Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Exclusions Process

• Published date: 14 December 2020
• Citation: 85 FR 81060
• Record Number: 2020-27110
• Section: Rules and Regulations
• Court: Industry And Security Bureau

81060

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 705

[Docket No. 201203–0323]

RIN 0694–AH55

Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff

Exclusions Process

AGENCY

: Bureau of Industry and

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION

: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY

: This interim final rule revises

aspects of the process for requesting

exclusions from the duties and

quantitative limitations on imports of

aluminum and steel discussed in three

previous Department of Commerce

(‘‘Commerce’’) interim final rules

implementing the exclusion process

authorized by the President under

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act

of 1962, as amended (‘‘232’’). These

changes are also informed by a notice of

inquiry with request for comments on

the 232 exclusions process that was

published by Commerce on May 26,

2020. Based on public comments on the

current process for submissions to

Commerce, Commerce is publishing this

interim final rule to make additional

revisions to the 232 exclusion process,

including to the 232 Exclusions Portal.

DATES

:

Effective date: This interim final rule

is effective December 14, 2020, except

for amendatory instructions 3 and 5 that

are effective December 29, 2020.

Comments: Comments on this interim

final rule must be received by BIS no

later than February 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: See

SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION

section for information on

submitting exclusion requests,

objections thereto, rebuttals, and

surrebuttals. You may submit

comments, identified by docket number

BIS–2020–0022 or RIN 0694–AH55,

through the Federal eRulemaking

website: http://www.regulations.gov. No

other submission methods are being

used for submitting comments on this

interim final rule. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

All filers using the portal should use

the name of the person or entity

submitting comments as the name of

their files, in accordance with the

instructions below. Anyone submitting

business confidential information

should clearly identify the business

confidential portion at the time of

submission, file a statement justifying

nondisclosure and referring to the

specific legal authority claimed, and

provide a non-confidential version of

the submission.

For comments submitted

electronically containing business

confidential information, the file name

of the business confidential version

should begin with the characters ‘‘BC.’’

Any page containing business

confidential information must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

on the top of that page. The

corresponding non-confidential version

of those comments must be clearly

marked ‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the

non-confidential version should begin

with the character ‘‘P.’’ The ‘‘BC’’ and

‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of

the person or entity submitting the

comments or rebuttal comments. Any

submissions with file names that do not

begin with a ‘‘BC’’ or ‘‘P’’ will be

assumed to be public and will be made

publicly available through http://

www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

questions regarding this interim final

rule, contact Erika Maynard at 202–482–

5572 or via email Erika.Maynard@

bis.doc.gov, or email Steel232@

bis.doc.gov regarding provisions in this

rule specific to steel exclusion requests

and Aluminum232@bis.doc.gov

regarding provisions in this rule specific

to aluminum exclusion requests.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Background

On March 8, 2018, President Trump

issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705,

imposing duties on imports of

aluminum and steel. The Proclamations

also authorized the Secretary of

Commerce to grant exclusions from the

duties if the Secretary determines the

steel or aluminum article for which the

exclusion is requested is not ‘‘produced

in the United States in a sufficient and

reasonably available amount or of a

satisfactory quality’’ or should be

excluded ‘‘based upon specific national

security considerations,’’ and provided

authority for the Secretary to issue

procedures for exclusion requests. On

April 30, 2018, Proclamations 9739 and

9740, and on May 31, 2018,

Proclamations 9758 and 9759, set

quantitative limitations on the import of

steel and aluminum from certain

countries in lieu of the duties. On

August 29, 2018, in Proclamations 9776

and 9777, President Trump also

authorized the Secretary to grant

exclusions from quantitative limitations

based on the same standards applicable

to exclusions from the tariffs.

Implementing and Improving the 232

Exclusions Process

On March 19, 2018, Commerce first

issued an interim final rule,

Requirements for Submissions

Requesting Exclusions from the

Remedies Instituted in Presidential

Proclamations Adjusting Imports of

Steel into the United States and

Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the

United States; and the filing of

Objections to Submitted Exclusion

Requests for Steel and Aluminum (83

FR 12106) (the ‘‘March 19 rule’’), laying

out procedures for the 232 exclusions

process, including one supplement for

the procedures for steel and a second

supplement for the procedures for

aluminum.

On September 11, 2018, Commerce

issued a second interim final rule,

Submissions of Exclusion Requests and

Objections to Submitted Requests for

Steel and Aluminum (83 FR 46026) (the

‘‘September 11 rule’’), that revised the

two supplements added by the March

19 rule with improvements designed to

ensure a transparent, fair, and efficient

exclusion and objection process.

On June 10, 2019, Commerce issued a

third interim final rule, Implementation

of New Commerce Section 232

Exclusions Portal (84 FR 26751) (the

‘‘June 10 rule’’), that revised the two

supplements added by the March 19

and September 11 rules to grant the

public the ability to submit new

exclusion requests through the 232

Exclusions Portal while still allowing

the opportunity for public comment on

the portal.

On May 26, 2020, Commerce issued a

notice of inquiry with request for

comment, Notice of Inquiry Regarding

the Exclusion Process for Section 232

Steel and Aluminum Import Tariffs and

Quotas (85 FR 31441) (the ‘‘May 26

notice’’), that sought public comment on

the appropriateness of the information

requested and considered in applying

the exclusion criteria, and the efficiency

and transparency of the process

employed.

Why is Commerce publishing this

interim final rule?

Commerce is publishing this interim

final rule to implement additional

changes the Department has determined

will further improve the 232 exclusions

process. Commerce believes these

changes will make important

improvements, but is also requesting

public comments to evaluate how

effective these changes will be in further

improving the 232 exclusions process.

This process is consistent with the

Department’s approach since the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81061

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

beginning of implementing the 232

exclusion process. The public has

supported this approach.

What are some of the key changes

included in this interim final rule?

This interim final rule is being

published at this time, in particular, to

make the following three key changes to

the 232 exclusions process.

First, it addresses the need to create

a more efficient method for approving

exclusions where objections have not

been received in the past for certain

steel or aluminum articles. Commerce

has determined creating general

approved exclusions that may be used

by any importing entity is warranted.

This has been noted by commenters

who submit exclusion requests, and by

trade associations that represent those

companies, as one of the most important

changes that could be made to improve

the efficiency of the 232 exclusion

process. As described in much greater

detail below, this interim final rule

addresses this issue with the adoption

of General Approved Exclusions (GAEs).

This change will result in an estimated

immediate decrease of 5,000 exclusion

requests annually, resulting in a

significant improvement in efficiency,

with the possibility of more in the

future. Unlike exclusion requests, GAEs

do not include quantity limits.

Second, it addresses a trend identified

by commenters and validated in data

reviewed by Commerce—that certain

exclusion requesters may have

requested more volume than they may

have needed for their own business

purposes compared to past usage.

Submitting large numbers of unneeded

exclusion requests decreases the

efficiency of the 232 exclusions process

for potential objectors and Commerce. It

also creates issues for potential

objectors. As described in greater detail

below, this issue is addressed by adding

a new certification requirement for

volumes requested. Along the same

lines, the rule also adds a note to

remind all parties submitting 232

submissions of the prohibition against

making false statements to the U.S.

Government and the consequences that

may occur for such false statements.

Third, the rule addresses an objector

concern they were being held to a

higher standard than foreign suppliers

because of the interpretation that

‘‘immediately’’ meant the objector

needed to be able to provide the steel or

aluminum articles within 8 weeks, even

though a foreign supplier may not be

able to provide the same steel or

aluminum article until much longer

than 8 weeks. With this rule the term

‘‘immediately,’’ is retained but language

has been modified to apply the same

time standard to U.S. objectors and

foreign suppliers for when the steel or

aluminum articles need to be provided

to the exclusion requester.

What changes are not being addressed

in this interim final rule?

While this rule addresses the

remaining comments from the

September 11 rule, it also addresses

some of the comments received on the

232 Exclusions Portal from the June 10

rule. However, comments requesting

changes requiring software modification

or involving additional cost and time to

implement are still under consideration

and not addressed here. Some examples

of comments still under consideration

include the following. There is a

comment to allow confidential business

information (CBI) submissions in the

232 Exclusions Portal which would

require software changes and additional

certifications. Another commenter

requested two separate portals for the

steel and aluminum exclusion

processes. There are also several

comments regarding the usability and

search functionality of the 232

Exclusions Portal including adding a

filter for steel and aluminum on the

main portal page; adding product

classes to the main portal screen with a

filtering function; improving search

functionality by adding a simple ‘‘find

all’’ type of search capability; adding the

capability to be able to download

individual submissions and all data;

making it easier to extract data for

queried databases; adding the ability to

cross search with multiple criteria;

providing an easier way to identify

exclusion requests by HTSUS

classification and other criteria;

including the actual due date for filing

submissions, not just days remaining;

adding a withdraw feature to the

dashboard; adding a notification feature

when objections are posted; and adding

the ability to refresh without resetting

the filters. Commerce is continuing to

evaluate these comments and may

implement additional changes to further

improve the 232 Exclusions Portal at a

later date.

This interim final rule does not

summarize or respond to the comments

included in the May 26 notice.

Commerce will address these comments

in the next rule. However, as noted

below, there is significant overlap in the

comments received on the September 11

and June 10 rules, so some of the

comments received on the May 26

notice are also being addressed in this

interim final rule. For example, the

three key changes to the 232 exclusions

process described above being made in

this interim final rule will also be

responsive to comments received on the

May 26 notice.

The following are some examples of

comments from the May 26 notice that

are still being reviewed. Additional

changes to the 232 Exclusions Portal

were requested by some commenters

based on their additional experience,

e.g., the portal being programmed to flag

for special attention those exclusion

requests that have been waiting a certain

number of days/months for a

determination. Some comments

addressed the role of objections in the

232 exclusions process and whether

objections have an outsized influence

on the process, in particular on how

long the Commerce decision-making

process takes and whether an exclusion

will be granted. Some comments

requested creating a process to give

preferential treatment for products

further manufactured or substantially

transformed in the United States,

because such producers are an essential

part of the U.S. steel and aluminum

industry. Other commenters requested a

60-day window for submitting exclusion

requests on a bi-annual basis and only

product exclusion requests submitted

during these bi-annual periods would be

considered.

Additional Improvements to the 232

Exclusions Process

As noted above, the interim final rule

being published today addresses the

remaining comments from the

September 11 rule and highlights what

comments have been addressed from the

June 10 rule. There is some significant

overlap among those comments and

comments received in response to the

May 26 notice, so the revisions to the

232 exclusions process described below

will also be responsive to some of the

same comments received in response to

the May 26 notice. Commerce intends to

publish at least one subsequent interim

final rule that will describe the

unaddressed comments received on the

May 26 notice and any additional

revisions Commerce will make to the

232 exclusions process as a result of

those comments. The comments on the

May 26 notice also included various

comments on the 232 Exclusions Portal,

certain of which are addressed below.

Other comments will be summarized

and addressed with the remaining

comments on the June 10 rule that are

not included in today’s rule. Because of

the programming cost and time involved

with making changes to the 232

Exclusions Portal, Commerce requires

more time to review and respond to

those comments, in particular for

comments where Commerce agrees that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81062

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

changes to the 232 Exclusions Portal

may be warranted.

Commerce is focused on improving

the 232 exclusions process as quickly as

possible. As additional revisions are

ready to be made, such as those being

made in this rule, Commerce will

publish those changes as quickly as

possible to improve the 232 exclusions

process. This approach of publishing a

series of interim final rules has allowed

Commerce to improve the 232

exclusions process on an ongoing basis,

allowing the public to submit additional

comments on whether the most recently

made changes have helped to improve

the process.

This rule makes various edits to

supplement no. 1 to part 705 to improve

the 232 exclusions process. This rule

also removes the provisions from

supplement no. 2 to part 705 and

consolidates those into supplement no.

1. This rule also adds new supplements

no. 2 and no. 3 for identifying General

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) for steel

and aluminum articles under the 232

exclusions process and the first

approved tranches of GAEs for steel and

aluminum articles. GAEs address a long-

standing request from public comments

of exclusion requesters to create a more

efficient process to approve certain

exclusions for use by all importers

where Commerce has determined that

no objections will be received and

where it is warranted to approve an

exclusion for all importers to use. This

rule also removes Annex 1 to

supplements no. 1 and 2, since this

guidance is no longer needed with this

rule’s removal of references to

www.regulations.gov from the 232

exclusions process. Finally, this rule

makes some non-substantive edits to

supplement no. 1 to part 705 to improve

readability of the supplement.

Public Comments and BIS Responses

The public comment period on the

May 26 notice closed on July 10, 2020.

BIS received eighty-two public

comments on the notice of inquiry.

Many commenters referenced the

imposition of duties and quantitative

limitations, questioning whether or not

such regulations were beneficial. Those

comments are outside the scope of the

May 26 notice that solicited comments

on the 232 exclusions process; thus

Commerce is generally not summarizing

or providing responses to those general

comments on the duties and

quantitative limitations. Certain

comments described and addressed

below are those received in response to

the September 11 and June 10 rules.

However, some of the comments in

responses below address issues that also

were raised in some of the comments

received in response to the May 26

notice. As a result, the responses below

are responsive in part to comments on

the May 26 notice, and also are

responsive to comments on the

September 11 and June 10 rules.

Improving Tracking and Transparency

Comment (a)(1): Develop an adequate

tracking system that supplies relevant

information (more than is available

now) for 232 submissions. Commenters

requested that Commerce provide

stakeholders a way to more easily

review the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS) code and

product information, country of origin,

volume, and alloys of posted

exclusions—preferably, in a searchable

database. Commenters indicated that

having to open each file to identify this

information places a burden on

potential objectors, which the

commenters suggested could be

addressed with a searchable database.

BIS response: Commerce has made

changes to allow for easier tracking and

searching of information in the 232

Exclusions Portal, as described in

greater detail below for the

improvements that have been made to

the 232 Exclusions Portal (see BIS

response to Comment (g)(2) below).

Comment (a)(2): Exclusion rejection

for incomplete submissions should be

more transparent. A commenter noted

that, while they do not expect

Commerce to customize each individual

response, the commenter believes that

additional steps can be taken to help

U.S. businesses understand the reason

for a rejection. This commenter

requested that Commerce should

include on the rejection form that is

posted online a list of common reasons

for rejection. The commenter believes

this would provide invaluable guidance

to the countless small businesses

attempting to navigate this difficult

process. This commenter believes the

current rejection form leaves

manufacturers guessing as to why the

government rejected their applications,

especially when that business for years

used the identical HTSUS code

accepted by U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) to import that product.

BIS response: Commerce agrees that

greater transparency benefits all

applicants to the 232 exclusions

process. Commerce moved its HTSUS

administrability review to the start of

the process in early 2019, reducing

sharply the number of exclusion denials

due to incomplete submissions

identified later in the review process.

Incomplete submissions now receive a

rejection notification that includes the

specific reasons for a rejection.

Commerce does plan to update the

rejection form used in the 232

Exclusions Portal to include a list of

common reasons for rejection.

Commerce agrees that providing this

additional information will make the

process more efficient, because those

receiving rejections will more easily

understand what was wrong with their

exclusion request that resulted in a

rejection. This may reduce the overall

number of 232 exclusion submissions

submitted.

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

Comment (b)(1): Supportive of the

new CBI provisions. A commenter

asserted that one of the most significant

changes is the BIS decision to allow

companies to submit CBI during the

rebuttal and surrebuttal process. This

same commenter also believes that

further changes can improve the process

beyond what BIS has already proposed.

BIS response: Commerce agrees that

adding the CBI process has helped to

improve the 232 exclusions process. As

described below, Commerce is open to

improving the CBI process, but that

must be done in accordance with the

larger purpose of allowing CBI in the

232 exclusion process, as well as the

current technical limitations in the 232

Exclusions Portal.

Comment (b)(2): Allow CBI to also be

submitted for exclusions and objections.

Commenters urged Commerce to expand

the CBI provision by allowing

companies to submit CBI within their

original exclusion request. These

commenters asserted that, given the

amount of detail required to complete

the exclusion request form, companies

may be hesitant to submit exclusion

requests for fear of sharing CBI with

their competitors.

BIS response: Commerce does not

agree. The information required on the

exclusion request form does not require

revealing CBI in order to adequately

complete the form, so allowing CBI in

support of the initial exclusion request

is not needed. Moreover, exclusion

requesters can indicate they have CBI,

allowing Commerce reviewers to request

that CBI if needed for their review of the

request and objections.

Comment (b)(3): Allowing CBI in

exclusions and objections would

alleviate some concerns over short

seven-day rebuttal and surrebuttal

periods. One commenter asserted that,

given the short seven-day window of the

rebuttal process, allowing companies to

submit CBI at the time of the application

would relieve the unnecessary burdens

placed on filers by the short rebuttal

window.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81063

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

BIS response: Commerce

acknowledges the shortness of the

seven-day rebuttal and surrebuttal

period, but does not agree with the

commenter that allowing CBI in the

exclusion request or in objections would

alleviate the burden on exclusion

requesters or objectors during the

rebuttal and surrebuttal period. The

most appropriate time in the 232

exclusion review process for CBI is

during the rebuttal and surrebuttal

phase when information that goes

beyond what is included in the

exclusion and objection forms may be

needed to properly evaluate an

exclusion request. Allowing CBI in

exclusion requests and objections would

slow the Commerce review process

without adding any real benefit to the

review process. As noted above,

exclusion requesters and objectors can

indicate they have CBI and Commerce

reviewers can request that information if

needed for review.

Comment (b)(4): Process to submit CBI

needs to be further clarified. A

commenter believes the current CBI

process is confusing because parties

must submit the exclusion request form

with a vague, yet somewhat detailed

summary of the CBI and then

supplement the form by sending a

separate email to BIS with the actual

confidential information. This same

commenter was also concerned that

parties risk the possibility that

Commerce will reject their exclusion

request for being an incomplete

submission before Commerce has even

received their confidential information.

BIS response: Commerce understands

the point being made by the commenter

but does not agree that this requirement

is unreasonable. Because the 232

Exclusion Process is a public process,

there needs to be transparency to allow

the other public parties involved in the

process (objector(s) and exclusion

requesters) to have an idea of the scope

and type of CBI information that is

being provided to supplement a rebuttal

or a surrebuttal.

Comment (b)(5): Section 301

exclusion request process uses a clear

and simple method by which parties

can submit CBI—Commerce should

adopt same process to allow submission

of public and private version. A

commenter encouraged Commerce to

implement a method similar to that of

the Section 301 exclusion process for

the Section 232 exclusion request

process, allowing parties to submit both

public and confidential versions of the

exclusion request form.

BIS response: Commerce sees the

benefit of adopting the same type of

approach as used under the Section 301

process. However, the security needed

to protect such information in the 232

Exclusions Portal would require

additional programming and

certifications. Therefore, at the current

time Commerce will not be making

these changes. If the 232 Exclusions

Portal can accommodate CBI at a future

date, Commerce will revisit this issue.

Exclusion Requests

Comment (c)(1): Standard Commerce

applies to exclusion requests remains

unclear—need to specify whether in

aggregate or for a specific requester. A

commenter was concerned that it is

unclear whether a specific requester’s

lack of availability and quality of

material is the relevant consideration, or

whether analysis of material quantities

in the aggregate U.S. market provides a

better metric. The commenter believes

the proper standard should be the

availability of material to the requesting

company in the needed quality and

quantity because this is largely in the

control of the objecting supplier.

BIS response: Commerce confirms

here that exclusion requests are being

reviewed based on the availability of

material to the requesting company in

the needed quality and quantity by U.S.

suppliers. This rule clarifies that the

standard applied to the review of an

exclusion request is a case-by-case

review to determine whether the

requester has shown that the article is

not produced in the United States in a

sufficiently and reasonably available

amount or of a satisfactory quality, or

that there are specific national security

considerations to grant the exclusion. In

general, if no U.S. supplier submits an

objection, absent a national security

concern, Commerce approves such

exclusion requests because a

determination can be made that a U.S.

supplier is not available to supply to the

exclusion requester the needed quality

and quantity of steel or aluminum

described in the exclusion request.

Comment (c)(2): Inconsistencies in the

posted exclusion requests make it

difficult for objectors to adequately

review and respond. Commenters in this

area are concerned whether exclusion

requesters are consistently filling out

the forms, and whether Commerce is

adequately ensuring that the exclusion

forms being posted meet the required

standards of the form. For example, one

commenter noted that hundreds of

exclusion requests include no alloy

designation (Question 4.b), but instead

reference the HTSUS code or simply

leave that field blank. This commenter

asserted that an alloy designation is an

important identifier for assessing the

validity of an exclusion request, so its

omission in many exclusion requests

makes it difficult for potential objectors.

Another commenter noted that many

exclusion requests—including those

that have already been approved—fail to

indicate a volume associated with the

included countries of origin.

BIS response: Commerce

acknowledges that, in certain cases,

there has been some variability in how

exclusion requesters or objectors have

filled out the respective forms.

Commerce has revised its standard

operating procedures (SOPs) and

conducted training for those reviewing

232 submissions at Commerce to

emphasize the importance of ensuring

that the exclusion and objection forms

are being completed in accordance with

the information required on the forms.

As a result of this comment, Commerce

has highlighted these issues to the

Commerce reviewers of the 232

submissions to ensure consistency and

warns that submissions that do not meet

the standards of the information

required on the forms will be rejected.

Comment (c)(3): ‘‘Size ranges’’

clarification was helpful in the

September 11 rule, but additional

clarification needed. A commenter

noted that the September 11 rule offers

some additional information on

acceptable ranges but could be

improved. The BIS response to

Comment (g)(3) in the September 11

rule states that the exclusion request

form allows for a product that may be

within a specific range but not for

products across a wide range. A

permissible range must be within the

minimum and maximum range that is

specified in the tariff provision and

applicable legal notes for the provision.

This commenter believes that this

suggests that products identical in all

aspects, with the exception of a

dimensional characteristic, and

classified within the same HTSUS

statistical reporting number, could be

included within a single request.

However, the commenter was concerned

that the regulatory text under paragraph

(c)(2) suggests that separate exclusion

requests must be submitted for steel

products with ‘‘distinct critical

dimensions’’ covered by a common

HTSUS statistical reporting number,

and examples provided in the rule are

for specific sizes of products, which

does not appear inconsistent with

Comment (g)(3) from the September 11

rule.

BIS response: Commerce agrees a

clarification to paragraph (c)(2) is

warranted. This interim final rule, as

described below in the regulatory

changes, removes the word ‘‘distinct’’

before ‘‘critical’’ in the example

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81064

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

provided under paragraph (c)(2). This

change is made to avoid any potential

confusion on the scope of ranges that

are permissible under an exclusion

request. Commerce clarifies that

products identical in all aspects, with

the exception of a dimensional

characteristic, and that are classified

within the same HTSUS statistical

reporting number, may be included

within a single request. However,

objections that indicate the ability to

produce one or more products within

the range, even if not the entire range,

will be considered to be valid objections

to an exclusion request.

Comment (c)(4): Concerned that

Commerce is not adequately reviewing

exclusion requests. A commenter

requested that Commerce fully evaluate

all exclusion requests—including those

for which no objections are filed—to

ensure that the volumes requested are

proportional to the U.S. market. This

commenter was concerned that,

generally, it seems Commerce is not

evaluating whether there is actually

demand in the market for these large

volumes, and has granted requests based

simply on the absence of any objections.

BIS response: Commerce recognizes

that there are exclusion requests for

volumes that exceed prior years’

consumption but that often receive no

objections. Commerce also recognizes

that there are objections that, in total,

exceed the objectors’ total capacity.

Commerce is reviewing this issue to

determine whether there is an approach

to factor volumes requested and

objected to in an objective, transparent,

and efficient way. As an initial step to

address this issue, this interim final rule

makes regulatory changes to the 232

exclusions process, as described below

under the 232 exclusion request volume

certification heading to require a

certification from exclusion requesters

for volume requested and, when

applicable, a certification for volume

requested but unfulfilled due to

legitimate circumstances when

submitting exclusion requests in the 232

Exclusions Portal.

Comment (c)(5): Does not believe

Commerce has implemented an

expedited approval process for

exclusions that receive no objections—

contrary to what was stated in the

September 11 rule and in statements by

Commerce in other venues that

Commerce would adopt such an

expedited process. One commenter

noted that Commerce does not yet

appear to be adjudicating requests faster

as a result of the updated exclusion

process with some exclusion requests.

BIS response: Commerce believes this

comment was likely made as Commerce

was working to address the initial

backlog of exclusion requests that did

receive objections and does not reflect

the current status. At this time, the

expedited review process for exclusions

that do not receive objections is

functioning well, with an average

response time, as of July 20, 2020, of

approximately 60 days, less than half

the average processing time for

exclusions that receive objections and a

significant decrease in overall response

times compared to earlier in the process.

Comment (c)(6): Product descriptions

in exclusion requests and approval

decisions need to be more specific to

ensure CBP can determine what is

approved. A commenter noted that

Commerce has granted a number of

exclusion requests where the ‘‘product

description’’ on both the request and

Commerce’s decision document is only

the name for a general category of

products and any detail regarding the

size, chemistry, and other

characteristics that may indicate that

particular product at issue is not

available from domestic sources are not

carried over from the application. This

commenter noted that greater specificity

was needed in the approved exclusions.

BIS response: Commerce works

closely with CBP. Additional

information is provided to CBP to

ensure that CBP is able to effectively

implement approved exclusions. CBP

consults as needed with Commerce if

any questions arise regarding the scope

of a specific approved exclusion

request.

Comment (c)(7): Need to specify when

the validity of an approved exclusion

request begins. A commenter noted that

there has been a number of exclusions

granted where shipments were entered

after the posting of the request but

before the decision. The commenter

asked for clarification if the one-year

timeframe begins once the decision is

made or if some other point is used to

start the one-year timeframe.

BIS response: Commerce clarifies that,

as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(A)

(Effective date for approved exclusions),

an approved exclusion will be effective

five business days after publication of

the Commerce response granting an

exclusion in the 232 Exclusions Portal.

If granted, exclusions are generally

effective for one year from the date of

signature on the Decision Memo.

Companies may also file Post-Summary

Corrections with CBP on unliquidated

entries to recoup any tariffs paid on

products that made entry between the

submission date and the date of

signature. Companies are able to receive

retroactive relief on granted requests

dating back to the date of the request’s

submission on unliquidated entries.

However, requesters should note that

where retroactive relief is granted, the

quantities granted retroactive relief are

still counted against the total quantity

granted in the exclusion. The exclusion

request expires when either the quantity

granted has been exhausted or the

exclusion reaches the end of the

effective period specified in the

decision memo (generally one year from

the date of the decision), whichever

comes first, and no pro-rata additional

quantity is provided for retroactive

relief. Given that duties do not apply for

countries with quotas, retroactive relief

is not applicable for exclusions from

quotas.

Once the exclusion becomes effective,

the steel or aluminum articles specified

in the approved decision memo in

entries that have not been liquidated by

CBP are those eligible for tariff refunds

or tariff exclusions.

Comment (c)(8): Product exclusions

should be permanent not temporary

(and on a universal basis). A commenter

noted that temporary exclusions inject

significant uncertainty into the business

planning of companies and therefore

recommended permanent exclusions.

BIS response: Commerce does not

agree that all product exclusions should

be permanent and issued on a universal

basis because that would defeat the

purpose of the duties. Commerce does

agree that for certain steel and

aluminum articles, a more efficient

approval mechanism is warranted and

that the approval should be universal.

Specifically, for certain steel and

aluminum articles, Commerce has

created General Approved Exclusions

(GAEs) under the new supplements no.

2 and 3 to part 705 being added to this

rule, which will be available to all

importers.

Comment (c)(9): Create streamlined

process to allow one company seeking

an exclusion for the same product

already approved to a second company

to quickly obtain an approved

exclusion. A commenter requested that

Commerce provide a streamlined

process whereby a second company

seeking to use an exclusion already

granted to a U.S. company can quickly

obtain the right to use the same product

exclusion.

BIS response: Commerce does not

agree. The exclusion process is intended

to be specific to each requester and each

request must be reviewed on its own

merits, allowing for potential objections

and permitting rebuttal and surrebuttal

process to play out as needed. As

referenced in the previous comment, the

GAEs are also responsive to some of

what this commenter is requesting in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81065

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

terms of creating a more efficient

approval process where Commerce

determines that relief is warranted in a

particular circumstance for all

importers.

Comment (c)(10): Commerce should

use its discretion to make exclusions

available to all importers. A commenter

requested that if a product is not made

in the United States or is not made in

sufficient quantity or quality, Commerce

must grant a broader product exclusion

(not just on a company-by-company,

product-by-product basis). Another

commenter noted that the Secretary and

others at Commerce have repeatedly

denied associations the ability to submit

exclusion requests on behalf of their

industries for widely used goods,

because Commerce sought to identify

those products receiving the most

requests. However, the Secretary has yet

to exercise this authority to grant

general exclusions despite the same

HTSUS codes receiving multiple

requests.

BIS response: As noted above, in this

rule, Commerce is creating GAEs with

the additions of supplement no. 2 and

3 to part 705. The creation of GAEs

addresses this comment and will create

a more efficient 232 exclusion process

and reduce the burdens on exclusion

requesters.

Comment (c)(11): Explain

circumstances under which BIS will

approve broader product exclusions and

how U.S. companies may request such

an exclusion. A commenter noted that

Commerce continues to state that it is

considering approving broader

exclusion requests, which can apply to

multiple importers. However, no

additional guidance has been provided

as to how groups of companies can ask

for such a broader exclusion.

BIS response: This rule explains the

circumstances when Commerce will

approve broader product exclusions.

These provisions are described in the

new supplements no. 2 and 3 to part

705 with the addition of GAEs. The

introductory text of the new

supplements explain the process of how

Commerce will approve these GAEs. As

previously noted, these determinations

for what steel or aluminum articles

warrant being included in a GAE will be

made by Commerce, in consultation

with the other agencies referenced in

the new supplements. The public will

not be involved in requesting new or

revised GAEs, but Commerce will use

the information provided in exclusion

requests to inform its review process for

what additional GAE should be added

or what revisions should be made to

existing GAEs.

Comment (c)(12): Process for making

changes to an approved exclusion

request. A commenter requested

guidance be provided for how to make

a correction to an application for

exclusion after the exclusion has been

approved.

BIS response: This is a feature under

consideration, but until that revision

can be implemented, a new exclusion

request will need to be submitted in the

event of such circumstances. Commerce

does clarify that BIS will make, when

warranted in the 232 Exclusions Portal,

technical corrections and a few other

forms of ‘‘non-substantive changes’’

including: Importer of record (IOR)

changes; supplier/manufacturer

changes; corrections to match product

descriptions with product

specifications; and corrections to

organization information (i.e.,

accidental transposition of fields).

Objections

Comment (d)(1): Concerned that

Commerce has too much leeway to

interpret the criteria ‘‘not produced in

the United States in a sufficient and

reasonably available amount’’ and ‘‘not

produced in the United States in a

satisfactory quality.’’ A commenter was

concerned that this broad interpretation

by Commerce could lead to the negation

of exclusion requests in situations

where one company files an objection

that claims that it in theory could make

that product in sufficient quantity or

quality. The commenter noted that

rebuttals to these claims are difficult to

make without more detailed information

from objectors on how they could make

products in sufficient quantity or

quality.

BIS response: The criteria comes from

the underlying Proclamations that

authorize the creation of the 232

exclusions process. Therefore,

Commerce does not have the discretion

to change the criteria. Commerce added

the rebuttal process, as well as the

surrebuttal process, to allow requesters

and objectors to further address the

representations made in objections and

rebuttals. Ultimately, if an exclusion

request is not approved because of an

objection, the exclusion requester will

be able to determine definitively

whether an objector is in fact able to

provide the steel or aluminum article in

question by attempting to obtain the

product from the objector. Should all

objectors be unable to produce a

requested product as they represented

in their objections, the requester may

submit a new request with

documentation evidencing this refusal.

Commerce understands that time is vital

to an exclusion requester and seeks to

ensure that objectors provide sufficient

information for a thorough evaluation of

the request and objection. Moreover,

objectors must certify their ability to

manufacture the products described

within their objections.

Comment (d)(2): Objections should be

reviewed cumulatively. A commenter is

concerned that Commerce is not

considering the cumulative impact of

objections to exclusions. This

commenter noted that U.S. producers

that are filing objections to exclusion

requests are routinely stating that the

objector can and would fill the demand

for the subject product. This commenter

noted that while it may be true that the

objector could reasonably expect to fill

the needs of an individual company

making an exclusion request, it is

possible (or likely) that the objector

could not fill the full demand for that

product from all companies requesting

an exclusion let alone all of the demand

from other customers in the U.S.

BIS response: Commerce is aware of

this concern and has evaluated statistics

on the 232 exclusions process,

determining that, although there may be

some anecdotal examples of where this

occurred, as a general trend, the

statistics do not support that this is a

significant issue with objections in the

232 exclusions process. In the past year,

BIS has received objections to exclusion

requests for approximately 19 million

metric tons of steel products, or roughly

16% of total U.S. steel production

capacity. None of the companies with

publicly available capacity figures

objected to more than their total

capacity. When factoring in that

multiple companies often object to the

same exclusion request, volume

objected to as a percentage of total

capacity was significantly lower.

Exclusion requesters are encouraged to

provide documentation in their requests

or rebuttal filings that objectors are

unable to supply the products being

requested because of insufficient

capacity.

Comment (d)(3): Exclusion process

guidelines are unclear about the

obligations that come with filing an

objection. A commenter asked for

clarification from Commerce about

whether producers should be submitting

objections if they have the capability to

make a product, but not the immediate

capacity, or if they can only produce a

fraction of the requested volume for a

specific manufacturer. For example, the

commenter noted that aluminum

producers have expressed a concern that

filing an objection will obligate that

producer to offer for sale the full scope

and volume of imports included in a

request—which, if importers are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81066

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

requesting massive volumes, might be

impossible.

BIS response: Commerce agrees this

should be clarified in the regulations

and makes changes to paragraph

(c)(6)(i), as described below, to address

this issue. Commerce has the ability to

deny a part of an exclusion request

when an objector demonstrates

sufficiently in the objection and any

potential surrebuttal that they are able

to produce a portion of the requested

quantity of a steel or aluminum article

within the required time needed by the

importer. Therefore, objectors should

not be deterred from submitting

objections when they may not be able to

fulfill 100% of the requested exclusion.

Over time, as more of their domestic

capacity comes back online or is added,

these same objectors may be able to

fulfill larger percentages of the

exclusion requests, which would help to

better achieve the stated purposes of the

duties in helping to support the

domestic production capabilities and

capacity that are critical to protecting

U.S. national security. Commerce is

reviewing this issue to determine

whether there is an objective,

transparent, and efficient approach to

take into consideration volumes

requested and objected to under the 232

exclusions process.

Comment (d)(4): Modify the objection

form (and the rebuttal and surrebuttal

form) to clarify whether companies can

object on the ostensible grounds that

they have the capability to make a

product. A commenter requested

guidance on how Commerce will

consider objections from producers that

have the capability to make a product

but do not have immediately available

capacity to meet the importer’s stated

needs.

BIS response: Commerce does not

agree that the objection form, or the

rebuttal or surrebuttal form need to be

updated to address this commenter’s

concern. The information required on

rebuttal and surrebuttal forms, as well

as the objection criteria specified in

paragraph (d), provides a clear standard

that Commerce may apply. After

reviewing an objection, rebutters may

also inform the Commerce review

process by evaluating and commenting

on whether an objector will be able to

provide the needed steel or aluminum

article in the quantity and quality and

to make that ‘‘immediately available’’

from an exclusion requester’s

perspective. As described below, this

rule makes additional changes for what

constitutes being ‘‘immediately

available,’’ and these changes will

further clarify the application of this

criteria to make sure that U.S. producers

are being held to the same standard as

potential foreign competitors in meeting

the time required for delivery of the

steel or aluminum article for which they

are requesting an exclusion.

Comment (d)(5): Objecting parties

should be required to fill orders. A

commenter noted that this would

prevent the objection process from

becoming a lever for business

competition with domestic parties

objecting to an exclusion request and

then refusing to fill orders or only filling

orders at inflated prices. This

commenter also asked that companies

that were denied an exclusion requested

on the basis of an objection be permitted

to show evidence of an inability to

secure material and gain an exception if

the objecting party cannot fill orders.

BIS response: Commerce understands

the reasoning behind this comment but

is also mindful that it is not the role of

Commerce to dictate whether an

objector must sell the steel or aluminum

article, or whether the exclusion

requester must purchase the steel or

aluminum article from the objector. For

example, as the commenter noted, the

objector may be able to provide the steel

or aluminum but at a price that is not

tenable for the exclusion requester or at

a price that does not justify the

exclusion requester switching suppliers

of the steel or aluminum article.

Commerce believes that these types of

business decisions should be left to the

two companies involved so as to not

unduly influence the functioning of the

market. As for the request to allow an

exclusion requester to subsequently

reference in a new exclusion request

that an objector was not able to provide

the steel or aluminum in a previous

exclusion request, the current process

already addresses that sufficiently. First,

the exclusion requester may submit a

new exclusion request. The earlier

objector may choose not to object to the

new exclusion request based on their

past experience of not being able to

provide the steel or aluminum article.

Assuming no other objector comes

forward, the exclusion request will be

reviewed under the expedited process.

If the same objector objects to the new

exclusion request, the rebuttal process

allows the exclusion requester to

document in the rebuttal the past

activity with that objector.

Comment (d)(6): Objections should

also be rejected for incompleteness. If

Commerce is rejecting requests based on

incompleteness, we believe it should

extend the same scrutiny to objections.

BIS response: Commerce agrees and

does reject objections for

incompleteness when warranted. BIS

does review objections (and rebuttals/

surrebuttals) for completeness, but a

rejection is rare for these filings in the

232 Exclusions Portal. The Portal has

mandatory fields that ensure most

filings are complete. However, there is

a different standard of what is necessary

for a complete submission of an

exclusion request versus an objection.

The former generally must meet more

specific review criteria. At this time,

objectors may list capacity, utilization,

manufacturing, or delivery time data as

CBI on the objection form. Commerce’s

International Trade Administration

(ITA), on behalf of BIS and Commerce,

will then request this information if

needed.

Comment (d)(7): Delivery times are

getting much longer because of the

tariffs and U.S. producers are

approaching maximum capacity

utilization rates. A commenter noted

that prior to the imposition of tariffs for

non-specialty metals, many steel users

reported roughly six-week to eight-week

lead times. Since the steel tariffs took

effect, those same members report the

doubling of delivery times, creating

significant delays and interruptions in

the manufacturing supply chain that

could lead Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs) to source their

inputs from non-U.S. sources that

experience less volatility due to

government interference.

BIS response: To the extent there has

been an increase in delivery times

related to the tariffs, importers seeking

exclusions can always import the article

and pay the tariffs while their exclusion

requests are pending. In addition, an

objector must have the article

‘‘immediately available’’ in the needed

quantity and quality. As referenced

below in the clarifications being made

to ‘‘immediately available,’’ the

previous criteria were holding U.S.

producers in many cases to shorter

delivery times than foreign competitors,

a discrepancy that is being addressed in

this rule. Commerce believes that the

‘‘immediately available’’ criterion,

which is being refined in this rule,

provides a reasonable standard that

should not result in a lengthening of the

time period for delivery of steel and

aluminum articles for U.S. users.

Comment (d)(8): Producers should be

held accountable. A commenter

requested that Commerce hold

organizations that file objections to the

highest of standards. Commerce should

require specificity before considering

the objection and should question and

verify the assertions made by the

objectors or claims made in surrebuttals.

BIS response: Commerce agrees that

all parties, both objectors and

requesters, should be held to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81067

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

standards set forth in the regulations.

Accordingly, parties making

submissions to Commerce with regard

to an exclusion request are required to

legally certify the veracity of the

submission. These standards are

specified on the objection and

surrebuttal forms, in the criteria

specified in paragraphs (d) and (g), on

the exclusion request and rebuttal

forms, and in the criteria specified in

paragraphs (c) and (f) of supplement no.

1 to part 705.

Comment (d)(9): U.S. steel producers

are approaching maximum capacity

utilization rates. A commenter noted

that one objector reported its facility is

currently operating at an 89% capacity

utilization rate, well above the 80%

target set by Commerce and at levels not

seen since prior to the Great Recession.

This commenter also noted that the

American Iron and Steel Institute

reported that for the week ending

November 10, 2018, domestic raw steel

production saw a capacity utilization

rate of 81.7%, also above the 80%

threshold.

BIS response: As stated in the 232

report, the 80 percent figure is an

‘‘average’’ rate for financial viability of

the industry which is ‘‘necessary to

sustain adequate profitability and

continued capital investment, research,

and development, and workforce

enhancement in the steel sector.’’ The

U.S. steel industry’s capacity utilization

rates have not been sustained. That said,

making changes to the duties being

imposed and/or quotas implemented are

outside the scope of this rule.

Criteria Defining What Is Meant by

Available ‘‘immediately’’

Comment (e)(1): September 11 rule

defining what was meant by available

‘‘immediately’’ was a positive step that

improved the 232 process. A commenter

noted that setting a clear definition of

‘‘available immediately’’ at eight weeks

is a reasonable timeline and helps

provide stability to steel and

aluminum-using manufacturers.

BIS response: Commerce agrees that

providing a definition of ‘‘immediately

available’’ was a positive step in

providing greater transparency and

consistency for the 232 exclusion

process. However, defining

‘‘immediately available’’ as eight weeks

meant that, in certain cases, U.S.

producers could be held to a shorter

delivery time than foreign competitors

and was more restrictive than the

timeframe needed by the importer for

their business needs. As described

below, to address this fairness issue and

to create equal treatment, this interim

final rule revises the criteria for

available ‘‘immediately’’ and specifies

that if an objector is asserting that it is

not currently producing the steel or

aluminum identified in an exclusion

request but can produce the steel or

aluminum, the objector must be able to

make it available in accordance with the

commercial needs of the U.S. user of the

steel or aluminum, as described in the

exclusion request. Under this revised

criteria in paragraph (d)(4), the objector

must identify how it will be able to

produce and deliver the quantity of steel

or aluminum needed either within eight

weeks, or if after eight weeks, by a date

which is earlier than the date that a

named foreign supplier can deliver the

entire quantity of the requested product.

It is incumbent on both the exclusion

requester and the objecting producers to

provide supplemental evidence

supporting their claimed delivery times.

Comment (e)(2): Objections that do

not clearly meet the ‘‘immediately’’

standard should be rejected. A

commenter noted that objections to

exclusion requests available on the 232

Exclusions Portal reveal numerous

vague assertions that clearly do not meet

the available ‘‘immediately’’ threshold

set forth by Commerce. This commenter

recommends that Commerce reject these

objections outright.

BIS response: Commerce holds

objectors to the standard specified in the

regulations under paragraph (d) and

requires objectors to complete the

objection form, and the surrebuttal form

as applicable, fully and accurately. If an

objector is not able to meet the available

‘‘immediately’’ criteria, Commerce will

not deny such an exclusion request.

Requesters can provide additional

information on the rebuttal form. In

reviewing the exclusion request to make

a final determination, Commerce takes

into account information provided in

the rebuttal to evaluate whether the

objector can produce the article in

sufficient quantity and quality, and

within the time specified in the criteria

in paragraph (d) of supplement no. 1 to

part 705.

Comment (e)(3): Defining eight weeks

as ‘‘immediate delivery’’ is unrealistic

and it would be better to make the

standard based on the nature of the

product. A commenter noted that it is

unrealistic to require domestic

producers to supply a requested product

in the volume requested within eight

weeks as a prerequisite to filing a valid

objection and that this requirement

appears to reflect a misunderstanding of

how both the steel industry and

international shipping work. This

commenter also noted that in

determining that eight weeks is the

appropriate timeframe, Commerce

regrettably rejected a suggestion that the

time frame should depend on the nature

of the product—with simpler products

subject to a shorter timeframe than more

sophisticated products—and in any

case, should be no shorter than 12 to 16

weeks.

BIS response: As described above,

Commerce agrees that clarification is

warranted for use of eight weeks under

the available ‘‘immediately’’ criteria.

The changes this rule makes will also be

responsive to this commenter’s

concerns.

Comment (e)(4): Allowing foreign

suppliers one year to supply the steel or

aluminum for approved exclusions, but

only allowing eight weeks for domestic

suppliers creates an unfair playing field.

A commenter noted that granted

exclusions are valid for one year and

will presumably be supplied by foreign

producers over the course of that year,

not all at once. This commenter noted

that requiring a U.S. producer to supply

the consumer within eight weeks makes

little sense and runs counter to the

rationale underlying the adjustments to

imports ordered by the President.

BIS response: Commerce agrees and is

making changes in the rule for how

‘‘immediately’’ is defined to create equal

treatment for U.S. and foreign

producers.

Comment (e)(5): ‘‘Immediately’’

should mean being able to provide the

steel or aluminum as quickly as a

foreign supplier. A commenter noted

that the minimum standard that

Commerce should establish for

objections is 12 weeks (84 days), which

they consider a reasonable and

representative time for a foreign

producer to make a simple steel item

and ship it to the United States. This

commenter recommended that

Commerce should only determine that

the domestic product is not

‘‘immediately’’ available when a

domestic source cannot provide

material before offshore suppliers.

BIS response: Commerce has retained

eight weeks as part of the available

‘‘immediately’’ criteria under paragraph

(d)(4) but, as described elsewhere in this

rule, is also making changes to the

criteria that are responsive to this

commenter’s concerns.

Comment (e)(6): Need to specify the

quantity that needs to be supplied

within the ‘‘immediate delivery’’

timeframe. A commenter noted that

there is no indication in the current

version of the regulations of the quantity

that must be supplied within the

‘‘immediate delivery’’ timeframe. The

commenter noted that the current

regulations specify that if an objector is

not currently producing the product at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81068

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

issue, then ‘‘the objector must identify

how it will be able to produce the article

within eight weeks,’’ detailing in

writing the timeline to start production.

This commenter recommends clarifying

whether this means the production must

merely start, shipments of commercial

quantities must begin, or the total

quantity must be delivered within the

specified time.

BIS response: Commerce agrees this

should be clarified. As described below,

this rule revises paragraph (d)(4) of

supplement no. 1 to specify the objector

must identify how it will be able to

produce and deliver the quantity of steel

or aluminum needed either within eight

weeks, or if after eight weeks, by a date

which is earlier than the date that a

named foreign supplier can deliver the

entire quantity of the requested product.

The addition of the phrase ‘‘and

deliver’’ after the term ‘‘produce’’ will

address the concern raised by this

commenter.

Comment (e)(7): Production capacity

for steel and aluminum producers must

be considered during objection and

rebuttal process. As Commerce

considers objections filed by steel and

aluminum companies, Commerce must

ask the steel and aluminum producers

several probing questions to truly

determine the capabilities of suppliers

to meet the consuming industries’ needs

and consider these answers surrounding

domestic capacity when making

exclusion decisions. The commenter

noted that these questions should

include at a minimum: ‘‘Do the steel or

aluminum companies currently

manufacture and supply the product in

the United States? If so, have their

deliveries to their customers been

timely, and is so, for how long? What is

the steel or aluminum companies’

current manufacturing capacity and

timeframe for ramping up if they

currently do not have the capacity?’’

BIS response: Commerce believes the

information required on the objection

form, surrebuttal form as applicable,

and the criteria in paragraph (d) to

supplement no. 1 that is used by

Commerce, is sufficiently informative to

determine the production capabilities of

objectors. This information is also

supplemented by the evidence provided

through rebuttals and surrebuttals, and

through CBI submitted in support of

rebuttals and surrebuttals. Commerce

does not believe additional questions

are required to be added to the objection

or surrebuttal forms in order to make

determinations on the production

capabilities of objectors.

Rebuttals and Surrebuttals

Comment (f)(1): Seven days is not

enough time for rebuttals and

surrebuttals. A commenter does not

agree that allowing only seven days for

such comments is appropriate. This

commenter noted that considering the

volumes of new information being

submitted in some rebuttals, one week

is not enough time for a domestic

producer to analyze the information and

offer a meaningful surrebuttal.

BIS response: Commerce does not

agree. The length of time for decisions

under the 232 exclusions process is a

concern for many entities, including

Commerce. The inclusion of the rebuttal

and surrebuttal comment periods helps

to better inform the 232 exclusion

process for Commerce, but Commerce is

also mindful not to allow these

additional comment periods to add any

more time to the review process than is

needed. Commerce believes that those

parties involved in a 232 submission

that receives an objection or a rebuttal

should place a priority on reviewing the

objection or rebuttal in a timely fashion,

submitting any warranted rebuttal or

surrebuttal. Commerce believes a one-

week period is sufficient for the review

of an objection or rebuttal, and allows

for the party to conduct any needed

follow up conversations and to prepare

and submit a rebuttal or surrebuttal as

applicable.

Comment (f)(2): Allowing unlimited

number of refilings of exclusions

undermines the usefulness of objections,

and the rebuttal/surrebuttal process. A

commenter questioned whether

rebuttals and surrebuttals are a

worthwhile use of resources if

requesters remain free to submit

unlimited numbers of exemption

requests. This commenter noted that a

requester could, in lieu of a rebuttal, file

a revised request addressing whatever

deficiencies were identified in the

objection. This commenter noted that

this would alleviate some of the

unfairness of requiring domestic

producers to respond to untold volumes

of new information in just a few days

and would aid Commerce’s analysis by

promoting thoughtful and complete

original application requests instead of

reviews of hurried rebuttal and

surrebuttal comments.

BIS response: As a general matter,

Commerce believes that it is important

to allow an unlimited number of

exclusion requests to be submitted. As

described above, the ability to submit a

successive exclusion request is a key

way that the 232 exclusion process

addresses cases where an objection may

have resulted in the denial of an

exclusion request, but then

subsequently no objector was able to

deliver the steel or aluminum in the

quantity and quality needed

‘‘immediately.’’ Therefore, Commerce

does not agree that a restriction should

be added to restrict the number of

exclusion requests that may be

submitted.

Comment (f)(3): Allowing unlimited

refilings of exclusions allows for the

potential to overwhelm potential

objectors. A commenter noted that if

Commerce continues the rebuttal and

surrebuttal process, it should consider

limiting a party’s ability to file multiple

exclusion requests for the same product.

This commenter noted that the current

system provides an incentive for entities

seeking exclusions to submit them over

and over again with only minor

modifications in an attempt to

overwhelm domestic producers so that

domestic interests fail to file objections

because there are simply too many

requests or they believe an objection to

have already been filed.

BIS response: As noted above,

Commerce is reviewing the issue of the

volume of articles subject to exclusion

requests and objections and will address

this issue in a subsequent IFR.

232 Exclusions Portal

Since the launch of the 232

Exclusions Portal, Commerce has

implemented a number of

enhancements that address some of the

key comments received in response to

the June 10 and May 26 rule. Commerce

has highlighted the changes made to the

232 Exclusions Portal, which are

responsive to these comments received

in response to the June 10 rule, as well

as some of the comments received on

the May 26 notice. There are additional

requested changes to the 232 Exclusions

Portal in response to the June 10 rule

and the May 26 notice that Commerce

is still reviewing. Commerce will

summarize and address those comments

in at least one subsequent rule, although

enhancements in the functionality of the

232 Exclusions Portal, similar to the

enhancements described below, will

likely be implemented on an ongoing

basis as they are ready to be

implemented.

Comment (g)(1): Ability to import

previously-filed submissions. A

commenter noted that allowing the

ability to import previously-filed

submissions would be extremely

beneficial for exclusion requesters and

objectors, reducing the time burdens on

repeat users of the 232 Exclusions

Portal. Another commenter noted that

the nature of manual entry in the new

232 Exclusions Portal is likely to create

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81069

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

significant opportunity for errors and

requires significantly more time and

resource allocation than under the

previous system. The ability to reuse

information included in previously

submitted 232 submission forms would

be very beneficial. A commenter

acknowledged that the user guide for

the 232 Exclusions Portal provides

information on creating a profile within

web-browsers, but a simplified system

for importing previously-filed

submissions by users through their

dashboard would be immensely

beneficial for all users of the system.

BIS response: Commerce clarifies here

that the AutoFill Feature of the 232

Exclusions Portal addresses these

comments. The AutoFill Feature that

launched with the 232 Exclusions Portal

addresses several of the comments

submitted in response to the June 10

rule. AutoFill enables users to

effectively import previous filings by

allowing them to fill out a filing once

and then save that template for reuse in

future filings. It also allows users to save

their in-progress filings as templates. A

native save/share feature is still under

discussion.

Comment (g)(2): Increasing the search

functionality in the 232 Exclusions

Portal. Commerce received a number of

comments requesting improvements to

various aspects of the search

functionality in the 232 Exclusions

Portal. A commenter requested that

product class should be a searchable

field, and that product class should be

added to the main portal screen with a

filtering function. Another commenter

noted that the search functionality

needs to be improved by adding a

simple ‘‘find all’’ type of search

capability in the 232 Exclusions Portal.

One commenter noted that the search

functionality is not as good as it is in

www.regulations.gov. Another

commenter requested a change be made

to allow the download of individual

submissions and all data in the new

portal. Specifically, this commenter

noted that it is extremely important that

all users can download both individual

submissions (exclusion requests,

objections, rebuttal, and surrebuttal

filings) and the information found in the

portal in its entirety, as can be done

currently in www.regulations.gov.

Another commenter noted that it is

difficult to extract data for queried

databases, particularly from the volume

and origin fields. Another commenter

requested allowing users to refresh the

portal without resetting the filters.

BIS response: Commerce had

addressed a number of these concerns

with the 232 Exclusions Portal by

improving the Public Data Extract

functionality of the portal. The Public

Data Extract tool allows users to

download a filterable and searchable set

of all filed data in the 232 Exclusions

Portal, effectively functioning as an

advanced search feature. Commerce

will continue to consider additional

measures to improve the Public Data

Extract tool.

Comment (g)(3): Improving Dashboard

functionality. A commenter requested

that the dashboard allow organizations

to allow others in their organizations to

view submissions made by others in the

same organization.

BIS response: Commerce has made

changes under the Dashboard Limit to

address these types of requests for

additional Dashboard functionality.

Commerce expanded the Dashboard

View in the 232 Exclusions Portal in

2020, improving dashboard

functionality by allowing users to see all

of their filings in one location on the

front page of their Dashboard.

Comment (g)(4): Allow extensions of

time when 232 Exclusions Portal is not

accessible. A commenter expressed

concern about technical issues with

accessing the new 232 Exclusions

Portal. This commenter requested that if

documented information technology

issues with the portal occur, Commerce

should be able to extend the time for

companies to file exclusion requests or

objections.

BIS response: Commerce has taken

steps to address technical extensions for

timelines for 232 submission.

Specifically, BIS works with users on a

case-by-case basis to address any

technical issues encountered and take

necessary corrective action.

Occasionally these corrective measures

may include reopening filing windows

during periods in which they were

inaccessible.

Changes Made in This Interim Final

Rule To Improve the 232 Exclusions

Process

Simplification of the Text

As described further below, this rule

makes three changes to simplify the text

for the 232 exclusions process by

removing one of the supplements, and

making conforming changes to add

references to aluminum in the steel

supplement; removing references to

www.regulations.gov; and, as a

conforming change, removing the

Annex that provided steps for using

www.regulations.gov.

When Commerce added supplements

nos. 1 and 2 to part 705, the objective

was to create two parallel supplements

with one specific to the 232 exclusion

process for steel under supplement no.

1, and a second one specific to the 232

exclusion process for aluminum under

supplement no. 2. Commerce has

reevaluated whether this parallel

structure is needed because the vast

majority of the text is identical between

the two supplements and, when making

updates to improve the regulatory

provisions, it creates the potential for

unintended differences between the two

supplements and makes updating the

two supplements more burdensome

than necessary. For these reasons, in

this rule Commerce is removing

supplement no. 2 to part 705 and is

making conforming changes to

supplement no. 1 where information

that is specific to aluminum needs to be

added because of the removal of

supplement no. 2.

This interim final rule updates and

simplifies the text in supplement no. 1

by removing various references to

www.regulations.gov and all text that

was previously needed in supplement

no. 1 to describe the previous process of

using www.regulations.gov for

submitting 232 submissions. At this

time, there are no longer any more

pending 232 exclusion requests in

www.regulations.gov. Therefore,

Commerce is removing those references

to www.regulations.gov from

supplement no. 1 in this rule, thus

simplifying and shortening the text in

supplement no. 1 considerably.

As an additional conforming change

related to the removal of references to

www.regulations.gov, this rule removes

Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and 2 to

Part 705—Steps for Using

Regulations.gov to File Rebuttals and

Surrebuttals. The additional guidance

included in this Annex is no longer

needed because www.regulations.gov is

no longer being used for the 232

exclusions process. The 232 Exclusions

Portal does not require guidance on the

steps to be included in the regulations.

Adding Reminder Regarding

Consequences for False Statements or

Representations

This interim final rule adds a new

Note 2 to Paragraph (b) to remind all

parties submitting 232 submissions

under supplement no. 1 to part 705 that

it is a criminal offense to willfully make

a false statement or representation to

any department or agency of the United

States Government as to any matter

within its jurisdiction [18 U.S.C.

1001(2018)]. As a conforming change,

this interim final rule redesignates the

existing Note to Paragraph (b) as Note 1

to Paragraph (b).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81070

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Improving the Fairness and Efficiency of

the Review Process

In order to improve the efficiency of

the review process, this interim final

rule reduces the page limit for exclusion

requests, objections to submitted

exclusion requests, rebuttals, and

surrebuttals. In paragraph (e), this rule

removes the 25-page limit for exclusions

and objections to submitted exclusions

requests, and replaces that with a 5,000-

word limit. In paragraph (f)(2), this rule

removes the ten-page limit for rebuttals

and replaces that with a 2,500-word

limit. In paragraph (g)(2), this rule

removes the ten-page limit for

surrebuttals and replaces that with a

2,500-word limit.

232 Exclusion Request Volume

Certification

This interim final rule makes changes

to ensure that the volume request in

exclusion requests is consistent with the

past use of steel or aluminum by an

exclusion requester. This interim final

rule revises paragraph (c)(5) (Substance

of exclusion requests) by redesignating

the existing text of paragraph (c)(5) as a

new paragraph (c)(5)(i). This interim

final rule adds a new paragraph (c)(5)(ii)

(Certification for volume requested).

New paragraph (c)(5)(i) specifies that

in order to ensure that the volume

requested in an exclusion request is

consistent with legitimate business

needs for the same steel or aluminum

articles obtained (i.e., imported from

abroad either directly by the requester

or indirectly by purchasing from

distributors) by the entity requesting an

exclusion, a certification needs to be

made in the 232 Exclusions Portal when

completing the submission of a 232

exclusion request. The 232 Exclusions

Portal will include the text specified in

paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A)–(E), and this

exclusion request certification for

volume requested must be signed in the

232 Exclusions Portal by an

organization official specifically

authorized to certify the document as

being accurate and complete to the best

of his/her knowledge.

The person signing the certification

under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(A) must attest

that the exclusion requester intends to

manufacture, process, or otherwise

transform the imported product for

which they have filed an exclusion

request, or has a purchase order or

orders for such products.

Under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), the

exclusion requester must certify that

they do not intend to use the requested

exclusion, if granted, solely to hedge or

arbitrage the price.

Under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C), the

exclusion requester must certify that

they expect to consume, sell, or

otherwise use the total volume of

product across all their active

exclusions and pending exclusion

requests in the course of their

organization’s business activities within

the next calendar year.

Under new paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(D), the

exclusion requester is submitting an

exclusion request for a product for

which they previously received an

exclusion, they must certify that they

either imported the full amount of their

approved exclusion(s) last year, or

intended to import the full amount but

could not due to one of the reasons

specified in new paragraphs

(c)(5)(ii)(D)(1)–(3). The criteria included

in new paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(D)(1)–(3)

that must be attested to, if applicable,

are intended to ensure that, if a

requester did not import the full

amount, there were legitimate business

reasons justifying that outcome. These

legitimate business reasons are loss of

contract(s); business downturns; or

other factors that were beyond the

organization’s control that directly

resulted in less need for steel or

aluminum articles.

Under new paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E), the

exclusion requester certifies that the

exclusion amount requested this year is

in line with what their organization

expects to import based on their current

business outlook. Lastly, paragraph

(c)(5)(ii)(E) requires the exclusion

requester to certify that, if contacted by

Commerce, their organization will

provide documentation that justifies the

assertions in the certification regarding

past imports of steel or aluminum

articles and projections for the current

year, as it relates to past and current

calendar year exclusion requests.

This interim final rule adds a new

Note 2 to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) to

make the public aware that an exclusion

request that does not include a

certification made in accordance with

(c)(5)(i) and (ii) will be treated as an

incomplete submission and will

therefore be rejected.

Clarification of Eight Weeks and

Available ‘‘Immediately’’

This rule makes changes to clarify

when an objector would be required to

be able to provide the steel or aluminum

in the quantity and quality to which

they were objecting on the basis that

they could provide that steel or

aluminum ‘‘immediately.’’

In the introductory text of paragraph

(c)(6), this rule revises the criteria to

clarify that an objector must be able to

provide the steel or aluminum ‘‘by a

date earlier than the time required for

the requester to obtain the entire

quantity of the product from the

requester’s foreign supplier,’’ instead of

being strictly limited to producing it

within eight weeks.

In paragraph (c)(6)(i), this rule retains

the term ‘‘immediately,’’ but clarifies

that the aluminum or steel does not

need to be produced within eight weeks

in certain cases. This interim final rule

clarifies that ‘‘immediately’’ now means

produced and delivered within eight

weeks or, if not possible, then produced

and delivered within a time frame that

is equal to or earlier than that needed by

the requester as demonstrated by the

time required to obtain the product from

the requester’s foreign supplier. This

change is made to create a more equal

playing field between U.S. objectors and

foreign producers, and to ensure that

U.S. producers are not given less time

to be able to meet the steel or aluminum

demand being requested in an exclusion

request. For example, if a requester can

obtain foreign-produced steel described

in an exclusion request in 12 weeks,

there is no reason to arbitrarily limit the

U.S. producer to having to produce the

steel within eight weeks. The change

this interim final rule makes to the term

‘‘immediately’’ addresses this issue.

This interim final rule also revises

paragraph (c)(6)(i) to address the

scenario where an objector can produce

and deliver a portion of the steel or

aluminum that is being requested in the

exclusion request. This new sentence

clarifies that, consistent with current

practice, Commerce may partially

approve an exclusion request when an

objector can produce and deliver a

portion, which is less than 100 percent

but 10 percent or more, of the amount

of steel or aluminum being requested in

the exclusion request. In such cases,

Commerce may partially approve a

requested exclusion for that percentage

of imported steel or aluminum that the

objector has demonstrated it can

produce and deliver.

This interim final rule revises

paragraph (d)(4) to clarify that, if an

objector is not currently producing the

steel or aluminum but can produce the

aluminum or steel and make it available

‘‘immediately,’’ the objector still has

ground to object to the exclusion

request. This rule defines the term

‘‘immediately’’ to mean that the objector

must be able to produce and deliver the

quantity of steel or aluminum needed

either within eight weeks, or if after

eight weeks, by a date earlier than the

time required for the requester to obtain

the entire quantity of the product from

the requester’s foreign supplier. It is

incumbent upon both the exclusion

requester and objecting producers to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81071

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

provide supplemental evidence

supporting their claimed delivery times.

General Approved Exclusions (GAEs)

This rule adds a new Supplement No.

2 to Part 705—General Approved

Exclusions (GAEs) for Steel Articles

Under the 232 Exclusions Process, and

a new Supplement No. 3 to Part 705—

General Approved Exclusions (GAEs)

for Aluminum Articles under the 232

Exclusions Process. These two

supplements identify the steel and

aluminum articles that have been

approved for import under a GAE. This

rule adds 108 GAEs for steel articles

under supplement no. 2 part 705 and 15

GAEs for aluminum articles under

supplement no. 3 to part 705. Each GAE

is identified under the GAE identifier

column, e.g., GAE.1.S: 7304592030 (for

the first approved GAE for steel) or

GAE.1.A: 7609000000 (for the first

approved GAE for aluminum).

The Secretary of Commerce, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury,

the Secretary of State, the United States

Trade Representative, the Assistant to

the President for Economic Policy, the

Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs, and other senior

Executive Branch officials as

appropriate, makes these determinations

that certain aluminum and steel articles

may be authorized under a GAE

consistent with the objectives of the 232

exclusions process as outlined in

supplement no. 1 to this part. The GAEs

described in these supplements may be

used by any importer. The two new

supplements specify that, in order to

use a GAE, the importer must reference

the GAE identifier in the Automated

Commercial Environment (ACE) system

that corresponds to the steel or

aluminum articles being imported.

GAEs do not include quantity limits.

The effective date for each GAE will be

fifteen calendar days after the date of

publication of a Federal Register notice

either adding or revising a specific GAE

identifier in supplement no. 1 to this

part. There will be no retroactive relief

for GAEs. This interim final rule also

specifies that relief is only available to

steel or aluminum articles that are

entered for consumption, or withdrawn

from warehouse for consumption, on or

after the effective date of a GAE

included in supplement no. 1 to this

part. These GAEs are indefinite in

length, but Commerce may at any time

issue a Federal Register notice

removing, revising, or adding to an

existing GAE in this supplement as

warranted to align with the objectives of

the 232 exclusions process as described

in supplement no. 1 to this part.

Commerce may periodically publish

notices of inquiry in the Federal

Register soliciting public comments on

potential removals, revisions, or

additions to this supplement.

Other Changes and Clarifications to the

232 Exclusions Process

In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), this interim

final rule adds a new paragraph

(b)(5)(iii)(A) and redesignates existing

paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(A)–(C) as

paragraphs (B) to (D). New paragraph

(b)(5)(iii)(A) clarifies the process for

handling CBI related to exclusion

requests or objections by directing

exclusion requesters and objectors to

check the appropriate box in the 232

Exclusions Portal to indicate that the

filer has relevant CBI for consideration

when applicable. This new paragraph

also clarifies the existing practice that if

Commerce determines after review that

the CBI is needed, Commerce will

directly request the CBI.

In paragraph (c)(2) (Identification of

exclusion requests), this rule removes

the word ‘‘distinct’’ in the phrase

‘‘distinct critical dimensions.’’ This

change is being made to avoid any

potential confusion on the scope of

ranges that are permissible under an

exclusion request. This change will

make clear that, provided the range

being requested in an exclusion request

is within the minimum and maximum

range that is specified in the HTSUS

statistical reporting number and

applicable notes for the provision, a

single exclusion request may be

requested for that steel or aluminum

article. Objections that indicate the

ability to produce one or more products

within the range, even if not the entire

range, will be considered to be valid

objections to an exclusion request.

Also in paragraph (c)(2), this rule

removes the Note to paragraph (c)(2)

because it is no longer needed. The

exclusions form on the 232 Exclusions

Portal does not include that block for

countries subject to a quantitative

limitation, so the instructions in the

Note to paragraph (c)(2) are no longer

needed.

In paragraph (c)(6) (Criteria used to

review exclusion requests) introductory

text, this interim final rule adds one

sentence at the end for clarification and

to alert the public that items for which

a broader determination has been made

will be identified in supplements no. 2

or 3 to part 705.

In paragraph (d)(3) (Time limit for

submitting objections to submitted

exclusions requests), this interim final

rule makes revisions to specify that the

30-day clock starts at 11:59 p.m. Eastern

Time on the calendar day an exclusion

request is posted in the 232 Exclusions

Portal.

In paragraph (h)(1)(i), this interim

final rule adds the term ‘‘rejected’’

before the phrase ‘‘or denied’’ to clarify

that exclusion requests that do not

satisfy the requirements specified in

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this

supplement may be rejected or denied.

In paragraph (h)(2)(iv) (Validity

period for exclusion requests), this

interim final rule makes revisions to add

the phrase ‘‘from the date of the

signature on the decision memo’’ to

clarify that exclusions will generally be

approved for one year from the date of

the signature on the decision memo.

Types of Comments Commerce Is

Requesting on This Rule

Commerce is not seeking comments

regarding the duties or quantitative

limitations themselves or the exclusion

and objection process overall. Rather,

Commerce seeks comments on whether

the specific changes included in this

fourth interim final rule have addressed

earlier concerns with the 232 exclusions

process. Specifically, Commerce

encourages comments on these 232

exclusions process changes and on

which features are an improvement and

comments highlighting any areas of

concern or suggestions for

improvement.

Commerce will continue to make

improvements to the 232 exclusions

process, including improvements based

on comments received on this rule, and

parties will be notified of any additional

changes to the 232 exclusions process

and of any new features to the 232

Exclusions Portal.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

direct agencies to assess all costs and

benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, if regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits

(including potential economic,

environmental, public health and safety

effects, distributive impacts, and

equity). Executive Order 13563

emphasizes the importance of

quantifying both costs and benefits, of

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,

and of promoting flexibility. This rule

has been determined to be a ‘‘significant

regulatory action,’’ although not

economically significant, under section

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant

to Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of

March 8, 2018, and Proclamations 9776

and 9777 of August 29, 2018, the

establishment of procedures for an

exclusions process under each

Proclamation shall be published in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81072

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register and are exempt from

Executive Order 13771.

2. The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA)

provides that an agency generally

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection

of information, and no person is

required to respond to nor be subject to

a penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information, unless that

collection has obtained Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval and displays a currently valid

OMB Control Number.

This final regulation involves four

collections currently approved by OMB

with the following control numbers

•Exclusions from the Section 232

National Security Adjustments of

Imports of Steel and Aluminum (control

number 0694–0139).

•Objections from the Section 232

National Security Adjustments of

Imports of Steel and Aluminum (control

number 0694–0138).

•Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals

and Surrebuttals Requests for

Exclusions from and Objections to the

Section 232 Adjustments for Steel and

Aluminum (OMB control number 0694–

0141).

•Procedures for Submitting Requests

for Expedited Relief from Quantitative

Limits—Existing Contract: Section 232

National Security Investigations of Steel

Imports (OMB control number 0694–

0140).

This rule is expected to reduce the

burden hours for one of the collections

associated with this rule, OMB control

number 0694–0139. This reduction is

expected because of the addition of 108

GAEs for steel and 15 GAEs for

aluminum, which is expected to result

in a decrease of 5,000 exclusion request

per year. This is expected to be a

reduction in 5,000 burden hours for a

total savings of 740,000 dollars to the

public. This is also expected to be a

reduction in 30,000 burden hours for a

total savings of 1,170,000 dollars to the

U.S. Government. The steel and

aluminum articles that have been

identified as being eligible for GAEs

have typically not received any

objections, so the addition of these new

GAEs is not estimated to result in a

decrease in the number of objections,

rebuttals, or surrebuttals received by

BIS. This rule is not expected to

increase the burden hours for two of the

collections associated with this rule,

OMB control numbers 0694–0138,

0694–0141 as minimal changes are

anticipated. BIS is making a change to

the collection for OMB control number

0694–0140 to account for certification

that needs to be made in the 232

Exclusions Portal under paragraph

(c)(5)(ii). Any comments regarding the

collection of information associated

with this rule, including suggestions for

reducing the burden, may be sent to

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAMain.

3. This rule does not contain policies

with Federalism implications as that

term is defined in Executive Order

13132.

4. The provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553) requiring notice of proposed

rulemaking, the opportunity for public

comment, and a delay in effective date

are inapplicable because this regulation

involves a military or foreign affairs

function of the United States. (See 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). As explained in the

reports submitted by the Secretary to the

President, steel and aluminum are being

imported into the United States in such

quantities or under such circumstances

as to threaten to impair the national

security of the United States, and

therefore the President is implementing

these remedial actions (as described

Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March

8, 2018) to protect U.S. national security

interests. That implementation includes

the creation of an effective process by

which affected domestic parties can

obtain exclusion requests ‘‘based upon

specific national security

considerations.’’ Commerce started this

process with the publication of the

March 19 rule and refined the process

with the publication of the September

11 and June 10 rules and is continuing

this process with the publication of

today’s interim final rule. The revisions

to the exclusion request process are

informed by the comments received in

response to the March 19 rule and

Commerce’s experience with managing

the 232 exclusions process. Commenters

on the past rules (March 19, September

11 and June 10 rules) were generally

supportive and welcomed the idea of

creating an exclusion process, but most

of the commenters believe the exclusion

process, although improving over time,

still could be significantly improved in

order for it to achieve the intended

purpose. The commenters identified a

number of areas where transparency,

effectiveness, and fairness of the process

could be improved. Commerce

understands the importance of having a

transparent, fair, and efficient product

exclusion request process, consistent

with the directive provided by the

President to create this type of process

to mitigate any unintended

consequences of imposing the tariffs on

steel and aluminum in order to protect

critical U.S. national security interests.

The publication of today’s rule should

make further improvements in all three

respects, but because of the scope of this

new process, BIS is publishing today’s

rule as an interim final rule with a

request for comments.

In addition, Commerce finds that

there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act requiring

prior notice and the opportunity for

public comment, and that there is good

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive

the delay in effective date, because such

delays would be either impracticable or

contrary to the public interest. In order

to ensure that the actions taken to adjust

imports do not undermine users of steel

or aluminum that are subject to the

remedial actions instituted by the

Proclamations and that are critical to

protecting the national security of the

United States, the Presidential

Proclamations authorized the Secretary

of Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of

the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the

United States Trade Representative, the

Assistant to the President for Economic

Policy, the Assistant to the President for

National Security Affairs, and other

senior Executive Branch officials as

appropriate, to grant exclusions for the

import of goods not currently available

in the United States in a sufficient

quantity or satisfactory quality, or for

other specific national security reasons.

The Presidential Proclamations further

directed the Secretary to, within ten

days, issue procedures for submitting

and granting these requests for

exclusions—this interim final rule

fulfills that direction. As described

above, the Secretary complied with the

direction from the President with the

publication of the March 19 rule, as well

as in the improvements made in the

September 11 and June 10 rules, and is

taking the next step in improving the

232 exclusions process by making

needed changes with the publication of

today’s rule. The immediate

implementation of an effective

exclusion request process, consistent

with the intent of the Presidential

Proclamations, also required creating a

process to allow any individual or

organization in the United States to

submit objections to submitted

exclusion requests. The objection

process was created with the

publication of the March 19 rule, and

the rebuttal and surrebuttal process was

added in the publication of the

September 11 rule to further improve

the 232 exclusions process. The

publication of today’s rule makes

needed changes in the 232 exclusions

process to create the type of fair,

transparent, and efficient process that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81073

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

was intended in the March 19,

September 11 and June 10 rules, but was

still found lacking by commenters in

several key respects. Today’s rule makes

critical changes to ensure a fair,

transparent, and efficient exclusion

process.

If this interim final rule were to be

delayed to allow for public comment or

to provide for a thirty day delay in the

date of effectiveness, companies in the

United States would be unable to

immediately benefit from the

improvements made in the exclusion,

objection, rebuttal, and surrebuttal

process and could face significant

economic hardship, which could

potentially create a detrimental effect on

the general U.S. economy. Whether they

were supportive of tariffs or against

tariffs, the comments received on the

March 19, September 11 and June 10

rules were clear that an efficient

exclusion request, objection, rebuttal,

and surrebuttal process was needed,

that the March 19 rule had not

sufficiently created such a process, and

that, although substantial improvements

were made with the publications of the

September 11 and June 10 rules,

additional improvements were needed.

Commenters noted that, if specific

improvements are not made, significant

economic consequences could occur.

Commenters also thought the

inefficiencies of the process could

undermine other critical U.S. national

security interests. Likewise, our national

security could be impacted if Commerce

lacked adequate information to make a

fair, transparent and efficient

determination for all parties involved

and to ensure the critical national

security considerations are being

protected.

Because a notice of proposed

rulemaking and an opportunity for prior

public comment are not required for this

rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other

law, the analytical requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly,

no regulatory flexibility analysis is

required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 705

Administrative practice and

procedure, Business and industry,

Classified information, Confidential

business information, Imports,

Investigations, National security.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 705 of subchapter A of

15 CFR chapter VII is amended as

follows:

PART 705—EFFECT OF IMPORTED

ARTICLES ON THE NATIONAL

SECURITY

■1. The authority citation for part 705

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 232 of the Trade

Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1862) and Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1979

(44 FR 69273, December 3, 1979).

■2. Supplement No. 1 to part 705 is

revised to read as follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 705—

Requirements for Submissions

Requesting Exclusions From the

Adjustment of Imports of Aluminum

and Steel Imposed Pursuant to Section

232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,

as Amended

On March 8, 2018, the President

issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705

concurring with the findings of the

January 11, 2018 reports of the Secretary

of Commerce on the effects of imports

of aluminum and steel mill articles

(steel articles) on the national security

and determining that adjusting

aluminum and steel imports through the

imposition of duties is necessary so that

their imports will no longer threaten to

impair the national security. Clause 3 of

Proclamations 9704 and 9705 also

authorized the Secretary of Commerce,

in consultation with the Secretary of

Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury,

the Secretary of State, the United States

Trade Representative, the Assistant to

the President for Economic Policy, the

Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs, and other senior

Executive Branch officials as

appropriate, to grant exclusions from

the duties at the request of directly

affected parties located in the United

States if the requested steel or

aluminum article is determined not to

be produced in the United States in a

sufficient and reasonably available

amount or of a satisfactory quality or

based upon specific national security

considerations. On August 29, 2018, the

President issued Proclamation 9776.

Clause 1 of Proclamation 9776,

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce,

in consultation with the Secretary of

State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the

Secretary of Defense, the United States

Trade Representative, the Assistant to

the President for National Security

Affairs, the Assistant to the President for

Economic Policy, and such other senior

Executive Branch officials as the

Secretary deems appropriate, to provide

relief from the applicable quantitative

limitations set forth in Proclamation

9740 and Proclamation 9759 for steel

articles and as set forth in Proclamation

9739 and 9758 for aluminum articles

and their accompanying annexes, as

amended, at the request of a directly

affected party located in the United

States for any steel or aluminum article

determined by the Secretary to not be

produced in the United States in a

sufficient and reasonably available

amount or of a satisfactory quality. The

Secretary is also authorized to provide

such relief based upon specific national

security considerations.

(a) Scope. This supplement specifies

the requirements and process for how

directly affected parties located in the

United States may submit requests for

exclusions from the duties and

quantitative limitations imposed by the

President. This supplement also

specifies the requirements and process

for how parties in the United States may

submit objections to submitted

exclusion requests for relief from the

duties or quantitative limitations

imposed by the President and the

process for rebuttals to submitted

objections and surrebuttals (collectively,

‘‘232 submissions’’). This supplement

identifies the time periods for such

submissions, the methods of

submission, and the information that

must be included in such submissions.

(b) Required forms. The 232

Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations) includes four web-based

forms that are to be used for submitting

exclusion requests, objections to

exclusion requests, rebuttals, and

surrebuttals described in this

supplement. On the 232 Exclusions

Portal, each web-based form is available

on the portal at the bottom of the

preceding filing. For example, a party

submitting an objection will access the

objection form by scrolling to the

bottom of the exclusion request, a

rebuttal filer will access the rebuttal

form by scrolling to the bottom of the

objection form, and a surrebuttal filer

would access the surrebuttal form by

scrolling to the bottom of the rebuttal

form. The U.S. Department of

Commerce requires requesters and

objectors to use the appropriate form as

specified under paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2) of this supplement for submitting

exclusion requests and objections to

submitted exclusion requests and the

forms specified under paragraphs (b)(3)

and (4) of this supplement for

submitting rebuttals and surrebuttals. In

addition, submitters of exclusion

requests, objections to submitted

exclusion requests, rebuttals, and

surrebuttals to the 232 Exclusions Portal

will be required to complete a web-

based registration on the 232 Exclusions

Portal prior to submitting any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81074

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

documents. In order to register,

submitters will be required to provide

an email and establish a password for

the account. After completing the

registration, submitters will be able to

login to an account on the 232

Exclusions Portal and submit exclusion

requests, objections, rebuttals, and

surrebuttal documents.

(1) Form required for submitting

exclusion requests. The full name of the

form used for submitting steel exclusion

requests is Request for Exclusion from

Remedies: Section 232 National

Security Investigation of Steel Imports.

The full name of the form used for

submitting aluminum exclusion

requests is Request for Exclusion from

Remedies: Section 232 National

Security Investigation of Aluminum

Imports. The Title of the web-based

fillable form for both steel and

aluminum in the 232 Exclusions Portal

is Exclusion Request.

(2) Form required for submitting

objections to submitted exclusion

requests. The name of the form used for

submitting objections to submitted steel

exclusion requests is Objection Filing to

Posted Section 232 Exclusion Request:

Steel. The name of the form used for

submitting objections to submitted

aluminum exclusion requests is

Objection Filing to Posted Section 232

Exclusion Request: Aluminum. The

Title of the web-based fillable form for

both steel and aluminum in the 232

Exclusions Portal is Objection.

(3) Form required for submitting

rebuttals. The name of the form used for

submitting rebuttals to steel objections

is Rebuttal to Objection Received for

Section 232 Exclusion Request: Steel.

The name of the form used for

submitting rebuttals to aluminum

objections is Rebuttal to Objection

Received for Section 232 Exclusion

Request: Aluminum. The Title of the

web-based fillable form for both steel

and aluminum in the 232 Exclusions

Portal is Rebuttal.

(4) Form required for submitting

surrebuttals. The name of the form used

for submitting surrebuttals to steel

objections is Surrebuttal to Rebuttal

Received on Section 232 Objection:

Steel. The name of the form used for

submitting surrebuttals to aluminum

objections is Surrebuttal to Rebuttal

Received on Section 232 Objection:

Aluminum. The Title of the web-based

fillable form for both steel and

aluminum in the 232 Exclusions Portal

is Surrebuttal.

Note to Paragraphs (b)(1) Through (4): On

the 232 Exclusions Portal, each exclusion

request is assigned a distinct ID #, which is

also used with its associated 232

submissions, but preceded with an acronym

indicating the file type: Exclusion Requests

(ER ID #), Objection (OF ID #), Rebuttals (RB

ID #) and Surrebuttals (SR ID #). For an

example of the four possible types of 232

submissions associated with a single

exclusion request, you could have ER ID 237,

OF ID 237, RB ID 237 and SR ID 237. The

232 Exclusions Portal will automatically

assign the two letter designator depending on

the type of web-based form being submitted

in the portal and will assign an ID number

to the original exclusion request and that ID

number will be common to any objection,

rebuttal, or surrebuttal submitted pertaining

to the same exclusion request.

(5) Public disclosure and information

protected from public disclosure. (i)

Information submitted in 232

submissions will be subject to public

review and made available for public

inspection and copying, except for the

information described in paragraph

(b)(5)(iii) of this supplement.

Individuals and organizations must

fully complete the relevant forms.

(ii) Information not subject to public

disclosure should not be submitted.

Personally identifiable information,

including social security numbers and

employer identification numbers,

should not be provided. Information

that is subject to government-imposed

access and dissemination or other

specific national security controls, e.g.,

classified information or information

that has U.S. Government restrictions on

dissemination to non-U.S. citizens or

other categories of persons that would

prohibit public disclosure of the

information, may not be included in 232

submissions. Individuals and

organizations that have confidential

business information (‘‘CBI’’) that they

believe relevant to the Secretary’s

consideration of the 232 submission

should so indicate in the appropriate

field of the relevant form, or on the

rebuttal or surrebuttal submission,

following the procedures in paragraph

(b)(5)(iii) of this supplement.

(iii) Procedures for identifying, but not

disclosing confidential or proprietary

business information (CBI) in the public

version, and procedures for submitting

CBI. For persons seeking to submit

confidential or proprietary business

information (CBI), the 232 submission

available to the public must contain a

summary of the CBI in sufficient detail

to permit a reasonable understanding of

the substance of the information. If the

submitting person claims that

summarization is not possible, the claim

must be accompanied by a full

explanation of the reasons supporting

that claim. Generally, numerical data

will be considered adequately

summarized if grouped or presented in

terms of indices or figures within ten

percent of the actual figure. If an

individual portion of the numerical data

is voluminous (e.g., five pages of

numerical data), at least one percent of

the numerical data, representative of

that portion, must be summarized. In

order to submit CBI that is not for public

release as a separate email submission

to the U.S. Department of Commerce,

you must follow the procedures in

paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A)–(D) of this

supplement to assist the U.S.

Department of Commerce in identifying

these submissions and associating these

submissions with the respective 232

submission in the 232 Exclusions Portal.

Submitters with classified information

should contact the U.S. Department of

Commerce for instructions on the

appropriate methods to send this type of

information.

(A) For CBI related to exclusion

requests or objections, check the

appropriate box in the 232 Exclusions

Portal indicating that the filer has

relevant CBI for consideration. If

Commerce determines after review that

the CBI is needed, Commerce will

directly request the CBI from the

exclusion requester or objector as

warranted.

(B) For CBI related to rebuttals or

surrebuttals, on the same day that you

submit your 232 submission in the 232

Exclusions Portal, submit the CBI via

email to the U.S. Department of

Commerce. The email address used is

different depending on the type of

submission the emailed CBI is for, as

follows: CBI for rebuttals use

232rebuttals@doc.gov; and CBI for

surrebuttals use 232surrebuttals@

doc.gov.

(C) For rebuttals and surrebuttals

pertaining to 232 submissions for

exclusion requests the email subject line

must only include the original 232

Exclusions Portal Exclusion Request

(ER) ID # and the body of the email must

include the 232 Exclusions Portal

Rebuttal (RB) ID #, or Surrebuttal (SR)

ID # you received from the 232

Exclusions Portal when you

successfully submitted your rebuttal or

surrebuttal. These naming conventions

used in the 232 Exclusions Portal,

respectively, will assist the U.S.

Department of Commerce to associate

the CBI that will not be posted in the

232 Exclusions Portal with the

information included in the public

submission.

(D) Submit the CBI as an attachment

to that email. The CBI is limited to a

maximum of five pages per rebuttal or

surrebuttal. The email is to be limited to

sending your CBI. All other information

for the public submission, and public

versions of the CBI, where appropriate,

for a 232 submission in the 232

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81075

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Exclusions Portal following the

procedures identified in this

supplement, as appropriate.

Note 1 to Paragraph (b) for Submissions of

Supporting Documents (Attachments):

Supporting attachments must be emailed as

PDF documents.

Note 2 to Paragraph (b): It is a criminal

offense to willfully make a false statement or

representation to any department or agency

of the United States Government as to any

matter within its jurisdiction [18 U.S.C.

1001(2018)].

(c) Exclusion requests. (1) Who may

submit an exclusion request? Only

directly affected individuals or

organizations located in the United

States may submit an exclusion request.

An individual or organization is

‘‘directly affected’’ if they are using steel

in business activities (e.g., construction,

manufacturing, or supplying steel

product to users) in the United States.

(2) Identification of exclusion

requests. Separate exclusion requests

must be submitted for steel products

with chemistry by percentage

breakdown by weight, metallurgical

properties, surface quality (e.g.,

galvanized, coated), and critical

dimensions covered by a common

HTSUS statistical reporting number.

Separate exclusion requests must be

submitted for aluminum products with

critical dimensions covered by a

common HTSUS statistical reporting

number. The exclusion request forms

allow for minimum and maximum

dimensions. A permissible range must

be within the minimum and maximum

range that is specified in the HTSUS

statistical reporting number and

applicable notes. Separate exclusion

requests must also be submitted for

products falling in more than one ten-

digit HTSUS statistical reporting

number. The U.S. Department of

Commerce will approve exclusions on a

product basis, and the approvals will be

limited to the individual or organization

that submitted the specific exclusion

request, unless Commerce approves a

broader application of the product-

based exclusion request to apply to

additional importers. Other directly-

affected individuals or organizations

located in the United States that wish to

submit an exclusion request for a steel

or aluminum product that has already

been the subject of an approved

exclusion request may submit an

exclusion request under this

supplement. These additional exclusion

requests by other directly-affected

individuals or organizations in the

United States are not required to

reference the previously approved

exclusion but are advised to do so, if

they want Commerce to take that

exclusion into account when reviewing

a subsequent exclusion request. Directly

affected individuals and organizations

in the United States will not be

precluded from submitting a request for

exclusion of a product even though an

exclusion request submitted for that

product by another requester or that

requester was denied or is no longer

valid.

(3) Where to submit exclusion

requests? All exclusion requests must be

submitted directly on the 232

Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations).

(4) No time limit for submitting

exclusion requests. Exclusion requests

may be submitted at any time.

(5)(i) Substance of exclusion requests.

An exclusion request must specify the

business activities in the United States

within which the requester is engaged

that qualify the individual or

organization to be directly affected and

thus eligible to submit an exclusion

request. The request should clearly

identify, and provide support for, the

basis upon which the exclusion is

sought. An exclusion will only be

granted if an article is not produced in

the United States in a sufficient,

reasonably available amount, and of a

satisfactory quality, or for specific

national security considerations.

(ii) Certification for volume requested.

In order to ensure that the volume

requested in an exclusion request is

consistent with legitimate business

needs for the same steel or aluminum

articles obtained (i.e., imported from

abroad either directly by the requester

or indirectly by purchasing from

distributors) by the entity requesting an

exclusion, the following certification in

paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A)–(E) must be

acknowledged in the 232 Exclusions

Portal when completing the submission

of a 232 exclusion request. The

exclusion request certification for

volume requested must be signed by an

organization official specifically

authorized to certify the document (the

certification being made in the 232

Exclusions Portal) as being accurate and

complete. The undersigned certifies in

the 232 Exclusions Portal that the

information herein supplied in response

to this paragraph is complete and

correct to the best of his/her knowledge.

By signing the certification below, I

attest that:

(A) My organization intends to

manufacture, process, or otherwise

transform the imported product for

which I have filed an exclusion request

or I have a purchase order or orders for

such products;

(B) My organization does not intend

to use the exclusion for which I have

filed an exclusion request, if granted,

solely to hedge or arbitrage the price;

(C) My organization expects to

consume, sell, or otherwise use the total

volume of product across all my active

exclusions and pending exclusion

requests in the course of my

organization’s business activities within

the next calendar year;

(D) If my organization is submitting

an exclusion request for a product for

which we previously received an

exclusion, I certify that my organization

either imported the full amount of our

approved exclusion(s) last year or

intended to import the full amount but

could not due to one of the following

reasons:

(1) Loss of contract(s);

(2) Unanticipated business

downturns; or

(3) Other factors that were beyond my

organization’s control that directly

resulted in less need for steel or

aluminum articles; and

(E) I certify that the exclusion amount

requested this year is in line with what

my organization expects to import based

on our current business outlook. If

requested by the Department of

Commerce, my organization shall

provide documentation that justifies its

assertions in this certification regarding

its past imports of steel or aluminum

articles and its projections for the

current year, as it relates to past and

current calendar year exclusion

requests.

Note to Paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii): Any

exclusion request that does not include a

certification made in accordance with

(c)(5)(ii) will be treated as an incomplete

submission and will therefore be rejected.

(6) Criteria used to review exclusion

requests. The U.S. Department of

Commerce will review each exclusion

request to determine whether an article

described in an exclusion request meets

any of the following three criteria: The

article is not produced in the United

States in an amount which can be

delivered in a time period equal to or

less than the time needed for the

requester to obtain the product from

their foreign supplier, is not produced

in the United States in a satisfactory

quality, or for specific national security

considerations. The reviews will be

made on a case-by-case basis to

determine whether the requester has

shown that the article is not produced

in the United States in sufficient and

reasonably available amount or of a

satisfactory quality, or that there are

specific national security considerations

to grant the exclusion. To provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81076

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

additional context on the meaning and

application of the criteria, paragraphs

(c)(6)(i)–(iii) of this supplement define

keys terms used in the review criteria

and provide illustrative application

examples. The U.S. Department of

Commerce will use the same criteria

identified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i)–(iii) of

this supplement when determining

whether it is warranted to approve

broader product-based exclusions based

on trends the Department may see over

time with 232 submissions. The public

is not permitted to request broader

product-based exclusions that would

apply to all importers, because the

Department makes these determinations

over time by evaluating the macro

trends in 232 submissions. Items for

which a broader determination has been

made will be identified in supplements

no. 2 or 3 to part 705.

(i) Not produced in the United States

in a sufficient and reasonably available

amount. The exclusion review criterion

‘‘Not produced in the United States in

a sufficient and reasonably available

amount’’ means that the amount that is

needed by the end user requesting the

exclusion is not available immediately

in the United States to meet its specified

business activities. Available

‘‘immediately’’ means that a product

(whether it is currently being produced

in the United States, or could be

produced in the United States) can be

delivered by a U.S. producer ‘‘within

eight weeks’’, or, if that is not possible,

by a date earlier than the time required

for the requester to obtain the entire

quantity of the product from the

requester’s foreign supplier.

Furthermore, to the extent that an

objector can produce and deliver a

portion, which is less than 100 percent,

but ten percent or more, of the amount

of steel or aluminum needed in the

business activities of the user in the

United States described in the exclusion

request, the Department of Commerce

may deny a requested exclusion for that

percentage of imported steel or

aluminum. It is incumbent upon both

the exclusion requester, and objecting

producers, to provide supplemental

evidence supporting their claimed

delivery times.

(ii) Not produced in the United States

in a satisfactory quality. The exclusion

review criterion ‘‘not produced in the

United States in a satisfactory quality’’

does not mean the steel or aluminum

needs to be identical, but it does need

to be equivalent as a substitute product.

‘‘Substitute product’’ for purposes of

this review criterion means that the

steel or aluminum being produced by an

objector can meet ‘‘immediately’’ (see

paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this supplement)

the quality (e.g., industry specs or

internal company quality controls or

standards), regulatory, or testing

standards, in order for the U.S.-

produced steel to be used in that

business activity in the United States by

that end user.

(A) Steel application examples. For a

steel example, if a U.S. business activity

requires that steel plates to be provided

must meet certain military testing and

military specification standards in order

to be used in military combat vehicles,

that requirement would be taken into

account when reviewing the exclusion

request and any objections, rebuttals,

and surrebuttals submitted. As another

steel example, if a U.S. business activity

requires that steel tubing to be provided

must meet certain Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) approvals to be

used in medical devices, that

requirement would be taken into

account when reviewing the exclusion

request and any objections, rebuttals,

and surrebuttals submitted. Another

steel example would be a food

manufacturer that requires tin-plate

approval from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) to make any

changes in the tin-plate it uses to make

cans for fruit juices. An objector would

not have to make steel for use in making

the cans that was identical, but it would

have to be a ‘‘substitute product,’’

meaning it could meet the USDA

certification standards.

(B) Aluminum application examples.

For an aluminum example, if a U.S.

business activity requires that

aluminum to be provided must meet

certain military testing and military

specification standards in order to be

used in military aircraft, that

requirement would be taken into

account when reviewing the exclusion

request and any objections, rebuttals,

and surrebuttals submitted. Another

aluminum example would be a U.S.

pharmaceutical manufacturer that

requires approval from the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) to make any

changes in its aluminum product pill

bottle covers. An objector would not

have to make aluminum for use in

making the product covers that was

identical, but it would have to be a

‘‘substitute product,’’ meaning it could

meet the FDA certification standards.

(iii) For specific national security

considerations. The exclusion review

criterion ‘‘or for specific national

security considerations’’ is intended to

allow the U.S. Department of

Commerce, in consultation with other

parts of the U.S. Government as

warranted, to make determinations

whether a particular exclusion request

should be approved based on specific

national security considerations.

(A) Steel application examples. For

example, if the steel included in an

exclusion request is needed by a U.S.

defense contractor for making critical

items for use in a military weapons

platform for the U.S. Department of

Defense, and the duty or quantitative

limitation will prevent the military

weapons platform from being produced,

the exclusion will likely be granted. The

U.S. Department of Commerce, in

consultation with the other parts of the

U.S. Government as warranted, can

consider other impacts to U.S. national

security that may result from not

approving an exclusion, e.g., the

unintended impacts that may occur in

other downstream industries using steel,

but in such cases the demonstrated

concern with U.S. national security

would need to be tangible and clearly

explained and ultimately determined by

the U.S. Government.

(B) Aluminum application examples.

For example, if the aluminum included

in an exclusion request is needed by a

U.S. defense contractor for making

critical items for use in a military

weapons platform for the U.S.

Department of Defense, and the duty or

quantitative limitation will prevent the

military weapons platform from being

produced, the exclusion will likely be

granted. The U.S. Department of

Commerce, in consultation with the

other parts of the U.S. Government as

warranted, can consider other impacts

to U.S. national security that may result

from not approving an exclusion, e.g.,

the unintended impacts that may occur

in other downstream industries using

aluminum, but in such cases the

demonstrated concern with U.S.

national security would need to be

tangible and clearly explained and

ultimately determined by the U.S.

Government.

(d) Objections to submitted exclusion

requests. (1) Who may submit an

objection to a submitted exclusion

request? Any individual or organization

that manufactures steel or aluminum

articles in the United States may file

objections to steel exclusion requests,

but the U.S. Department of Commerce

will only consider information directly

related to the submitted exclusion

request that is the subject of the

objection.

(2) Identification of objections to

submitted exclusion requests. When

submitting an objection to a submitted

exclusion request, the objector must

locate the exclusion request and submit

the objection in response to the request

directly in the 232 Exclusions Portal.

Once the relevant exclusion request has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81077

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

been located, an individual or

organization that would like to submit

an objection will access the objection

form by scrolling to the bottom of the

exclusion request form and then fill out

the web-based form for submitting their

objection to the exclusion request in the

232 Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations).

(3) Time limit for submitting

objections to submitted exclusions

requests. All objections to submitted

exclusion requests must be submitted

directly on the 232 Exclusions Portal

(https://www.commerce.gov/page/

section-232-investigations) no later than

30 days after the related exclusion

request is posted, with the 30-day clock

starting at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on

the calendar day an exclusion request is

posted.

(4) Substance of objections to

submitted exclusion requests. The

objection should clearly identify, and

provide support for, its opposition to

the proposed exclusion, with reference

to the specific basis identified in, and

the support provided for, the submitted

exclusion request. If the objector is

asserting that it is not currently

producing the steel or aluminum

identified in an exclusion request but

can produce the steel or aluminum and

make that steel or aluminum available

‘‘immediately’’ in accordance with the

time required for the user of steel or

aluminum in the United States to obtain

the product from its foreign suppliers,

the objector must identify how it will be

able to produce and deliver the quantity

of steel or aluminum needed either

within eight weeks, or if after eight

weeks, by a date which is earlier than

the named foreign supplier would

deliver the entire quantity of the

requested product. It is incumbent on

both the exclusion requester, and

objecting producers, to provide

supplemental evidence supporting their

claimed delivery times. This

requirement includes specifying in

writing to Department of Commerce as

part of the objection, the timeline the

objector anticipates in order to start or

restart production of the steel included

in the exclusion request to which it is

objecting. For example, a summary

timeline that specifies the steps that will

occur over the weeks needed to produce

that steel or aluminum would be helpful

to include, not only for the Department

of Commerce review of the objection,

but also for the requester of the

exclusion and its determination whether

to file a rebuttal to the objection. The

U.S. Department of Commerce

understands that, in certain cases,

regulatory approvals, such as from the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

or some approvals at the state or local

level, may be required to start or restart

production and that some of these types

of approvals may be outside the control

of an objector.

(e) Limitations on the size of

submissions. Each exclusion request

and each objection to a submitted

exclusion request is to be limited to a

maximum of 5,000 words, inclusive of

all exhibits and attachments, but

exclusive of the respective forms and

any CBI provided to the U.S.

Department of Commerce. Each

attachment to a submission must be less

than 10 MB.

(f) Rebuttal process. Only individuals

or organizations that have submitted an

exclusion request pursuant to this

supplement may submit a rebuttal to

any objection(s) posted in the 232

Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations). The objections to

submitted exclusion requests process

identified under paragraph (d) of this

supplement already establish a formal

response process for steel and

aluminum manufacturers in the United

States.

(1) Identification of rebuttals. When

submitting a rebuttal, the individual or

organization that submitted the

exclusion request will access the

rebuttal form by scrolling to the bottom

of the objection form and then filling

out the web-based form for submitting

their rebuttal to the objection in the 232

Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations).

(2) Format and size limitations for

rebuttals. Similar to the exclusions

process identified under paragraph (c)

of this supplement and the objection

process identified under paragraph (d)

of this supplement, the rebuttal process

requires the submission of a government

form as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of

this supplement. Each rebuttal is to be

limited to a maximum of 2,500 words,

inclusive of all exhibits and

attachments, but exclusive of the

rebuttal form and any CBI provided to

the U.S. Department of Commerce. Each

attachment to a submission must be less

than 10 MB.

(3) Substance of rebuttals. Rebuttals

must address an objection to the

exclusion request made by the

requester. If multiple objections were

received on a particular exclusion, the

requester may submit a rebuttal to each

objector. The most effective rebuttals

will be those that aim to correct factual

errors or misunderstandings in the

objection(s).

(4) Time limit for submitting rebuttals.

The rebuttal period begins on the date

the Department opens the rebuttal

period after the posting of the last

objection in the 232 Exclusions Portal.

The rebuttal period ends seven days

after the rebuttal comment period is

opened. This seven-day rebuttal period

allows for the individual or organization

that submitted an exclusion request

pursuant to this supplement to submit

any written rebuttals that it believes are

warranted.

(g) Surrebuttal process. Only

individuals or organizations that have a

posted objection to a submitted

exclusion request pursuant to this

supplement may submit a surrebuttal to

a rebuttal (see paragraph (f) of this

supplement) posted to their objection to

an exclusion request in the 232

Exclusions Portal (https://

www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-

investigations).

(1) Identification of surrebuttals.

When submitting a surrebuttal, the

individual or organization that

submitted the objection will access the

surrebuttal form by scrolling to the

bottom of the rebuttal form and then

filling out the web-based form for

submitting their surrebuttal to the

rebuttal in the 232 Exclusions Portal

(https://www.commerce.gov/page/

section-232-investigations).

(2) Format and size limitations for

surrebuttals. Similar to the exclusions

process identified under paragraph (c)

of this supplement, the objection

process identified under paragraph (d)

of this supplement, and the rebuttal

process identified under paragraph (f) of

this supplement, the surrebuttal process

requires the submission of a government

form as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of

this supplement. The surrebuttal must

be submitted in the 232 Exclusions

Portal. Each surrebuttal is to be limited

to a maximum of 2,500 words, inclusive

of all exhibits and attachments, but

exclusive of the surrebuttal form and

any CBI provided to the U.S.

Department of Commerce. Each

attachment to a submission must be less

than 10 MB.

(3) Substance of surrebuttals.

Surrebuttals must address a rebuttal to

an objection to the exclusion request

made by the requester. The most

effective surrebuttals will be those that

aim to correct factual errors or

misunderstandings in the rebuttal to an

objection.

(4) Time limit for submitting

surrebuttals. The surrebuttal period

begins on the date the Department

opens the surrebuttal comment period

after the posting of the last rebuttal to

an objection to an exclusion request in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81078

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the 232 Exclusions Portal. The

surrebuttal period ends seven days after

the surrebuttal comment period is

opened. This seven-day surrebuttal

period allows for the individual or

organization that submitted an objection

to a submitted exclusion request

pursuant to this supplement to submit

any written surrebuttals that it believes

are warranted to respond to a rebuttal.

(h) Disposition of 232 submissions—

(1) Disposition of incomplete

submissions. (i) Exclusion requests that

do not satisfy the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this

supplement will be rejected.

(ii) Objection filings that do not

satisfy the requirements specified in

paragraphs (b) and (d) will not be

considered.

(iii) Rebuttal filings that do not satisfy

the requirements specified in

paragraphs (b) and (f) will not be

considered.

(iv) Surrebuttal filings that do not

satisfy the requirements specified in

paragraphs (b) and (g) will not be

considered.

(2) Disposition of complete

submissions—(i) Posting of responses in

the 232 Exclusions Portal. The U.S.

Department of Commerce will post

responses (decision memos) in the 232

Exclusions Portal to each exclusion

request. The U.S. Department of

Commerce response to an exclusion

request will also be responsive to any of

the objection(s), rebuttal(s) and

surrebuttal(s) for that submitted

exclusion request submitted through the

232 Exclusions Portal.

(ii) Streamlined review process for

‘‘No Objection’’ requests. The U.S.

Department of Commerce will grant

properly filed exclusion requests which

meet the requisite criteria, receive no

objections, and present no national

security concerns. If an exclusion

request’s 30-day comment period in the

232 Exclusions Portal has expired and

no objections have been submitted, BIS

will immediately assess the request for

any national security concerns. If BIS

identifies no national security concerns,

it will post a decision granting the

exclusion request in the 232 Exclusions

Portal.

(iii) Effective date for approved

exclusions and date used for calculating

duty refunds—(A) Effective date for

approved exclusions. Approved

exclusions will be effective five

business days after publication of the

U.S. Department of Commerce response

granting an exclusion in the 232

Exclusions Portal. Starting on that date,

the requester will be able to rely upon

the approved exclusion request in

calculating the duties owed on the

product imported in accordance with

the terms listed in the approved

exclusion request. Companies are able

to receive retroactive relief on granted

requests dating back to the date of the

request’s submission on unliquidated

entries.

(B) Contact for obtaining duty

refunds. The U.S. Department of

Commerce does not provide refunds on

tariffs. Any questions on the refund of

duties should be directed to CBP.

(iv) Validity period for exclusion

requests. Exclusions will generally be

approved for one year from the date of

the signature on the decision memo, but

may be valid for shorter or longer than

one year depending on the specifics of

the exclusion request; any objections

filed; and analysis by the U.S.

Department of Commerce and other

parts of the U.S. Government, as

warranted, of the current supply and

demand in the United States, including

any limitations or other factors that the

Department determines should be

considered in order to achieve the

national security objectives of the duties

and quantitative limitations.

(A) Examples of what fact patterns

may warrant a longer exclusion validity

period. Individuals or organizations

submitting exclusion requests or

objections may, and are encouraged to

specify how long they believe an

exclusion may be warranted and specify

the rationale for that recommended time

period. For example, an individual or

organization submitting an exclusion

request may request a longer validity

period if there are factors outside of

their control that may make it warranted

to grant a longer period. These factors

may include regulatory requirements

that make a longer validity period

justified, e.g., for an aircraft

manufacturer that would require a

certain number of years to make a

change to an FAA-approved type

certificate or for a manufacturer of

medical items to obtain FDA approval.

Business considerations, such as the

need for a multi-year contract for steel

with strict delivery schedules in order

to complete a significant U.S. project by

an established deadline, e.g., a large

scale oil and gas exploration project, is

another illustrative example of the types

of considerations that a person

submitting an exclusion request may

reference.

(B) Examples of what criteria may

warrant a shorter exclusion validity

period. Objectors are encouraged to

provide their suggestions for how long

they believe an appropriate validity

period should be for an exclusion

request. In certain cases, this may be an

objector indicating it has committed to

adding new capacity that will be coming

online within six months, so a shorter

six-month period is warranted.

Conversely, if an objector knows it will

take two years to obtain appropriate

regulatory approvals, financing and/or

completing construction to add new

capacity, the objector may, in

responding to an exclusion that requests

a longer validity period, e.g., three

years, indicate that although they agree

a longer validity period than one year

may be warranted in this case, that two

years is sufficient.

(C) None of the illustrative fact

patterns identified in paragraphs

(h)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this supplement

will be determinative in and of

themselves for establishing the

appropriate validity period, but this

type of information is helpful for the

U.S. Department of Commerce to

receive, when warranted, to help

determine the appropriate validity

period if a period other than one year

is requested.

(3) Review period and implementation

of any needed conforming changes—(i)

Review period. The review period

normally will not exceed 106 days for

requests that receive objections,

including adjudication of objections

submitted on exclusion requests and

any rebuttals to objections, and

surrebuttals. The estimated 106-day

period begins on the day the exclusion

request is posted in the 232 Exclusions

Portal, and ends once a decision to grant

or deny is made on the exclusion

request.

(ii) Coordination with other agencies

on approval and implementation. Other

agencies of the U.S. Government, such

as CBP, will take any additional steps

needed to implement an approved

exclusion request. These additional

steps needed to implement an approved

exclusion request are not part of the

review criteria used by the U.S.

Department of Commerce to determine

whether to approve an exclusion

request, but are an important

component in ensuring the approved

exclusion request can be properly

implemented. The U.S. Department of

Commerce will provide CBP with

information that will identify each

approved exclusion request pursuant to

this supplement. Individuals or

organizations whose exclusion requests

are approved must report information

concerning any applicable exclusion in

such form as CBP may require. These

exclusion identifiers will be used by

importers in the data collected by CBP

in order for CBP to determine whether

an import is within the scope of an

approved exclusion request.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81079

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(i) For further information. If you have

questions on this supplement, you may

contact the Director, Industrial Studies,

Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau

of Industry and Security, U.S.

Department of Commerce, at (202) 482–

5642 or Steel232@bis.doc.gov regarding

steel exclusion requests, or at (202) 482–

4757 or Aluminum232@bis.doc.gov

regarding aluminum exclusion requests.

The U.S. Department of Commerce

website includes FAQs, best practices

other companies have used for

submitting exclusion requests and

objections, and helpful checklists. The

U.S. Department of Commerce has also

included a manual providing

instruction on the 232 Exclusions Portal

for exclusion requests submitted on or

after June 13, 2019, titled 232

Exclusions Portal Comprehensive Guide

(‘‘232 Exclusions Guide’’) and posted

online at (https://www.commerce.gov/

page/section-232-investigations) to

assist your understanding when making

232 submissions in the 232 Exclusions

Portal.

■3. Effective December 29, 2020

Supplement No. 2 to part 705 is revised

to read as follows:

Supplement No. 2 to Part 705—General

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) for Steel

Articles Under the 232 Exclusions

Process

This supplement identifies steel

articles that have been approved for

import under a General Approved

Exclusion (GAE). The Secretary of

Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of

the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the

United States Trade Representative, the

Assistant to the President for Economic

Policy, the Assistant to the President for

National Security Affairs, and other

senior Executive Branch officials as

appropriate, makes these determinations

that certain steel articles may be

authorized under a GAE consistent with

the objectives of the 232 Exclusions

Process as outlined in supplement no. 1

to this part. The GAEs described in this

supplement may be used by any

importer. GAEs do not include quantity

limits. Each GAE identifier will be

effective fifteen calendar days after

publication of a Federal Register notice

either adding or revising a specific GAE

identifier. There is no retroactive relief

for GAEs. Relief is only available to steel

articles that are entered for

consumption, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, on or after

the effective date of a GAE included in

supplement no. 2 to this part. In order

to use a GAE, the importer must include

the GAE identifier in the Automated

Commercial Environment (ACE) system

that corresponds to the steel articles

being imported. These GAEs are

indefinite in length, but the Department

of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary

of Commerce may at any time issue a

Federal Register notice removing,

revising or adding to an existing GAE in

this supplement as warranted to align

with the objectives of the 232 exclusions

process as described in supplement no.

1 to this part. The Department of

Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of

Commerce may periodically publish

notices of inquiry in the Federal

Register soliciting public comments on

potential removals, revisions or

additions to this supplement.

GAE identifier Description of steel that may be imported (at 10-digit harmonized

tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.1.S: 7304592030 ...... 7304592030. TUBES/PIPES/HLLW PRFLS OTH ALLOY STL,

SMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT COLD-TRTD, SUITABLE FOR BOIL-

ERS ETC, HEAT-RESISTING STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.2.S: 7304592080 ...... 7304592080. TUBES/PIPES/H PRFLS ALLOY STL, SMLSS, CIRC

CS, NOT COLD-TRTD, SUIT FOR BOILERS ETC, NOT HT-

RSST STL, OS DIAM >406.4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.3.S: 7220900060 ...... 7220900060. OTHER FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH

<600MM, FURTH WRKD THAN COLD-RLD, </=0.5% OR >/

=24% NICKEL, <15% CHROMIUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.4.S: 7222406000 ...... 7222406000. ANGLES SHAPES AND SECTIONS STAINLESS

STEEL, OTHER THAN HOT ROLLED, NOT DRILLED, NOT

PUNCHED, AND NOT OTHERWISE ADVANCED.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.5.S: 7306901000 ...... 7306901000. OTH TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES IRON/

NONALLOY STL, RIVETED/SIMILARLY CLOSED (NOT WELD-

ED).

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.6.S: 7212600000 ...... 7212600000. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH

<600MM, CLAD. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.7.S: 7227901060 ...... 7227901060. BARS/RODS TOOL STL (NOT HIGH-SPEED), HOT-

RLD, IRR COILS, NOT TEMPRD/TREATD/PARTLY MFTD, NOT

BALL BEARING STEEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.8.S: 7220207060 ...... 7220207060. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, THICKNESS >0.25MM BUT </=1.25MM, </=0.5%

NICKEL, <15% CHROMIUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.9.S: 7223005000 ...... 7223005000. FLAT WIRE OF STAINLESS STEEL ........................... ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.10.S: 7220208000 .... 7220208000. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, THK </=0.25MM, RAZOR BLADE STL. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.11.S: 7217108060 .... 7217108060. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, >0.6% CARBON, NOT HEAT-TREATED, DIAM

<1.0MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.12.S: 7226923060 .... 7226923060. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, TOOL STEEL OTH THAN HIGH-SPEED, OTHER

THAN BALL-BEARING STEEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.13.S: 7229905016 .... 7229905016. ROUND WIRE OTHER ALLOY STL, DIAM <1.0MM ... ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.14.S: 7215500018 .... 7215500018. OTHER BARS/RODS IRON/NONALLOY STL, COLD-

FORMED/FINISHED, NOT COILS, <0.25% CARBON, DIAME-

TER OR CROSS-SECTN >/=76MM BUT <228MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.15.S: 7304598060 .... 7304598060. TUBES/PIPES/HLLW PRFLS OTH ALLOY STL,

SMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT CLD-TRTD, OS DIAMETER >285.8MM

BUT <406.4MM, WALL THK<12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81080

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

GAE identifier Description of steel that may be imported (at 10-digit harmonized

tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.16.S: 7228501040 .... 7228501040. OTHER BARS/RODS TOOL STL (NOT HIGH-

SPEED), COLD-FRMD/FNSHD, MAX CS <18MM, OTHER THAN

OF ROUND OR RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION WITH SUR-

FACES GROUND, MILLED, OR POLISHED.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.17.S: 7304246030 .... 7304246030. TUBING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, OUTSIDE DIAM </=114.3MM, WALL THK >9.5 MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.18.S: 7229905031 .... 7229905031. ROUND WIRE OTHER ALLOY STL, WITH DIAME-

TER >/=1.0MM BUT <1.5MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.19.S: 7304598010 .... 7304598010. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES OTH ALLOY

STL, SEAMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT COLD-TREATED, NOT HEAT-

RESISTANT, OUTSIDE DIAM <38.1MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.20.S: 7219310010 .... 7219310010. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

COLD-RLD, THK >/=4.75MM, COILS. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.21.S: 7304598045 .... 7304598045. TUBES/PIPES/HLLW PRFLS OTH ALLOY STL,

SMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT CLD-TRTD, NOT HEAT-RESISTANT,

OS DIAMETER >190.5MM BUT <285.8MM, WALL THK<12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.22.S: 7306401090 .... 7306401090. OTH TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PRFLS STAINLESS

STL, WELDED, CIRC CS, WALL THK <1.65MM, </=0.5% NICK-

EL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.23.S: 7220206010 .... 7220206010. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, THK >1.25MM, >0.5% NICKEL, >1.5% BUT <5% BY

WEIGHT OF MOLYBDENUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.24.S: 7211296080 .... 7211296080. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WIDTH

>300MM BUT <600MM, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, COLD-

RLD, >/=0.25% CRBN, THK </=1.25MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.25.S: 7217201500 .... 7217201500. FLAT WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, PLATED/COAT-

ED WITH ZINC. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.26.S: 7219120026 .... 7219120026. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >1575MM,

HOT-RLD, COILS, THK >6.8MM BUT <10MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.27.S: 7219320020 .... 7219320020. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=1370MM,

COLD-RLD, THICKNESS >3MM BUT <4.75MM, COILS, >0.5%

NICKEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.28.S: 7304243010 .... 7304243010. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, THREADED/COUPLED, OUTSIDE DIAM

<215.9MM, WALL THK <12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.29.S: 7219220035 .... 7219220035. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, THICKNESS >/

=4.75MM BUT <10MM, WIDTH >/=600MM BUT <1575MM, HOT-

RLD, NOT COILS, THK 4.75-10MM, >0.5% NICKEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.30.S: 7222403085 .... 7222403085. SHAPES/SECTIONS STAINLESS STL, HOT-RLD,

NOT DRILLED/PUNCHED/ADVANCED, MAX CROSS SECTION

<80MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.31.S: 7222403045 .... 7222403045. SHAPES/SECTIONS STAINLESS STL, HOT-RLD,

NOT DRILLED/PUNCHED/ADVANCED, MAX CS >/=80MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.32.S: 7219110060 .... 7219110060. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >1575MM,

HOT-RLD, COILS, THK >10MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.33.S: 7304515005 .... 7304515005. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES OTH ALLOY

STL, SEAMLESS, CIRC CS, COLD-DRWN/RLD, HIGH-NICKEL

ALLOY STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.34.S: 7219330025 .... 7219330025. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=1370MM,

COLD-RLD, THICKNESS >1MM BUT <3MM, COILS, </=0.5%

NICKEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.35.S: 7217901000 .... 7217901000. WIRE, IRON OR NONALLOY STEEL, COATED WITH

PLASTICS. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.36.S: 7219110030 .... 7219110030. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=600MM

BUT <1575MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, THK >10MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.37.S: 7217108030 .... 7217108030. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, >0.6% CARBON, HEAT-TREATED, DIAMETER >/

=1.0MM BUT <1.5MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.38.S: 7212200000 .... 7212200000. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH

<600MM, ELECTROLYTICALLY PLATED/COATED WITH ZINC. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.39.S: 7217204560 .... 7217204560. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, PLATED/

COATED WITH ZINC, DIAMETER >/=1.0MM BUT <1.5MM, >/

=0.6% CARBON.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.40.S: 7220206060 .... 7220206060. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, THK >1.25MM, </=0.5% NICKEL, <15% CHROMIUM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.41.S: 7217108025 .... 7217108025. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, >0.6% CARBON, HEAT-TREATED, DIAM <1.0MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.42.S: 7220121000 .... 7220121000. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=300MM

BUT <600MM, HOT-RLD, THK <4.75MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.43.S: 7209900000 .... 7209900000. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH >/

=600MM, COLD-RLD, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, WHETHER

OR NOT IN COILS.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.44.S: 7213913020 .... 7213913020. BARS/RODS IRON/NA STL, IRR COILS, HOT-RLD,

CIRC CS<14MM DIAM, NOT TEMPRD/TREATD/PARTLY MFTD,

WELDING QUALITY WIRE ROD.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.45.S: 7306617060 .... 7306617060. OTH TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES OTH

ALLOY STL (NOT STAINLESS), WELDED, SQ/RECT CS, WALL

THK <4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.46.S: 7216330090 .... 7216330090. H SECTIONS IRON/NONALLOY STL, HOT-RLD/

DRWN/EXTRD, HEIGHT >/=80MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81081

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

GAE identifier Description of steel that may be imported (at 10-digit harmonized

tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.47.S: 7217905030 .... 7217905030. WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/COAT-

ED WITH BASE METALS OR PLASTICS, <0.25% CARBON. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.48.S: 7226923030 .... 7226923030. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, TOOL STEEL OTH THAN HIGH-SPEED, BALL-

BEARING STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.49.S: 7219120051 .... 7219120051. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=1370MM

BUT <1575MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, THICKNESS >/=4.75MM BUT

<6.8MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.50.S: 7227906020 .... 7227906020. BARS/RODS OTHER ALLOY STL, IRR COILS, HOT-

RLD, NOT TOOL STL, WELDING QUALITY WIRE RODS. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.51.S: 7217905090 .... 7217905090. WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/COAT-

ED WITH BASE METALS OR PLASTICS, >/=0.6% CARBON. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.52.S: 7219220040 .... 7219220040. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, HOT-RLD, NOT

COILS, THK >/=4.75 MM BUT <10MM, NOT HIGH-NICKEL

ALLOY, >0.5% NICKEL, </=1.5% OR >/=5% MOLYBDENUM,

WIDTH >1575MM BUT <1880MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.53.S: 7219320038 .... 7219320038. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, COLD-RLD, THICK-

NESS >/=3MM BUT <4.75MM, COILS, WIDTH >600MM BUT

<1370MM, NOT HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY, >0.5% NICKEL, </=1.5%

OR >/=5% MOLYBDENUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.54.S: 7219320045 .... 7219320045. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=1370MM,

COLD-RLD, THICKNESS >/=3MM BUT <4.75MM, NOT COILS. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.55.S: 7219350005 .... 7219350005. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

COLD-RLD, THK <0.5MM, COILS, >0.5% BUT <24% NICKEL,

>1.5% BUT <5% MOLYBDENUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.56.S: 7219320036 .... 7219320036. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, COLD-RLD, THICK-

NESS >/=3MM BUT <4.75MM, COILS, WIDTH >600MM BUT

<1370MM, NOT HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY, >0.5% NICKEL, >1.5%

BUT <5% MOLYBDENUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.57.S: 7304901000 .... 7304901000. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES IRON/

NONALLOY STL, SEAMLESS, NONCIRCULAR CROSS SEC-

TION, WALL THK >/=4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.58.S: 7304390002 .... 7304390002. TUBES/PIPES/HLLW PRFLS IRON/NA STL,

SMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT COLD-TRTD, SUITABLE FOR BOIL-

ERS ETC, OS DIAM <38.1MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.59.S: 7219120071 .... 7219120071. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >600MM

BUT <1370MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, THICKNESS >/=4.75MM BUT

<10MM, NOT HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY, >0.5% NICKEL, </=1.5%

OR >/=5% MOLYBDENUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.60.S: 7225501110 .... 7225501110. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

COLD-RLD, TOOL STEEL, HIGH-SPEED STL. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.61.S: 7217905060 .... 7217905060. WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, PLATED/COATED,

>0.25% BUT <0.6% CARBON. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.62.S: 7220125000 .... 7220125000. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

HOT-RLD, THK <4.75MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.63.S: 7226928005 .... 7226928005. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, NOT TOOL STL, THK >0.25MM, HIGH-NICKEL

ALLOY STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.64.S: 7217106000 .... 7217106000. OTHER WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, <0.25% CARBON. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.65.S: 7219120021 .... 7219120021. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=1370MM

BUT </=1575MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, THICKNESS >6.8MM BUT

</=10MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.66.S: 7304390016 .... 7304390016. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES IRON/NA STL,

SEAMLESS, CIRC CS, NOT COLD-TRTD, GALVANIZED, OS

DIAM </=114.3MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.67.S: 7304244040 .... 7304244040. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, NOT THREADED/COUPLED, OS DIAMETER >/

=215.9MM BUT </=285.8MM, WALL THK >/=12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.68.S: 7302101015 .... 7302101015. OTHER RAILS IRON/NONALLOY STL, NEW, NOT

HEAT TREATED, >30KG/M. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.69.S: 7304413005 .... 7304413005. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PRFLS STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, CIRC CS, COLD-DRWN/RLD, EXT DIAM <19MM,

HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.70.S: 7215500090 .... 7215500090. OTHER BARS/RODS IRON/NONALLOY STL, COLD-

FORMED/FINISHED, NOT COILS, >/=0.6% CARBON. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.71.S: 7217304541 .... 7217304541. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, PLATED/

COATED W/OTH BASE METALS, DIAMETER >/=1.0MM BUT

<1.5MM, <0.25% CARBON.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.72.S: 7227200030 .... 7227200030. BARS/RODS SILICO-MANGANESE STL, IRR COILS,

HOT-RLD, WELDING QUALITY WIRE RODS, STAT NOTE 6. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.73.S: 7306697060 .... 7306697060. OTH TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES OTH

ALLOY STL (NOT STAINLESS), WELDED, OTH NONCIRCULAR

CS, WALL THK <4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.74.S: 7302101045 .... 7302101045. OTHER RAILS IRON/NONALLOY STL, NEW, HEAT

TREATED, >30KG/M. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.75.S: 7219210005 .... 7219210005. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

HOT-RLD, NOT COILS, THK >10MM, HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY STL. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.76.S: 7304293160 .... 7304293160. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) OTH ALLOY STL,

SEAMLESS, THREADED/COUPLED, OS DIAMETER >285.8MM

BUT </=406.4MM, WALL THK >/=12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81082

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

GAE identifier Description of steel that may be imported (at 10-digit harmonized

tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.77.S: 7305316090 .... 7305316090. OTHER TUBES/PIPES ALLOY STL, CIRC CS, EXT

DIAM >406.4MM, NOT LINE PIPE OR CASING (OIL/GAS), LON-

GITUDINALLY WELDED, NOT TAPERED PIPES/TUBES, NON-

STAINLESS ALLOY STEEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.78.S: 7216400010 .... 7216400010. L SECTIONS IRON/NONALLOY STL, HOT-ROLLED/

DRAWN/EXTRUDED, HEIGHT >/=80MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.79.S: 7226990110 .... 7226990110. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH <600MM,

ELECTROLYTICALLY PLATD/COATD W/ZINC, NOT GRAIN

ORIENTED, NOT OF HIGH-SPEED STEEL, FURTHER

WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED OR COLD-ROLLED.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.80.S: 7225506000 .... 7225506000. FLAT-ROLLED OTH ALLOY STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

COLD-RLD, THK >/=4.75MM, NOT OF TOOL STEEL. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.81.S: 7304905000 .... 7304905000. TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES IRON/

NONALLOY STL, SEAMLESS, NOT CIRCULAR CS, WALL THK

<4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.82.S: 7219220005 .... 7219220005. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

HOT-RLD, NOT COILS, THICKNESS >/=4.75MM BUT </=10MM,

HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.83.S: 7217104045 .... 7217104045. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, <0.25% CARBON, DIAM <1.5MM, HEAT-TREATED,

IN COILS WEIGHING >2 KG.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.84.S: 7209270000 .... 7209270000. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH >/

=600MM, COLD-RLD, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, NOT

COILS, THK 0.5–1MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.85.S: 7219900060 .... 7219900060. OTHER FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH >/

=600MM, FURTHER WORKED THAN COLD-RLD, </=0.5%

NICKEL, <15% CHROMIUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.86.S: 7219120081 .... 7219120081. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=600MM

BUT <1370MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, NOT HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY,

THICKNESS >/=4.75MM BUT </=10MM, </=0.5% NICKEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.87.S: 7304293180 .... 7304293180. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) OTH ALLOY STL,

SEAMLESS, THREADED/COUPLED, OUTSIDE DIAM >406.4MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.88.S: 7224100005 .... 7224100005. INGOTS AND OTHER PRIMARY FORMS OF HIGH-

NICKEL ALLOY STEEL. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.89.S: 7213200080 .... 7213200080. BARS/RODS IRON/NONALLOY STL, HOT-RLD, IRR

COILS, FREE-CUTTING STL, <0.1% LEAD. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.90.S: 7216100010 .... 7216100010. U SECTIONS IRON/NONALLOY STL, HOT-ROLLED/

DRAWN/EXTRUDED, HEIGHT <80MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.91.S: 7306695000 .... 7306695000. OTH TUBES/PIPES/HOLLOW PROFILES IRON/

NONALLOY STL, WELDED, OTH NONCIRCULAR CS, WALL

THK <4MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.92.S: 7208390015 .... 7208390015. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NA STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

HOT-RLD, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, COILS, THK <3MM,

HIGH-STRENGTH STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.93.S: 7208380015 .... 7208380015. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NA STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

HOT-RLD, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, COILS, THICKNESS

>/=3MM BUT <4.75MM, HIGH-STRENGTH STL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.94.S: 7217104090 .... 7217104090. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, NOT PLATED/

COATED, <0.25% CARBON, DIAM <1.5MM, NOT HEAT-TREAT-

ED.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.95.S: 7302105020 .... 7302105020. RAILS OF ALLOY STEEL, NEW .................................. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.96.S: 7210706030 .... 7210706030. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NA STL, WDTH >/=600MM,

PAINTD/VARNSHD/COATD W/PLASTICS, ELECTROLYTICALLY

PLATD/COATD W/ZINC.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.97.S: 7304244060 .... 7304244060. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, NOT THREADED/COUPLED, OS DIAMETER

>285.8MM BUT </=406.4MM, WALL THK>/=12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.98.S: 7229200015 .... 7229200015. ROUND WIRE SI-MN STL, DIAM </=1.6MM,

<0.20%C, >0.9% MN, >0.6% SI, FOR ELEC ARC WELDING,

NOT PLATD/COATD W/COPPER.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.99.S: 7304243040 .... 7304243040. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, THREADED/COUPLED, OUTSIDE DIAMETER >/

=215.9MM BUT </=285.8MM, WALL THK>/=12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.100.S: 7304243020 .. 7304243020. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

SEAMLESS, THREADED/COUPLED, OUTSIDE DIAM

<215.9MM, WALL THK >/=12.7MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.101.S: 7219130081 .. 7219130081. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WIDTH >/=600MM

BUT <1370MM, HOT-RLD, COILS, THICKNESS >/=3MM BUT

<4.75MM, </=0.5% OR >/=24% NICKEL.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.102.S: 7211140090 .. 7211140090. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH

<600MM, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, HOT-RLD, THK >/

=4.75MM, COILS.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.103.S: 7218910030 .. 7218910030. SEMIFINISHED STAINLESS STL, RECTANGULAR

CROSS SECTION, WDTH <4X THK, CS AREA >/=232 CM2. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.104.S: 7306213000 .. 7306213000. CASING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) STAINLESS STL,

WELDED, THREADED/COUPLED. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.105.S: 7211234500 .. 7211234500. FLAT-ROLLED IRON/NONALLOY STL, WDTH

<300MM, NOT CLAD/PLATED/COATED, COLD-RLD, <0.25%

CRBN, THK </=0.25MM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81083

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

GAE identifier Description of steel that may be imported (at 10-digit harmonized

tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.106.S: 7220206080 .. 7220206080. FLAT-ROLLED STAINLESS STL, WDTH <300MM,

COLD-RLD, THK >1.25MM, NOT HIGH-NICKEL ALLOY, </=0.5%

NICKEL, >/=15% CHROMIUM.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.107.S: 7305391000 .. 7305391000. OTHER TUBES/PIPES IRON/NONALLOY STL, CIRC

CS, EXT DIAM >406.4MM, WELDED, OTHER THAN

LONGITUDALLY WELDED.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.108.S: 7217204550 .. 7217204550. ROUND WIRE IRON/NONALLOY STL, PLATED/

COATED WITH ZINC, DIAMETER >/=1.0MM BUT <1.5MM, >/

=0.25% BUT <0.6% CARBON.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and 2

to part 705 [Removed]

■4. Annex 1 to Supplements No. 1 and

2 to part 705 is removed.

■5. Effective December 29, 2020. add

Supplement No. 3 to part 705 to read as

follows:

Supplement No. 3 to Part 705—General

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) for

Aluminum Articles Under the 232

Exclusions Process

This supplement identifies aluminum

articles that have been approved for

import under a General Approved

Exclusion (GAE). The Secretary of

Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of

the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the

United States Trade Representative, the

Assistant to the President for Economic

Policy, the Assistant to the President for

National Security Affairs, and other

senior Executive Branch officials as

appropriate, makes these determinations

that certain aluminum articles may be

authorized under a GAE consistent with

the objectives of the 232 exclusions

process as outlined in supplement no. 1

to this part. The GAEs described in this

supplement may be used by any

importer. GAEs do not include quantity

limits. Each GAE identifier will be

effective fifteen calendar days after

publication of a Federal Register notice

either adding or revising a specific GAE

identifier. There is no retroactive relief

for GAEs. Relief is only available to

aluminum articles that are entered for

consumption, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, on or after

the effective date of a GAE included in

supplement no. 2 to this part. In order

to use a GAE, the importer must

reference the GAE identifier in the

Automated Commercial Environment

(ACE) system that corresponds to the

aluminum articles being imported.

These GAEs are indefinite in length, but

the Department of Commerce on behalf

of the Secretary of Commerce may at

any time issue a Federal Register notice

removing, revising or adding to an

existing GAE in this supplement as

warranted to align with the objectives of

the 232 exclusions process as described

in supplement no. 1 to this part. The

Department of Commerce on behalf of

the Secretary of Commerce may

periodically publish notices of inquiry

in the Federal Register soliciting public

comments on potential removals,

revisions or additions to this

supplement.

GAE identifier Description of aluminum that may be imported (at 10-digit

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.1.A: 7609000000 ...... 7609000000. ALUMINUM TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS (COUPLINGS,

ELBOWS, SLEEVES). ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.2.A: 7607205000 ...... 7607205000. ALUMINUM FOIL OF THICKNESS .............................. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.3.A: 7607196000 ...... 7607196000. ALUMINUM FOIL OF THICKNESS .............................. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.4.A: 7604210010 ...... 7604210010. ALUMINUM ALLOY HOLLOW PROFILES OF HEAT-

TREATABLE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN

NOTE 6 TO THIS CHAPTER.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.5.A: 7604291010 ...... 7604291010. ALUMINUM ALLOY PROFILES OTHER THAN HOL-

LOW PROFILES OF HEAT-TREATABLE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS

OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN NOTE 6 TO THIS CHAPTER.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.6.A: 7607191000 ...... 7607191000. ALUMINUM FOIL OF THICKNESS .............................. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.7.A: 7606116000 ...... 7606116000. ALUMINUM PLATES, SHEETS AND STRIP, THICK-

NESS >0.2MM, RECTANGULAR (INCLUDING SQUARE), NOT

ALLOYED, CLAD.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.8.A: 7605290000 ...... 7605290000. ALUMINUM WIRE ALLOY, MAXIMUM CROSS-SEC-

TIONAL DIMENSION </=7MM. ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.9.A: 7601209080 ...... 7601209080. UNWROUGHT ALUMINUM ALLOY, SHEET INGOT

(SLAB) OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN STATISTICAL NOTE 3 TO

THIS CHAPTER.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.10.A: 7607116010 .... 7607116010. ALUMINUM FOIL OF THICKNESS >0.01 MM AND </

=0.15 MM, ROLLED, NOT BACKED, BOXED & WEIGHING </

=11.3 KG.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.11.A: 7616995170 .... 7616995170. ALUMINUM FORGINGS ............................................... ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.12.A: 7607201000 .... 7607201000. ALUMINUM FOIL OF THICKNESS </=0.2 MM,

BACKED, COVERED OR DECORATED WITH A CHARACTER,

DESIGN, FANCY EFFECT OR PATTERN.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.13.A: 7604295090 .... 7604295090. ALUMINUM ALLOY BARS AND RODS, OTHER

THAN ROUND CROSS SECTION, OTHER THAN HEAT-TREAT-

ABLE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN

NOTES 5 & 6 OF THIS CHAPTER.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

81084

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

GAE identifier Description of aluminum that may be imported (at 10-digit

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level)

Other limitations

(e.g., country of

import or quantity

allowed)

Federal Register citation

GAE.14.A: 7601209095 .... 7601209095. UNWROUGHT ALUMINUM ALLOY, OTHER THAN

COILS OF UNIFORM CROSS-SECTION </=9.5 MM, CON-

TAINING <25% SILICON, OTHER THAN ALLUMINUM VANA-

DIUM MASTER ALLOY, OTHER THAN REMELT SCRAP INGOT,

OTHER THAN SHEET INGOT, OTHER THAN FOUNDRY INGOT.

............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

GAE.15.A:7616995160 ...... 7616995160. ALUMINUM CASTINGS ................................................ ............................ 85 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND

12/14/2020].

Matthew S. Borman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. 2020–27110 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 03:46 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14DER2.SGM 14DER2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2