49468 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

25See 20 CFR 416.926a. 

26See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. 

27Our adjudicators will apply this ruling when 

we make determinations and decisions on or after 

March 28, 2016. When a Federal court reviews our 

final decision in a claim, we expect the court will 

review the final decision using the rules that were 

in effect at the time we issued the decision under 

review. If a court finds reversible error and remands 

a case for further administrative proceedings after 

March 28, 2016, the applicable date of this ruling, 

we will apply this ruling to the entire period at 

issue in the decision we make after the court’s 

remand. Our regulations on evaluating symptoms 

are unchanged. 

means that the impairment results in 

‘‘marked’’ limitations in two out of six 

domains of functioning or an ‘‘extreme’’ 

limitation in one of the six domains.25

We will evaluate an individual’s 

symptoms at this step when we rate 

how a child’s impairment-related 

symptoms affect his or her ability to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner in each functional domain. If a 

child’s impairment functionally equals a 

listing, we find him or her disabled. If 

a child’s impairment does not 

functionally equal the listings, we find 

him or her not disabled. For a child 

with a title XVI disability claim, the 

sequential evaluation process ends at 

this step. 

If the individual’s impairment does 

not meet or equal a listing, we will 

assess and make a finding about an 

individual’s residual functional capacity 

based on all the relevant medical and 

other evidence in the individual’s case 

record. An individual’s residual 

functional capacity is the most the 

individual can still do despite his or her 

impairment-related limitations. We 

consider the individual’s symptoms 

when determining his or her residual 

functional capacity and the extent to 

which the individual’s impairmentrelated symptoms are consistent with 

the evidence in the record.26

After establishing the residual 

functional capacity, we determine 

whether an individual is able to do any 

past relevant work. At step 4, we 

compare the individual’s residual 

functional capacity with the 

requirements of his or her past relevant 

work. If the individual’s residual 

functional capacity is consistent with 

the demands of any of his or her past 

relevant work, either as the individual 

performed it or as the occupation is 

generally performed in the national 

economy, then we will find the 

individual not disabled. If none of the 

individual’s past relevant work is 

within his or her residual functional 

capacity, we proceed to step 5 of the 

sequential evaluation process. 

At step 5 of the sequential evaluation 

process, we determine whether the 

individual is able to adjust to other 

work that exists in significant numbers 

in the national economy. We consider 

the same residual functional capacity, 

together with the individual’s age, 

education, and past work experience. If 

the individual is able to adjust to other 

work that exists in significant numbers 

in the national economy, we will find 

him or her not disabled. If the 

individual cannot adjust to other work 

that exists in significant numbers in the 

national economy, we find him or her 

disabled. At step 5 of the sequential 

evaluation process, we will not consider 

an individual’s symptoms any further 

because we considered the individual’s 

symptoms when we determined the 

individual’s residual functional 

capacity. 

This SSR is applicable on MARCH 28, 

2016.27

CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 96–8p, 

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual 

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims,’’ 

and Program Operations Manual 

System, section DI 24515.064. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23143 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Delegation of Authority: 439] 

Delegation to the Assistant Secretary 

for Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs of 

Authorities for International Fisheries 

Organizations and Related Issues 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of State, including Section 

1 of the State Department Basic 

Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 

2651a), I hereby delegate to the 

Assistant Secretary for Oceans and 

International Environmental and 

Scientific Affairs the following: 

1. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Convention Act of 1995, 16 

U.S.C. 5603 and 5607(a). 

2. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6902(b), 

(d)(1)(D), 6903, and 6908. 

3. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the North Pacific 

Anadromous Stocks Act of 1992, 16 

U.S.C. 5003(b), 5004(a)(4), 5005, and 

5006(b). 

4. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by section 5 of Public 

Law 100–629, November 7, 1988, 

relating to the North Pacific and Bering 

Sea Fisheries Advisory Body. 

5. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the South Pacific Tuna Act 

of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 973a; 973b, 973f(a) 

and (e); 973g(b) and (g); 973h(a), (b)(1), 

(c)(1), and (c)(2); 973i(a) and (b); 973m; 

973n; 973p; and 973q. 

6. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1821(e)(1) and (2), 1821(g), 1824, 

1825(a), 1825(b)(2), 1825(c), 

1852(c)(1)(D), and 1852(f)(5). 

7. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by section 7 of Public 

Law 95–541, the Antarctic Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 2406). 

8. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by sections 304 and 

305(a), (b), and (c) of Public Law 98– 

623, the Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 

2433 and 2434(a), (b), and (c)). 

9. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971a(b); 

971b(b)(3) and (b)(4)(B); 971c(a); 

971d(a), (c)(4) and (c)(5); and 971g(a). 

10. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Great Lakes 

Fishery Act, 16 U.S.C. 939. 

11. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Atlantic 

Salmon Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 

3602(b), 3603, and 3604(b). 

12. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by of the relevant 

provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3632(b), (g), and 

(h)(8); and 3633(a) and (b). 

13. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Yukon River 

Salmon Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 5721. 

14. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Tuna Conventions Act 

of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 952, 953(a)(2), and 

955. 

15. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by of the relevant 

provisions of the Whaling Convention 

Act of 1949, 16 U.S.C. 916a and 916b. 

16. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Northern Pacific 

Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773a(b), 

773b, and 773c(b)(2). 

17. All functions, with respect to 

oceans and fisheries matters, conferred 

upon the Secretary of State by section 

201 of Public Law 92–471 of October 9, 

1972 (22 U.S.C. 2672a), regarding the 

designation of alternate U.S. 

commissioners. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49469 

18. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Ensuring Access to 

Pacific Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 7702, 

7703, 7708, 7802, 7803, and 7808. 

Notwithstanding this delegation of 

authority, the Secretary, Deputy 

Secretary, and the Under Secretary for 

Economic Growth, Energy, and the 

Environment may at any time exercise 

any authority or function delegated by 

this delegation of authority. 

Any act, executive order, regulation, 

or procedure subject to, or affected by, 

this delegation shall be deemed to be 

such act, executive order, regulation, or 

procedure as amended from time to 

time. 

This delegation of authority shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Rex W. Tillerson, 

Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23043 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–09–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

[Docket Number USTR–2017–0020] 

Request for Comments and Public 

Hearing About the Administration’s 

Action Following a Determination of 

Import Injury With Regard to Certain 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Request for comments and 

notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

has determined that certain crystalline 

silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells 

(whether or not partially or fully 

assembled into other products) are being 

imported into the United States in such 

increased quantities as to be a 

substantial cause of serious injury, or 

the threat thereof, to the domestic 

industry producing an article that is like 

or directly competitive with the 

imported articles. The Commissioners 

who voted in the affirmative are now 

conducting a process to recommend a 

safeguard measure for the President to 

apply. The Office of the United States 

Trade Representative (USTR), on behalf 

of the Trade Policy Staff Committee 

(TPSC), is announcing a process so that, 

once the ITC makes its 

recommendation, domestic producers, 

importers, exporters, and other 

interested parties may submit their 

views and evidence on the 

appropriateness of the recommended 

safeguard measure and whether it 

would be in the public interest. USTR 

also invites interested parties to 

participate in a public hearing regarding 

this matter. 

DATES: 

November 20, 2017 at midnight EST: 

Deadline for submission of written 

comments. 

November 29, 2017 at midnight EST: 

Deadline for submission of written 

responses to the initial round of 

comments. 

December 6, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. EST: 

The TPSC will hold a public hearing in 

Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW., 

Washington DC. 

ADDRESSES: USTR strongly prefers 

electronic submissions made through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments in 

section III below. The docket number is 

USTR–2017–0020. For alternatives to 

on-line submissions, please contact 

Yvonne Jamison, Trade Policy Staff 

Committee at (202) 395–9666. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victor Mroczka, Office of WTO and 

Multilateral Affairs, at Victor_S_

Mroczka@ustr.eop.gov or (202) 395– 

9450, or Dax Terrill, Office of the 

General Counsel, at Dax.Terrill@

ustr.eop.gov or (202) 395–4739. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. The ITC Investigation and Section 

201 

On June 1, 2017, the ITC instituted 

Investigation No. TA–201–75 under 

section 202 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 

2252), as a result of a petition properly 

filed on May 17, 2017, by Suniva, Inc., 

a domestic producer of CSPV cells and 

CSPV modules. The ITC would 

determine if CSPV cells (whether or not 

partially or fully assembled into other 

products) were being imported into the 

United States in such increased 

quantities as to be a substantial cause of 

serious injury, or the threat thereof, to 

the domestic industry producing an 

article that is like or directly 

competitive with the imported articles. 

The ITC notice of institution (82 FR 

25332) identifies the scope of the 

products covered by this investigation. 

On May 25, 2017, another domestic 

producer of CSPV cells, SolarWorld 

Americas, Inc., joined the investigation 

as a petitioner seeking import relief. 

On September 22, 2017, after 

receiving submissions from interested 

parties and holding a public hearing 

that provided an opportunity to present 

opposing views and supporting 

evidence, the ITC determined that the 

increased importation of CSPV cells is 

a substantial cause of serious injury, or 

threat thereof, to the domestic industry. 

You can find the ITC determination and 

additional information about the 

investigation, including the 

administrative record consisting of 

briefs and other submissions, in the 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) on the ITC Web site at 

www.usitc.gov. 

In light of the affirmative finding on 

injury, the ITC held a public hearing on 

October 3, 2017, regarding remedies and 

interested parties had the opportunity to 

file submissions on this issue. On 

November 13, 2017, after the remedy 

hearing and consideration of the 

submissions, the ITC will submit to the 

President a report with its 

recommendation on action(s) to address 

the serious injury, or threat thereof, to 

the domestic industry and to facilitate 

the efforts of the domestic industry to 

make a positive adjustment to import 

competition. 

II. Proposed Measure and Opportunity 

To Comment 

Section 201 of the Trade Act (19 

U.S.C. 2251) authorizes the President, in 

the event of an affirmative 

determination by the ITC, to take all 

appropriate and feasible action within 

his power that he determines will 

facilitate efforts by the domestic 

industry to make a positive adjustment 

to import competition and provide 

greater economic and social benefits 

than costs. The statute provides for the 

President to take action within 60 days 

after receiving the ITC report, subject to 

any decision the President makes to 

request additional information from the 

ITC. In accordance with section 

203(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 

2253(a)(1)(C)), the TPSC will make a 

recommendation to the President. This 

recommendation will take into account 

the ITC recommendation, the extent to 

which the domestic industry will 

benefit from adjustment assistance, the 

efforts of the domestic industry to make 

positive adjustments, and other relevant 

considerations. 

The potential action the President 

may take to provide a remedy in the 

form of a safeguard measure includes: 

• Imposition, or increase, of a duty on 

the imported articles in question. 

• Use of a tariff-rate quota. 

• Modification or imposition of any 

quantitative restriction on the 

importation of the articles into the 

United States. 

• A proposal to negotiate and carry 

out an agreement with foreign countries 

to limit the exportation from foreign 

countries and importation into the 

United States. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES