Federal Register Vol. 83, No.79,

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the FVIAC for two years. The purpose of the FVIAC is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.

The Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service's Specialty Crops Program will serve as the FVIAC Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the FVIAC's meetings as determined by the FVIAC Executive Secretary and the FVIAC.

Industry members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and will serve staggered terms of up to 2 years. Approximately half of the FVIAC will serve a one-year term, with the remainder serving a two-year term. No member can serve more than six consecutive years. FVIAC membership consists of no more than 25 members who represent the fruit and vegetable industry, and will include individuals representing fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, fruit and vegetable wholesalers/distributors, brokers, retailers/restaurant representatives, fresh-cut and other fruit and vegetable processors, and foodservice suppliers. It should also include individuals representing farmers markets and food hubs, organic and non-organic fruit and vegetable representatives, and representatives from state departments of agriculture, farmer organizations, and produce trade associations.

Through this Notice and the Notice published on August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35926), the USDA seeks to fulfill two goals. Firstly, it is seeking additional nominations to fill all twenty-five (25) seats on the FVIAC. Due to the timing of the publication of renewal notice (83 FR 35926), and the expiration of the members' terms, it was determined that the FVIAC charter be reestablished and all 25 positions on the FVIAC be filled. Therefore, we are calling for additional nominees to fill all positions on the FVIAC. Previous FVIAC members must apply to be considered. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint one person to each of these twenty-five (25) positions. Approximately one-half of the FVIAC will serve a 1-year term and the remainder of the FVIAC will serve a 2-year term.

Secondly, the USDA is seeking nominations to fill future unexpected vacancies in any of the position categories. These nominations will be held as a pool of candidates that the Secretary of Agriculture can draw upon as replacement appointees if unexpected vacancies occur. A person appointed to fill a vacancy will serve for the remainder of the term of the vacant position.

The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals or themselves for membership on the FVIAC. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's fruit and vegetable industry qualifications for membership to the FVIAC. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.

To nominate yourself or someone else, please submit the following: A resume (required), Form AD-755 (required), which can be accessed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/facas-advisory-councils/fviac/nominations, a cover letter, and a list of endorsements or letters of recommendation (optional). Resumes must be no longer than 5 pages, and should include a summary of the following information: Current and past organization affiliations; areas of expertise; education; career positions held; any other notable positions held.

Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the FVIAC in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that FVIAC recommendations take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities and limited resource agriculture producers.

The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0505-0001.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 subpart B, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting BSE Risk Status Classification With Regard To Bovines” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifies regions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk. Section 92.5 of the regulations provides that all countries of the world are considered by APHIS to be in one of three BSE risk categories: Negligible risk, controlled risk, or undetermined risk. These risk categories are defined in § 92.1. Any region that is not classified by APHIS as presenting either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE is considered to present an undetermined risk. The list of those regions classified by APHIS as having either negligible risk or controlled risk can be accessed on the APHIS website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/import-live-animals/ct_bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy. The list can also be obtained by writing to APHIS at National Import Export Services, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.

Under the regulations, APHIS may classify a region for BSE in one of two ways. One way is for regions that have not received a risk classification from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to request classification by APHIS. The other way is for APHIS to concur with the classification given to a country or region by the OIE.

If the OIE has classified a region as either BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS will seek information to support concurrence with the OIE classification. This information may be publicly available information, or APHIS may request that regions supply the same information given to the OIE. APHIS will announce in the Federal Register, subject to public comment, its intent to concur with an OIE classification.

In accordance with this process, we are giving notice in this document that APHIS intends to concur with the OIE risk classifications of the following regions:

• Regions of negligible risk for BSE: Croatia, Poland, Northern Ireland (region of United Kingdom), and Scotland (region of United Kingdom).

The OIE recommendations regarding each of the above regions can be viewed at http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/bse/list-of-bse-risk-status/. The conclusions of the OIE scientific commission for these regions can be viewed at:

Croatia: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A_SCAD_Feb2014.pdf (page 88).

Poland: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A_SCAD_Feb2017.pdf (page 71).

Northern Ireland: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A_SCAD_Feb2017.pdf (page 74).

Scotland: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A_SCAD_Feb2017.pdf (page 76).

After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our final determination regarding the BSE classification of these countries in the Federal Register, along with a discussion of and response to pertinent issues raised by commenters. If APHIS recognizes a region as either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE, the Agency will include that region on the list of regions of negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE, as applicable, that is available to the public on the Agency's website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/import-live-animals/ct_bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy.

On September 26, 2017, Commerce received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, on behalf of DAK Americas LLC; Indorama Ventures USA, Inc. (Indorama Ventures); M&G Polymers USA, LLC; and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, the petitioners).1 On March 27, 2018, the petitioners timely filed allegations that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from producers and exporters from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan.2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), when a critical circumstances allegation is submitted more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce must issue a preliminary finding of whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist by no later than the date of the preliminary determination. In the subject AD investigations, the petitioners requested that Commerce issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations on an expedited basis.3

Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (A)(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.

Sections 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) and (i) provide that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. Commerce's regulations also provide, however, that if Commerce finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, Commerce may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.4

To determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries regarding imports of the same merchandise. The Critical Circumstances Allegations show that other countries have current measures in place covering imports of the same merchandise from the countries subject to these allegations.5 For example, imports of PET resin from Indonesia have been subject to an AD measure in Malaysia since March 2015; imports of PET resin from Korea have been subject to an AD measure in Argentina since September 2017; and imports of PET resin from Taiwan have been subject to an AD measure in Argentina since September 2016.6 Therefore, based on the AD measures in third-country markets referenced above, we preliminarily determine that there is a history of dumping of PET resin exported from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan.

To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.7 Commerce has found margins of 15 percent or more (for constructed export price) to 25 percent or more (for export price) to be sufficient for this purpose.8 Dumping margins alleged in the three AD petitions regarding the Critical Circumstances Allegations significantly exceed the 15 to 25 percent threshold: 53.50 percent for Indonesia,9 101.41 percent for Korea,10 and 45 percent for Taiwan.11 Because the margins alleged in the Petitions exceed the threshold sufficient to impute that importers had knowledge that exporters of PET resin from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value, we preliminarily determine that importers knew or should have known that producers/exporters of PET resin in all three countries subject to the Critical Circumstances Allegations were selling subject merchandise to the United States at less than fair value.

To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC).12 If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, material injury (as opposed to the threat of injury), Commerce will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports. In the subject AD investigations, the ITC found that there is a “reasonable indication” of material injury to the domestic industry because of the imported subject merchandise.13 Therefore, the ITC's preliminary injury determination in these investigations is sufficient to impute importer knowledge.

Because the statutory criteria of section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act have been satisfied, we next examined whether imports of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan were “massive” over a relatively short period, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). In making this determination, Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the “comparison period”). Imports will normally be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period. It is Commerce's practice to base its critical circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and comparison periods of no less than three months.14 For these preliminary determinations of critical circumstances, Commerce is defining the base and comparison periods within the bounds of its normal practice by extending the comparison period through January 2018 as shipment data is available on the record to do so. This is consistent with our past practice.15

Thus, in order to preliminarily determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, using shipment data submitted by the cooperating mandatory respondents, and shipment data of subject merchandise compiled by the ITC, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments from October 2017 through January 2018 (i.e., all months for which shipment data was available) with the preceding four-month period of June 2017 through September 2017.16 For “all others,” Commerce subtracted shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the ITC data. For non-cooperating mandatory respondents (i.e., those mandatory respondents that did not respond to our critical circumstances questionnaire or who otherwise indicated their unwillingness to participate in the investigations), we preliminarily determine, on the basis of adverse facts available,17 that there has been a massive surge in imports. Accordingly, based on our analysis of information on the record, we preliminarily determine the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise had an increase of 15 percent or more in imports of subject merchandise during the comparison period when compared to the base period, satisfying the massive surge criteria, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).18

On December 4, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey for the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.1 In December 2017, Commerce received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to conduct an administrative review of this countervailing duty order from one of the petitioners in this case, Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick).2 Based upon this request, on February 23, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation listing 19 companies for which Commerce received timely requests for review.3

On April 12, 2018, Maverick withdrew its request for an administrative review.4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The aforementioned withdrawal request was timely submitted, and no other interested party requested an administrative review of any company. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey covering the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On March 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (collectively, the petitioners).1 The CVD Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of steel wheels China. The petitioners are domestic producers of steel wheels.2

On March 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. The petitioners filed additional information on April 3, 2018.3 On April 9 and 13, 2018, Commerce requested the petitioners to clarity the scope of the Petition.4 The petitioners filed responses to Commerce's scope request on April 13, 2018.5

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

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.6

Because the Petition was filed on March 27, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

The product covered by these investigations is steel wheels from China. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of these exchanges, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,9 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 May 6, 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 May 16, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.10

Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation 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).11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.12 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,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 a 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 Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel wheels, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2017 production of the domestic like product.16 The petitioners state that they are the only known producers of steel wheels in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.17

Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.18 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.21 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.22

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

The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.23

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adverse effects on petitioners' operating indicators and financial results.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of steel wheels from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. 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.

Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the subsidy programs alleged in the petition, with certain limitations. 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.

The petitioners named 32 companies in China 26 as producers/exporters of steel wheels. 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 steel wheels from China during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix.

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 Petition have been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each 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 Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel wheels from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.27 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.28 Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by 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 29 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.30 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.31 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).32 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

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

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On March 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (Maxion) (collectively, the petitioners).1 The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of steel wheels from China. The petitioners are domestic producers of steel wheels.2

On March 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. The petitioners filed additional information on April 3, 2018.3 On April 9 and 13, 2018, Commerce requested the petitioners to clarity the scope of the Petition.4 The petitioners filed responses to Commerce's scope request on April 13, 2018.5

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing steel wheels in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegation.

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

Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the China investigation is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

The product covered by this investigation is certain steel wheels from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of these exchanges, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,9 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 May 7, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.10 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 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). 11 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 is provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel wheels to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors 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. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.12 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the China less-than-fair-value investigation.

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 a 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 Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel wheels, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2017 production of the domestic like product.16 The petitioners state that they are the only known producers of steel wheels in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.17

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

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.22

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

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adverse effects on the petitioners' operating indicators and financial results.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

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

The petitioners based EP on an importer price list, price quotes, and internet prices.26 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.27

Commerce considers China to be an NME country.28 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in China is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.29

The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.30 The petitioners provided publicly available information from Thailand to value all FOPs.31 Therefore, based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use Thailand as the primary surrogate country for initiation purposes.

Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Because information regarding the FOPs and volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioners used the product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. steel wheels producer to estimate the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.32 The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Thailand, as noted above.33 The petitioners used the average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.34

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wheels from China are 12.1-231.7 percent.35

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

The petitioners named 32 producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of steel wheels to the United States from China.36 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation. In the event Commerce determines that it cannot individually examine each company, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on the responses received. For this investigation, Commerce will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the Petition. In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's website at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

Producers/exporters of steel wheels from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on April 30, 2018, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.37 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.38 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. Commerce requires that companies from China submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.

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

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

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

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel wheels from China are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.40 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 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 41 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.42 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

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

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.43 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).44 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

On December 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from India for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.1 On December 29, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Isinox Limited (Isinox) requested an administrative review of the order with respect to its exports of subject merchandise to the United States.2 On February 23, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the order on SSWR from India with respect to Isinox.3 On April 6, 2018, Isinox timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.4 No other party requested a review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Isinox withdrew its request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because Commerce received no other requests for review of Isinox, and no other requests for the review of the order on SSWR from India, we are rescinding the administrative review of the order in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

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

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

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

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

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel and Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 in Linthicum, MD. The purpose of this meeting is to review development of the chub mackerel amendment and to develop recommendations to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council on management alternatives and other aspects of the amendment. The amendment will consider adding Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The amendment will consider potential catch limits, accountability measures, and other conservation and management measures required for stocks “in the fishery.” A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website (www.mafmc.org) prior to the meeting.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The PPT will meet at the Council Conference Room to discuss the following agenda items:

The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The PPT will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. The meeting will end when the agenda has been completed.

These meetings are physically 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.

The meeting agenda includes review and presentation on existing socio-economic data and information sources that can inform fisheries management in Federal fisheries off of Alaska. This will include a discussion of the availability of subsistence information, use of existing data collections (such as Economic Data Reports), and the Alaska Fishery Science Center skipper survey, and current Alaska Fishery Science Center funding proposals.

The team will also discuss data gaps and consider long term strategies for prioritizing and filling these data gaps. This part of the agenda will include a presentation of a socio-economic gap analysis, discussion of past critiques from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee on information deficiencies in Council documents, discussion of current Council informational needs, and a facilitated discussion of the role of Local and Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Ecological Knowledge and citizen science information into science and management.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://www.npfmc.org/committees/social-science-planning-team/

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Sarah Marrinan, Council staff: [email protected] or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. In-person oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the chair.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The first half of the day is expected to focus on discussing the fixed gear EM program, including: (a) Budget and funding; (b) coordination of funding sources; (c) an update on 2018 EM implementation; (d) updates about progress on pot gear issues; and, (e) discussion about the future of fixed gear implementation. The second half of the day will focus on the trawl EM program, including: (f) An overview of EM Workgroup cooperative approach; (g) summary of ongoing work relevant to trawl; (h) funding issues; (i) trawl EM objectives; (j) developing a workplan and timing for future EMWG meetings; and, (k) a discussion of scheduling and other issues. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/observer-program/.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Elizabeth Figus, Council staff: [email protected] or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. In-person oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the chair.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

Items to be addressed or sessions to be conducted during this meeting include: Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) II Dashboard, FEP II Implementation Plan and Roadmap, and links and tools; policy/threat matrix development; renewable energy development; NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem activities (developing South Atlantic Ecosystem Status Report and Regional Action Plan for Climate); ocean observing needs; habitat conservation in fishery management plans; marine aquaculture; and regulation adjustments.

Members of the AP will discuss items and provide recommendations as appropriate.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

The items of discussion are as follows:

The Committee will discuss the agenda items and take action as necessary.

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 3 business days prior to the meeting.

The CPT will review and make recommendations on: Aleutian Island golden king crab (AIGKC) final stock assessment, including OFL and ABC recommendations, Research Priorities, Crab bycatch data implications in assessments, Terminal year retrospective analysis, Dynamic B0 calculation, Status of PIBKC assessment timing, Additional issues with Stock Prioritization, Norton Sound red king crab commercial and subsistence fisheries overview and review of observer program data and Tier 3 considerations for the stock; and model scenarios for 2018 assessments for Bristol Bay red king crab, Tanner crab, snow crab and Saint Matthew blue king crab.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.

OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to citizen exploration.

In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.

Status: The meeting will be open to the public with a 15-minute public comment period on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 from 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT (please check the final agenda on the website to confirm the time). The public may listen to the meeting and provide comments during the public comment period via teleconference. Dial-in information may be found on the meeting agenda posted to the OEAB website.

The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to three minutes. The Designated Federal Officer must receive written comments by May 1, 2018 to provide sufficient time for OEAB review. Written comments received after May 1, 2018 will be distributed to the OEAB but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Special Accommodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer (see below) by May 1, 2018.

Title, Associated Forms, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 249, Termination of Contracts, and a Related Clause at DFARS 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract termination or Reduction; OMB Control Number 0704-0533.

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

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Respondents: 42.

Responses per Respondent: 6.19, approximately.

Annual Responses: 260.

Average Burden per Response: .74 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 193.

Needs and Uses: DFARS clause 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract termination or Reduction, is used in all contracts under a major defense program. The purpose of this requirement is to help establish benefit eligibility under the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661 and 1662) for employees of DoD contractors and subcontractors adversely affected by contract termination or substantial reductions under major defense programs.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, requires contractors to provide “adequate security” for “covered defense information” that is processed, stored, or transmitted on the contractor's internal information system or network. To provide adequate security, the contractor must, at a minimum, implement NIST SP 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 states that in order to demonstrate implementation or planned implementation of the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171, nonfederal organizations should describe in a System Security Plan how the specified security requirements are met, or how organizations plan to meet the requirements, and should develop plans of action that describe how any unimplemented security requirements will be met and how any planned mitigations will be implemented. NIST SP 800-171 further states that, when requested, the System Security Plan and any associated Plans of Action for any planned implementations or mitigations should be submitted to the responsible Federal agency/contracting officer to demonstrate the nonfederal organization's implementation or planned implementation of the security requirements.

DoD developed the document “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” to facilitate the consistent review and understanding of System Security Plans and Plans of Action, the impact that NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements that are “not yet implemented” have on an information system, and to assist in prioritizing the implementation of security requirements not yet implemented. The document “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action” illustrates how “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” may be used during a procurement for which DoD must assess the state of a contractor's internal information system.

“DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” provides a “DoD Value” to assess the risk that a security requirement left unimplemented has on an information system, to assess the risk of a security requirement with an identified deficiency, and to address the priority for which an unimplemented requirement should be implemented. The guidance also addresses the method(s) to implement the security requirements, and, when applicable, provides clarifying information for security requirements that are frequently misunderstood.

The matrix “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action” is provided to illustrate how DoD may choose to assess submitted System Security Plans and Plans of Action in procurement actions that require the implementation of NIST SP 800-171.

To access the documents entitled “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” and “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action,” go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, search for the docket “DARS-2018-0023” click “Open Docket,” and view “Supporting Documents.”

The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to modify a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The GlobalNET Outreach and Collaboration Platform (DSCA 02) is a web based information technology platform to improve international partner outreach and collaboration efforts in a federated environment. The system collects information on students in order to allow them to share information with peers, faculty, and regional center personnel. GlobalNET is the official DSCA system for performing alumni outreach, facilitating alumnus/professor communication and peer-to-peer communications (or social networking).

As a result of reviewing this system of records notice, the DSCA proposes to modify this system by updating the following sections: Categories of individuals, categories of records, authorities, routine uses, retention and disposal, notification procedure, record access procedures, and record source categories. This notice also reflects changes to ensure compliance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-108.

The OSD notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division website at https://defense.gov/privacy.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on February 27, 2018 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

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: Magnet Schools Assistance Program—Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table Form.

OMB Control Number: 1855-0025.

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

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 116.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 58.

Abstract: The collection of this information is part of the government-wide effort to improve the performance and accountability of all federal programs, under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed in 1993, the Uniform Guidance, and EDGAR. Under GPRA, a process for using performance indicators to set program performance goals and to measure and report program results was established. To implement GPRA, ED developed GPRA measures at every program level to quantify and report program progress required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Under the Uniform Guidance and EDGAR, recipients of federal awards are required to submit performance and financial expenditure information. The GPRA program level measures and budget information for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) are reported in the Annual Performance Report (APR). The APR is required under 2 CFR 200.328 and 34 CFR 75.118 and 75.590. The annual report provides data on the status of the funded project that corresponds to the scope and objectives established in the approved application and any amendments. To ensure that accurate and reliable data are reported to Congress on program implementation and performance outcomes, the MSAP APR collects the raw data from grantees in a consistent format to calculate these data in the aggregate.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 minutes allotted for public comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address listed above or at the following website: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY18.html.

Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.

Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.

DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a Federal Register notice entitled, “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy”, dated May 5, 2017, 82 FR 21213.

On May 24, 2018, the cost figures published in this notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on May 5, 2017. The cost figures set forth in this notice will be effective until further notice.

DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2018 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the April 2018, EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook (EIA releases the Outlook monthly). The representative average unit after-tax cost for kerosene is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2010-to 2013 averages of the U.S. refiner price to end users, which include all the major energy-consuming sectors in the U.S. for these fuels. The source for these price data is the April 2018, Monthly Energy Review DOE/EIA-0035(2018/03). The representative average unit after-tax cost for propane is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2018 averages of the U.S. residential sector prices found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018, AEO2018 (February 6, 2018). The Short-Term Energy Outlook, the Monthly Energy Review, and the Annual Energy Outlook are available on the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov. For more information on the data sources used in this Notice, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, EI-30, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8800, email: [email protected].

The 2018 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective May 24, 2018. They will remain in effect until further notice.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/index.html.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Savannah River Site, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Amy Boyette at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Amy Boyette's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Amy Boyette at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of EMAB is to provide the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) with advice and recommendations on corporate issues confronting the EM program. EMAB contributes to the effective operation of the program by providing individual citizens and representatives of interested groups an opportunity to present their views on issues facing EM and by helping to secure consensus recommendations on those issues.

Public Participation: EMAB welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Individuals who would like to attend must RSVP to Jennifer McCloskey at the phone number or email address listed above. Please provide your name, organization, citizenship, and contact information no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2018. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government-issued identification. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda should contact Jennifer McCloskey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Jennifer McCloskey at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://energy.gov/em/services/communication-engagement/environmental-management-advisory-board-emab.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No. 1901-0260;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension;

(4) Purpose: The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands.

As part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EIA provides the general public and other federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with EIA. Also, EIA will later seek approval for this collection by OMB under Section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) required that DOE enter into Standard Contracts with all generators or owners of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste of domestic origin. Form NWPA-830G Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees, including Annex A to Appendix G, is an Appendix to this Standard Contract. Appendix G and Annex A to Appendix G are commonly referred to as Remittance Advice (RA) forms. RA forms must be submitted quarterly by generators and owners of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste of domestic origin who signed the Standard Contract. Appendix G is designed to serve as the source document for entries into DOE accounting records to transmit data to DOE concerning payment of fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal. Annex A to Appendix G is used to provide data on the amount of net electricity generated and sold, upon which these fees are based.

Please refer to the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible non-statistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 99;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 396;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,980;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the surveys other than the costs associated with the burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of burden hours to the respondents is estimated to be $149,866 ($75.69 per hour times 1,980 hours). Other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

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

NIOSH is seeking stakeholder input on the draft document Continuing To Protect the Nanotechnology Workforce: NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Plan for 2018-2025, to ensure that the program is meeting the needs of the stakeholders, and to identify ways in which the program can be improved to increase its impact on the safety and health of nanomaterial workers across the United States.

Background: Since 2004, NIOSH has pioneered research on the toxicological properties and characteristics of nanoparticles. This research has involved characterizing occupationally relevant nanoparticles for predicting whether these particles pose a risk of adverse health effects and for providing guidance on controlling workplace exposures. In September 2005, NIOSH developed its first nanotechnology strategic plan to further guide the Institute in identifying and prioritizing nanotechnology research. This strategic plan was updated in 2009 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-105/pdfs/2010-105.pdf] and again in 2013 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-106/pdfs/2014-106.pdf]. NIOSH would like to build on the accomplishments of ongoing research to develop the next strategic research goals and objectives for 2018-2025. NIOSH has identified 10 critical research areas for nanotechnology research and communication. These 10 critical research areas are: (1) Toxicity and internal dose, (2) measurement methods, (3) exposure assessment, (4) epidemiology and surveillance, (5) risk assessment, (6) engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE), (7) fire and explosion safety, (8) recommendations and guidance, (9) global collaborations, and (10) applications and informatics.

NIOSH is considering focusing the overarching strategic research goals for these critical areas on 5 key goals: (1) Increase understanding of new hazards and related health risks to nanomaterial workers, (2) expand understanding of the initial hazard findings of engineered nanomaterials, (3) support the creation of guidance materials to inform nanomaterial workers, employers, health professionals, regulatory agencies, and decision makers about hazards, risks and risk management approaches, (4)support epidemiologic studies for nanomaterial workers including medical and exposure studies, and (5) assess and promote national adherence with risk management guidance.

Public comments are requested, including those expressing support or with specific suggestions to improve the Research plan. A copy of the draft Research plan is available at https://www.regulations.gov (see Docket Number CDC-2018-0038).

Information Collection Request Title: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Needs Assessment Update