs that apply for SRSA funds in accordance with these application submission procedures will not be considered for an RLIS award.

A list of LEAs eligible for FY 2018 SRSA grant funds is available on the Department's website at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html. All LEAs on this list must submit an electronic application via Grants.gov in order to receive an FY 2018 SRSA grant award. The list identifies those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) SRSA program, those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the REAP RLIS program, those LEAs that are dual-eligible, and those LEAs that are eligible to receive an SRSA award pursuant to the hold harmless provision.

If an LEA on the Department's list of LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2018 SRSA award is no longer in existence as of the 2017-18 school year or will close prior to the 2018-2019 school year, the LEA is no longer eligible to receive an FY 2018 SRSA award and should not apply.

An LEA eligible to receive FY 2018 SRSA funds that fails to submit an FY 2018 SRSA application or fails to submit an application in accordance with the application submission procedures is at risk of not receiving an FY 2018 SRSA award. Such LEAs may receive an award only to the extent funds become available after awards are made to all eligible LEAs that complied with the application procedures.

LEAs must use the Grants.gov site for submitting SRSA applications. LEAs should review closely the next section titled Application and Submission Information for specific information about how to apply for SRSA FY 2018 funds.

All LEAs eligible for FY 2018 SRSA grant funds are required to submit an electronic application using the Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on April 20, 2018. SRSA applications must be submitted electronically using Grants.gov unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement, in accordance with the instructions in this section. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

A Grants.gov applicant must apply online using Workspace, a shared environment where members of a grant team may simultaneously access and edit different webforms within an application. An applicant can create an individual Workspace for each application notice and, thus, establish for that application a collaborative application package that allows more than one person in the applicant's organization to work concurrently on an application. The applicant can, thus, assign other users to participate in the Workspace. The system also enables the applicant to reuse forms from previous submissions; check them in and out and complete them; and submit its application package. For access to complete instructions on how to apply, refer to: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

Please note the following:

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on April 20, 2018. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on April 20, 2018. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on April 20, 2018.

• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov website at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

• You must upload all documents for your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

• Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

• These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application by the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

• You do not have access to the internet; or

• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you send a letter or email a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.

If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail your statement to: Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E-210, Washington, DC 20202. Or email your statement to [email protected].

Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), 550 12th Street SW, Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

To do business with the Department of Education, you must:

a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, throughout the grant performance period.

You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following website: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

In addition, if you are submitting your SRSA application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

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

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

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

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which collectively prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic information. Section 709(c) of Title VII, section 107(a) of the ADA, and section 207(a) of GINA authorize the EEOC to issue recordkeeping and reporting regulations that are deemed reasonable, necessary or appropriate. EEOC has promulgated recordkeeping regulations under those authorities that are contained in 29 CFR part 1602 et seq. Those regulations do not require the creation of any particular records but generally require employers to preserve any personnel and employment records they make or keep for a period of one year. The EEOC seeks extension of the recordkeeping requirement in these regulations without change.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

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

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

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

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

Collection Title: Recordkeeping under Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

OMB Number: 3046-0040.

Description of Affected Public: Employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

Number of Respondents: 961,709.

Number of Reports Submitted: 0.

Estimated Burden Hours: 37,264 hours.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

Federal Cost: None.

Number of Forms: None.

Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), section 1007(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12117(a), and section 207(a) of GINA, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(a), require the Commission to establish regulations pursuant to which employers subject to those Acts shall make and preserve certain records to assist the EEOC in assuring compliance with the Acts' nondiscrimination in employment requirements. This is a recordkeeping requirement. Any of the records maintained which are subsequently disclosed to the EEOC during an investigation are protected from public disclosure by the confidentiality provisions of section 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII which are also incorporated by reference into the ADA at section 107(a) and GINA at section 207(a).

Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents subject to this recordkeeping requirement is 961,709 employers. An employer subject to the recordkeeping requirement in 29 CFR part 1602 must retain all personnel or employment records made or kept by that employer for one year, and must retain any records relevant to charges of discrimination filed under Title VII, the ADA, or GINA until final disposition of those matters, which may be longer than one year. This recordkeeping requirement does not require reports or the creation of new documents, but merely requires retention of documents that an employer has already made or kept in the normal course of its business operations. Thus, existing employers bear no burden under this analysis, because their systems for retaining personnel and employment records are already in place. Newly formed firms may incur a small burden when setting up their data collection and retention systems to ensure compliance with EEOC's recordkeeping requirements. We assume some effort and time must be expended by employers to familiarize themselves with the Title VII, ADA, and GINA recordkeeping requirements and explain those requirements to the appropriate staff. We estimate that 30 minutes would be needed for this one-time familiarization process. Using 2015 data from the Small Business Administration, we estimate that there are 74,528 firms that would incur this start-up burden.1 Assuming a 30-minute burden per firm, the total annual hour burden is 37,264 hours (.5 hour × 74,528 = 37,264).

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. All comments received will become a matter of public record. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

1. Title: Recordkeeping, Disclosure and Reporting Requirements in Connection with Regulation Z.

OMB Number: 3064-0082.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: State nonmember banks and state savings associations.

General Description of Collection: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Regulation Z—12 CFR 1026 implements the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.) and certain provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). This regulation prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of credit, the disclosure of credit terms and costs, the resolution of errors and imposes various other recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure requirements. The FDIC has enforcement authority on the requirements of the CFPB's Regulation over the financial institutions it supervises. This information collection captures the recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure burdens of Regulation Z on FDIC-supervised institutions. The information collection is being revised to account for revisions and changes made to Regulation Z by the CFPB since this information collection was last submitted by the FDIC to OMB for clearance.

To arrive at the estimated annual burden the FDIC assessed the number of potential respondents to the information collection by identifying the number of FDIC-supervised institutions who reported activity that would be within the scope of the information collection requirements according to data from the most recent CALL Report. Additionally, the FDIC estimated the frequency of responses to the recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements by assessing the dollar volume of activity that would be within the scope of the information collection. In some instances the FDIC used information provided by other sources to estimate the magnitude and scope of activity attributable to FDIC-supervised institutions when more immediate information sources did not exist.

Burden Estimate: The total estimated annual burden is 2,395,630 hours (36 hours estimated implementation burden, plus 2,395,594 hours estimated ongoing burden). The burden estimate is detailed on the following tables: