Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Notices 26653 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the 

Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12365 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of the Census 

[Docket Number 180402335–8335–01] 

Annual Business Survey 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of determination. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Bureau of the Census (Census 

Bureau) has determined that it is 

conducting the Annual Business Survey 

(ABS) of domestic nonfarm employer 

businesses in 2018. We have determined 

that data to be collected in this survey 

are needed to aid the efficient 

performance of essential governmental 

functions and have significant 

application to the needs of the public 

and industry. The ABS will provide the 

only comprehensive federal data on 

owner demographics and business 

characteristics, including financing 

research and development (for 

microbusinesses), and innovation. The 

data derived from this survey are not 

publicly available from 

nongovernmental or other governmental 

sources. 

ADDRESSES: The Census Bureau will 

make the reporting instructions 

available to the organizations included 

in the survey. Additional copies are 

available upon written request to the 

Director, 4600 Silver Hill Road, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233– 

0101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick 

Orsini, Assistant Director for Economic 

Programs, U.S. Census Bureau, 5H160, 

Washington, DC 20233, Telephone: 

301–763–2558; Email: Nick.Orsini@

census.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In an 

effort to improve the measurement of 

business dynamics in the United States, 

the Census Bureau, with support from 

the National Science Foundation (NSF), 

plans to conduct the Annual Business 

Survey (ABS). The ABS is a new survey 

designed to combine Census Bureau 

firm-level survey collections to reduce 

respondent burden and simultaneously 

increase data quality and operational 

efficiencies. The ABS replaces the 

following collections: The five-year 

Survey of Business Owners (SBO) 

(Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number 0607–0943) for 

employer businesses; the Annual 

Survey of Entrepreneurs (ASE) (OMB 

control number 0607–0986); and the 

Business Research and Development 

and Innovation for Microbusinesses 

(BRDI–M) form, a component of the 

Business Research and Development 

and Innovation Survey, BRDI–S (OMB 

control number 0607–0912). The ABS 

also replaces the innovation questions, 

formerly asked in the BRDI–S. 

ABS estimates will include the 

number of employer firms and their 

sales/receipts, annual payroll, and 

employment by gender, ethnicity, race, 

and veteran status as well as research 

and development and innovation and 

various other relevant topics. The ABS 

will be conducted jointly by the Census 

Bureau and the National Center for 

Science and Engineering Statistics 

within the NSF. It is planned for five 

reference years (2017–2021). Title 13, 

United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 

8(b), 131, and 182, Title 42, U.S.C, 

Sections 1861–1875 (National Science 

Foundation Act of 1950, as amended), 

and Section 505 of the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 

(42 U.S.C. 1862p) authorize this 

collection. Sections 224 and 225 of Title 

13, U.S.C., require responses from 

sampled firms. 

The ABS covers all domestic nonfarm 

employer businesses filing Internal 

Revenue Service tax forms as individual 

proprietorships, partnerships, or any 

type of corporation, and with receipts of 

$1,000 or more. The ABS will sample 

approximately 850,000 employer 

businesses for the benchmark survey 

year 2017, with data collection taking 

place in 2018. Annually for survey years 

2018 to 2021, the survey sample will be 

reduced to approximately 300,000 

employer businesses to reduce the 

burden on the respondents. The Census 

Bureau will use administrative data to 

estimate the owner demographics such 

that each firm is placed into one of nine 

frames for sampling: American Indian, 

Asian, Black or African American, 

Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White Men, 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander, Some Other Race, Publicly 

Owned Businesses, and Women Owned 

Businesses. The sample would be 

stratified by state, industry, and frame. 

The Census Bureau will select 

companies with certainty based on 

volume of sales, payroll, number of paid 

employees or industry classification. All 

certainty cases are sure to be selected 

and represent only themselves. 

The ABS will provide continuing and 

timely national statistical data for the 

period between economic censuses. The 

data collected will be within the general 

scope and nature of those inquiries 

covered in the economic census. The 

next economic census is being 

conducted currently for the reference 

year 2017. Government program 

officials, industry organization leaders, 

economic and social analysts, business 

entrepreneurs, and domestic and foreign 

researcher in academia, business, and 

government will use statistics from the 

new ABS. More details on expected uses 

of the statistics from the new ABS are 

found in the Notice of Consideration for 

the ABS published in the Federal 

Register on October 24, 2017 (82 FR 

49175). 

Public Comments 

The Census Bureau published a 

Notice of Consideration for the ABS in 

the Federal Register on October 24, 

2017 (82 FR 49175). We received one 

comment. The commenter suggested 

that the Census Bureau take the 

following actions: 

(1) Determine the cost and benefits of 

the survey and consider whether the 

benefits outweigh the costs; 

(2) If the benefits outweigh the cost, 

consider how to minimize the cost 

imposed on the businesses participating 

in the survey; 

(3) If, after conducting the cost-benefit 

analysis and examining the means for 

minimizing the cost imposed on survey 

participants, the Census Bureau 

nevertheless wishes to proceed with the 

survey, publish a revised notice that 

includes a cost-benefit analysis and an 

explanation of steps taken to minimize 

the costs on businesses forced to 

participate in the survey; and 

(4) Eliminate the survey 

discrimination based on gender, 

ethnicity, race, and age. 

Census Bureau Response to the Public 

Comment 

The Census Bureau agrees that costs 

and benefits should be analyzed and 

weighed, and has already carried out 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
26654 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Notices 

1See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 79 

FR 76970 (December 23, 2014) (Final 

Determination). 

2See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 

Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 8592 (February 

18, 2015). 

3See SolarWorld’s Complaint, No. 15–00086, ECF 

No. 10 (CIT April 17, 2015). 

4See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 229 

F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1353–1355 (CIT 2017) (Jinko 

Solar I). 

5 Id. at 1355. 

6See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 15–00080, Slip Op. 17–62 (Court 

of International Trade May 18, 2017) (August 2, 

2017) (First Remand Results). 

7See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 279 

F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1261–1264 (CIT 2017) (Jinko 

Solar II). 

this analysis, concluding that the value 

of information produced by the ABS 

outweighs the costs. The Census Bureau 

submitted a request to OMB on January 

5, 2018, formally requesting approval of 

the ABS under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). The request 

included information about the cost to 

administer the ABS and the cost 

imposed on respondents in terms of 

their time to respond. The request also 

documented the many uses of the data. 

The request demonstrated that the ABS 

has practical utility, i.e., that the value 

of information produced outweighs the 

cost. As noted in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section below, OMB 

approved the ABS on March 7, 2018 

(OMB control number 0607–1004). 

Furthermore, the ABS will provide 

data required by Executive Order 11458 

(March 5, 1969), ‘‘Prescribing 

Arrangements for Developing and 

Coordinating a National Program For 

Minority Business Enterprise’’ (http://

www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=

60475). Executive Order 11458 

prompted the Census Bureau to create 

the Survey of Minority Business 

Enterprises (SMOBE) and the Survey of 

Women Business Enterprises (SWOBE). 

The data previously collected in these 

two surveys was later collected in the 

SBO and the ASE, surveys that the ABS 

will now replace. Without the ABS, 

there will be no survey that complies 

with the executive order. The Minority 

Business Development Agency and 

Small Business Administration also rely 

on the Census Bureau to annually 

produce these data, including data on 

business ownership by gender, 

ethnicity, race, and veteran status as 

well as economic characteristics of 

businesses. 

The Census Bureau has designed the 

ABS survey to collect the required data 

while balancing the burden on 

businesses. The ABS is designed to 

combine Census Bureau firm-level 

collections to reduce respondent 

burden, increase data quality, reduce 

operational costs, and operate more 

efficiently. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C., Chapter 

45) unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. In accordance with the PRA, 

OMB approved the ABS under OMB 

control number 0607–1004 on March 7, 

2018. 

Based upon the foregoing, I have 

directed that the current mandatory 

business surveys be conducted for the 

purpose of collecting these data. 

Dated: May 31, 2018. 

Ron S. Jarmin, 

Associate Director for Economic Programs, 

Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and 

Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12356 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–010] 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 

Products From the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Court Decision Not 

in Harmony With Final Determination 

of the Less Than Fair Value 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 25, 2018, the United 

States Court of International Trade (the 

Court) entered final judgment sustaining 

the final results of the second remand 

redetermination by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the 

antidumping duty (AD) investigation of 

certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic 

products from the People’s Republic of 

China (China). Commerce is notifying 

the public that the final judgment in this 

case is not in harmony with Commerce’s 

final determination in the AD 

investigation of certain crystalline 

silicon photovoltaic products from 

China. 

DATES: Applicable June 4, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli 

Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, 

Enforcement and Compliance— 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1593. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Subsequent to the December 23, 2014, 

publication of the Final Determination 

in the AD investigation of certain 

crystalline silicon photovoltaic products 

from China,1 and the February 18, 2015 

publication of the AD order,2

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (SolarWorld), 

the petitioner, filed a complaint with 

the Court challenging, among other 

things, Commerce’s determination that 

South African import data under 

subheading 8548.10, of the United 

States Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS), constituted the best available 

information for valuing Changzhou 

Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.’s (Trina) 

byproduct offset for scrapped solar 

modules.3

In Jinko Solar I, the Court remanded 

Commerce’s use of South African 

import data under HTS subheading 

8548.10, to value Trina’s byproduct 

offset for scrapped solar modules when 

calculating normal value. The Court 

found that Commerce did not 

adequately explain how its decision was 

reasonable in light of the record as a 

whole.4 Further, the Court found that 

two arguments made before the Court 

constituted post hoc rationalizations 

and directed Commerce to make those 

rationalizations explicit and identify 

supporting evidence for them, if either 

of the rationalizations informed 

Commerce’s decision to rely on HTS 

subheading 8548.10 to value Trina’s 

byproduct offset for scrapped solar 

modules.5

On August 2, 2017, Commerce issued 

its First Remand Results, in which it 

determined that it would continue to 

value Trina’s byproduct offset for 

scrapped solar modules with South 

African import data under HTS 8548.10 

and explained its decision to do so.6

The Court, in Jinko Solar II, held that 

Commerce’s determination remained 

unsupported by substantial evidence 

and that Commerce did not explain how 

its selected surrogate value was a 

representative surrogate value for the 

scrapped modules.7 The Court directed 

Commerce to reconsider or further 

explain its decision to use South 

African import data under HTS 

subheading 8548.10 to value the 

byproduct offset for scrapped solar 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1