Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58525 

§ 57.2 National List of Reportable Animal 

Diseases. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Notifiable diseases. Any animal 

health professional with knowledge of 

occurrence or suspected occurrence of 

an animal disease, disease agent, or 

condition listed as notifiable in the 

NLRAD must immediately report such 

identification or suspicion to APHIS. 

Reporting to APHIS may be 

accomplished as described on the 

NLRAD website available at: https://

www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/ 

animalhealth/monitoring-andsurveillance/nlrad/ct_national_list_

reportable_animal_diseases, or by 

contacting a local APHIS office.1

1Contact information for APHIS offices can 

be found on the APHIS website at https://

www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/ 

contactus, or in the local phone directory 

(listed under Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary 

Services). 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

August 2023. 

Michael Watson, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18379 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 705 

[Docket No. 230810–0188] 

RIN 0694–AJ27 

Revisions of the Section 232 Steel and 

Aluminum Tariff Exclusions Process 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises 

aspects of the process for requesting 

exclusions from the duties and 

quantitative limitations on imports of 

aluminum and steel discussed in five 

previous Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) interim final rules 

implementing the exclusion process 

authorized by the President under 

section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 

of 1962, as amended (‘‘Section 232’’). 

The changes in this proposed rule are 

also informed by a notice of request for 

public comments on the Section 232 

exclusions process that was published 

by BIS on February 10, 2022 (February 

Notice). The February Notice was 

directed by Proclamation 10328 of 

December 27, 2021, that directed BIS to 

review the Section 232 exclusions 

process to make improvements, 

including soliciting public comments as 

part of the review process. Based on a 

BIS review of the existing Section 232 

exclusion process for areas of 

improvement and public comments on 

the current process for submissions to 

BIS, BIS is publishing this proposed 

rule to propose revisions to the Section 

232 exclusions process, including to the 

Section 232 Exclusions Portal. As part 

of this proposed rule, BIS requests 

public comments on the proposed 

changes. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by BIS no later than 

October 12, 2023. 

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–2023–0021 or 

RIN 0694–AJ27, through the Federal 

eRulemaking website: http://

www.regulations.gov. No other 

submission methods are being used for 

submitting comments on this proposed 

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. Commenters 

submitting business confidential 

information are encouraged to scan a 

hard copy of the non-confidential 

version to create an image of the file, 

rather than submitting a digital copy 

with redactions applied, to avoid 

inadvertent redaction errors which 

could enable the public to read business 

confidential information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding this proposed 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 

proposed rule specific to steel exclusion 

requests and Aluminum232@bis.doc.gov 

regarding provisions in this proposed 

rule specific to aluminum exclusion 

requests. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 8, 2018, Presidential 

Proclamations 9704, Adjusting Imports 

of Aluminum Into the United States (83 

FR 13267), and 9705, Adjusting Imports 

of Steel Into the United States (83 FR 

11625), imposed 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, Proclamations 9776 

and 9777 also authorized the Secretary 

to grant exclusions from quantitative 

limitations based on the same standards 

applicable to exclusions from the tariffs. 

The Section 232 Exclusions Process 

Since March 19, 2018, BIS has 

published five interim final rules (IFRs) 

that established and made various 

revisions to the Section 232 exclusions 

process, as well as a Notice of Inquiry 

seeking public comment on certain 

aspects of the Section 232 exclusions 

process. 

On March 19, 2018, BIS issued an 

IFR, Requirements for Submissions 

Requesting Exclusions from the 

Remedies Instituted in Presidential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58526 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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), establishing the Section 232 

exclusions process in supplements no. 1 

and 2 to 15 CFR part 705. 

On September 11, 2018, BIS issued a 

second IFR, Submissions of Exclusion 

Requests and Objections to Submitted 

Requests for Steel and Aluminum (83 

FR 46026), which revised the exclusions 

process to increase transparency, 

fairness, and efficiency. 

On June 10, 2019, BIS issued a third 

IFR, Implementation of New Commerce 

Section 232 Exclusions Portal (84 FR 

26751), that revised the two 

supplements to part 705 to grant the 

public the ability to submit new 

exclusion requests through the Section 

232 Exclusions Portal while still 

allowing the opportunity for public 

comment on the portal. 

On May 26, 2020, BIS issued a notice 

of inquiry with request for comment, 

Notice of Inquiry Regarding the 

Exclusions Process for Section 232 Steel 

and Aluminum Import Tariffs and 

Quotas (85 FR 31441), 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. 

On December 14, 2020, BIS issued a 

fourth IFR, Section 232 Steel and 

Aluminum Tariff Exclusions Process (85 

FR 81060), which established General 

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) to reduce 

the number of exclusion requests for 

products consistently found not to be 

produced in the United States, reducing 

the submission burden on both industry 

and the Section 232 exclusions process. 

The December 14 IFR identified 123 

GAEs that had generally never received 

an objection or very few objections via 

the Section 232 exclusions process. 

GAEs are available to all would-be 

requesters for steel and aluminum 

products imported under 10-Digit 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) classifications 

without quantity limit or expiration 

date. 

On December 9, 2021, BIS 

subsequently suspended 30 GAEs in its 

fifth IFR, Removal of Certain General 

Approved Exclusions Under the Section 

232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff 

Exclusion Process (86 FR 70003), on the 

Section 232 Exclusions process because 

they were determined by BIS to no 

longer fit the criteria of a GAE. 

On January 3, 2022, Presidential 

Proclamations 10327 (87 FR 1) and 

10328 (87 FR 11) were published. These 

Proclamations implemented an 

understanding reached between the 

United States and the European Union 

including the establishment of tariff rate 

quotas for steel and aluminum articles 

imported from the European Union 

member countries. Proclamation 10328 

also directed the Secretary of Commerce 

to seek public comment on the Section 

232 exclusions process, including the 

responsiveness of the exclusions 

process to market demand and 

enhanced consultation with U.S. firms 

and labor organizations. 

On February 10, 2022, BIS published 

Request for Public Comments on the 

Section 232 Exclusions Process (87 FR 

7777) (February 2022 Notice), as 

directed by Presidential Proclamation 

10328. The notice sought public 

comment on a variety of topics 

regarding the responsiveness of the 

exclusions process to market demand 

and enhanced consultation with U.S. 

firms and labor organizations. The 

notice comment period closed in March 

2022, having received nearly 100 

comments. Information about the 

comments received, along with BIS’s 

responses, are detailed below. 

Why is BIS publishing this proposed 

rule? 

BIS is publishing this proposed rule 

to seek public comment on changes the 

Department believes will further 

improve the Section 232 exclusions 

process, following the receipt of 

comments from the February 2022 

notice and then making any refinements 

in the changes proposed in this 

proposed rule in response to the 

comments received. BIS believes these 

changes will make important 

improvements and is requesting public 

comments to further evaluate how 

effective these changes will be in 

improving the Section 232 exclusions 

process. This action is consistent with 

the Department’s approach of 

continually working to improve the 

process and obtain public feedback. 

This proposed rule serves two 

functions. First, it seeks comments, as 

required by Proclamation 10328. 

Second, it responds to the outstanding 

comments received in the broader 

Section 232 exclusions process IFRs 

detailed above. As a matter of 

rulemaking, an IFR is generally followed 

by a final rule. Therefore, this proposed 

rule finalizes the Section 232 exclusions 

process IFRs. Any further action to 

modify the Section 232 exclusions 

process will be taken through issuance 

of a final rule. 

What are the key changes included in 

this proposed rule? 

This proposed rule makes the 

following four changes to the Section 

232 exclusions process: 

First, it creates a more efficient GAE 

process. BIS is committed to 

maintaining GAEs as a policy matter 

and is using this proposed rule to 

further clarify the general process by 

which GAEs are identified. As noted 

above, BIS issued an initial list of GAEs 

in December 2020 and modified the list 

of GAEs in December 2021. Originally, 

GAEs had 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 Section 232 

exclusions process. Their creation was 

estimated to result in an immediate 

decrease of 5,000 exclusion requests 

annually, resulting in a significant 

improvement in efficiency, with the 

possibility of more in the future. GAEs 

were identified at the ten-digit statistical 

reporting number of the HTSUS that 

had generally received no objections. 

BIS proposes changing the criteria 

that has generally been used for GAEs 

from the HTSUS statistical reporting 

number that have received no objections 

to HTSUS classification codes (or 

subproducts) with very low rates of 

successful objections. The current 

criteria have focused most heavily on 

whether an HTSUS code has received 

objections. One of the problems with 

this past approach is that any party 

opposed to certain GAEs could submit 

objections regardless of the merits of 

those objections, which would make 

those HTSUS categories ineligible for 

GAE status. This undermines the 

effectiveness of the Section 232 

exclusions process, creates unnecessary 

burdens on BIS and industry, and 

reduces the fairness and efficiency of 

the process. BIS still believes that the 

number of objections received is 

generally the right criterion to use; 

however, that criterion needs to be 

updated to focus on the number of 

substantiated objections, which is a 

better metric to use and should deter 

objections only submitted to prevent 

specific GAEs. BIS believes that the low 

rates of successful objections for specific 

10-digit HTSUS classification codes 

shows that U.S. industry does not 

produce the products or subproducts in 

question in a sufficient and reasonably 

available amount or of a satisfactory 

quality. New GAEs will continue to be 

identified following a thorough analysis 

of objections. As described below, BIS 

proposes these actions to ensure the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58527 

process for identifying future GAEs is 

efficient and fair. BIS estimates that this 

change could result in up to a twenty 

percent reduction in the total number of 

exclusion requests submitted in the 232 

Exclusions Portal, depending on the 

ultimate objection rate threshold and 

application used by the Department. 

Second, and relatedly, this proposed 

rule addresses the need to create a more 

efficient Section 232 exclusions process 

by introducing a General Denied 

Exclusions (GDE) process. GDEs have 

been requested by commenters, who 

submit objection requests, as an 

important change that could be made to 

improve the efficiency of the Section 

232 exclusions process and provide a 

balance to the GAE process. While it is 

difficult to estimate the expected annual 

reduction in exclusion requests, BIS 

anticipates an improvement in 

efficiency as well as increasing fairness 

in the process by providing a process 

comparable to the GAE process. Like 

BIS’s proposed GAE evaluation, GDEs 

will generally be implemented if, among 

other things, the HTSUS classification 

code (or subproducts) have very high 

rates of successful, substantiated 

objections. BIS has added various 

requirements, such as certifications, 

over the years to limit voluminous 

exclusion requests that may exceed 

potential objectors’ ability to fairly 

assess the requests and their ability to 

satisfy the requests, which has helped 

improve the efficiency of the Section 

232 exclusions process. The addition of 

the GDEs will further enhance the 

efficiency of the Section 232 exclusions 

process by reducing the burden on 

objectors and requesters with respect to 

Section 232 exclusion requests that 

historically have had a very low 

likelihood of being approved. As with 

GAEs, GDEs would be applied in a 

manner that would increase efficiency 

and have little impact on which 

products are ultimately subject to or 

excepted from the tariffs. New GDEs 

would be identified following an 

analysis of substantiated objections and 

exclusion requests that have generally 

been consistently denied. As described 

below, BIS introduces GDEs in this 

proposed rule. 

Third, BIS is using this proposed rule 

as an opportunity to modify the existing 

certification language and introduce 

new certification requirements for 

exclusion requests. Volume 

certifications were introduced onto the 

Exclusion Request Form in December 

2020 in the Section 232 Exclusions 

Portal. Volume certification 

requirements were established after data 

reviewed by BIS indicated that some 

exclusion requesters were submitting 

exclusion requests for high volumes of 

product not ultimately imported. 

Continual processing of high volumes of 

exclusions not utilized decreases the 

efficiency of the Section 232 exclusions 

process and reduces the accuracy of 

data used by BIS to generate informed 

policy decisions on the Section 232 

national security measures. The 

certification process further ensures that 

the requested volume in exclusion 

requests is consistent with the past and 

future use of steel or aluminum by an 

exclusion requester. Currently, 

requesters certify that their business 

‘‘expects to consume, sell, or otherwise 

use the total volume of product . . . 

within the next calendar year’’ across 

their requests, which is subject to a 

verification by BIS. 

BIS proposes modifications to the 

existing certification on the Exclusion 

Request Form. With the proposed 

changes, before filing an exclusion 

request, requesters would also need to 

certify that they have first made 

reasonable efforts to source their 

product from the United States and 

then, if unsuccessful in sourcing from 

the United States, that they have made 

reasonable efforts to source their 

product from a country with which the 

United States has arrived at a 

satisfactory alternative means to address 

the threat to the national security under 

Section 232. In addition to the 

certification, requesters would be 

required to file, simultaneously with 

their request submission, evidence of 

the certified sourcing attempts. These 

can be filed publicly as an attachment 

to the request submission, or if the 

information is claimed to be 

confidential then requesters can submit 

information to an email address similar 

to the process by which requesters 

currently submit confidential 

information linked to their rebuttals. 

These sourcing attempts need to have 

been made within 12 months from the 

date of submission of the request. BIS is 

seeking comments (see below) regarding 

what the evidence supporting sourcing 

attempts should be and how it should 

be defined. The United States has 

alternative arrangements with several 

other markets, including Argentina, 

Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European 

Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and 

the United Kingdom. Therefore, 

requiring certification for attempting to 

source from the United States or an 

identified partnered country ensures 

that an attempt was made to first 

procure from those partner countries. If 

the sourcing attempts evidence is not 

provided simultaneously with the 

request submission, then the request 

will be rejected. BIS is seeking 

comments (see below) regarding the 

appropriate form and substance of 

evidence that must be provided by 

requestors to support their certification 

of such sourcing attempts. 

Fourth, BIS is proposing similar 

certification language on the objection 

form to further ensure objectors can 

supply comparable quality and quantity 

steel or aluminum and make it 

‘‘immediately available’’ to requestors in 

line with the standards described in the 

previous Section 232 IFRs referenced 

above. BIS welcomes comments from 

the public on whether this standard is 

appropriate for the certification or if a 

different time period should be 

specified. BIS is also interested in 

comments on how to address 

differences between different types of 

products, which may require longer 

periods, if a commenter suggests a 

different time period be specified. With 

this proposed change, objectors would 

certify their intent and ability to provide 

the requested product to the requester if 

successful in their objection. In addition 

to the certification, objectors would be 

required to file, simultaneously with 

their objection submission, evidence 

that it has commercially sold the same 

product as that which is being requested 

within the last 12 months, or evidence 

that it has engaged in sales discussions 

with this requesting company or another 

company requesting the same product 

within the last 12 months. This 

evidence can be filed publicly as an 

attachment to the objection submission, 

or if the information is claimed to be 

confidential then requesters can submit 

information to an email address similar 

to the process by which objectors 

currently submit confidential 

information linked to their surrebuttals. 

If the evidence described above is not 

provided simultaneously with the 

objection submission, then the objection 

will be rejected. BIS is seeking 

comments (see below) regarding the 

appropriate form and substance of 

evidence that must be provided by 

objectors to support their certification of 

such sales discussions. This proposed 

change will reduce cases where 

objections to an exclusion are made but 

the objector fails to follow through on 

supplying the material. 

Each of the four proposed changes 

above would add additional features to 

the Section 232 exclusions process to 

better ensure that participants in the 

Section 232 exclusions process further 

focus their requests and objections as 

well as make important changes to 

improve the efficiency of the Section 

232 exclusions process. The proposed 

requirements to provide certain 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58528 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

evidence upon submission, as opposed 

to later upon request of BIS, will enable 

BIS to conduct more timely and 

accurate certification reviews and 

enhance fairness, transparency, and 

efficiency in the Section 232 exclusions 

process for all involved parties. 

Public Comments and BIS Responses 

The public comment period on the 

February 2022 Notice closed in March 

2022. BIS received nearly 100 public 

comments on the notice of inquiry, with 

one comment being deemed 

unresponsive. Several commenters 

referenced the imposition of duties and 

quantitative limitations, questioning the 

benefit of such regulations. Those 

comments are outside the scope of the 

February 2022 Notice that solicited 

comments on the Section 232 

exclusions process. BIS has previously 

provided responses on these types of 

comments in the Section 232 rules cited 

in this proposed rule; therefore, BIS is 

generally not summarizing or providing 

responses to those general comments on 

the duties and quantitative limitations 

in this proposed rule. Some subject 

matter in the comments below may 

overlap generally with comments 

received in response to previous BIS 

Section 232 exclusions process 

publications that solicited public 

comments and that garnered BIS 

response or were still being considered 

under the last administration. However, 

they were overtaken by the larger review 

of the Section 232 exclusions process 

that is being undertaken by the current 

administration and the February 2022 

Notice that provided a new opportunity 

for the public to identify what 

remaining issues needed to be improved 

under the Section 232 exclusions 

process. 

The comments BIS received in 

response to the February 2022 Notice 

cover the same topics as the comments 

from previous Section 232 exclusion 

process publications. So, this proposed 

rule is responsive to all those 

comments. The comments described in 

this proposed rule are either different 

enough from comments previously 

responded to in past Section 232 

exclusions process publications to 

warrant response or that they warrant 

additional comment due to an everchanging industrial landscape and the 

continuing effort to ensure that 

administration of the Section 232 

exclusions process remains fair, 

efficient, and transparent. 

Based on the comments received in 

response to February 2022 Notice, BIS is 

proposing additional steps to increase 

the fairness, efficiency, and 

transparency of the Section 232 

exclusions process. BIS has combined 

comments with similar subject matter 

such that the BIS response to those 

comments in this proposed rule is more 

efficient. As part of this proposed rule, 

BIS welcomes comments from the 

public, particularly those that 

participate in the Section 232 

exclusions process, on whether the 

changes included in this proposed rule 

achieve the stated objectives; at the 

same time, BIS also welcomes any other 

comments or suggestions from the 

public regarding the fairness, efficiency, 

and transparency of the Section 232 

exclusions process. 

Transparency 

General Concerns 

Comment (a)(1): Several commentors 

suggested that BIS should require public 

summaries of confidential business 

information (CBI) in exclusions requests 

and objections. This would be similar to 

the existing requirements for rebuttals 

and surrebuttals. 

BIS response: BIS agrees that this 

improves transparency in the request 

and objection stages. In fact, the system 

already requires that parties submit 

public summaries of CBI for rebuttals 

and surrebuttal. Expanding this 

requirement to requests and objections 

is in line with the existing requirements 

for rebuttals and surrebuttals. 

Submissions of such information should 

be in sufficient detail to permit a 

reasonable understanding of the 

substance of the information to allow 

rebuttal. A party’s failure to timely and 

properly provide and summarize its CBI 

detracts from transparency and fairness 

and can result in BIS not considering a 

party’s CBI. The regulations regarding 

CBI for the Section 232 exclusions 

process and the submission of CBI are 

found in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of 

supplement no. 1 to part 705. 

Comment (a)(2): Commenters 

provided input on requiring public 

disclosure of delivery times on the 

exclusion request and objection forms. 

One commentor suggested that they 

should be required. 

BIS response: This is already 

explicitly required under paragraphs 

(c)(6) Criteria used to review exclusion 

requests and (d)(4) Substance of 

objections to submitted exclusion 

requests in supplement no. 1 to part 

705. Paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(4) note 

that it is incumbent upon both the 

exclusion requester and objecting 

producers to provide evidence 

supporting their claimed delivery times, 

from the receipt of a binding purchase 

order to ultimate delivery of the 

material to the domestic facility of the 

requester. BIS is further proposing 

language, including additional text to 

paragraph (d)(4), to clarify that all 

delivery and production times requested 

in the objection form are not considered 

CBI and must be included in the 

objection form for any product that is 

the subject of the request and objection. 

Objections that do not appropriately 

include delivery times where requested 

in the public version will be rejected by 

BIS. 

Comment (a)(3): Multiple commenters 

suggested that delivery time should 

require certification. 

BIS response: BIS agrees with this 

suggestion. The current system already 

requires certification that information 

provided within an objection is factual 

and supported by documentation as 

needed, as referenced above in response 

to comment (a)(2). BIS also notes that 

everything reported by all party 

involved in the Section 232 exclusions 

process is certified as true under penalty 

of perjury. 

Comment (a)(4): One commentor 

suggested that BIS should consider the 

logistical challenges and other supply 

chain issues facing imports in 

evaluating delivery times; and that BIS 

should seek clarification from relevant 

parties when necessary to ensure an 

accurate determination when comparing 

to domestic delivery timetables. 

BIS response: BIS disagrees with this 

suggestion because market conditions 

are constantly changing; using relative 

measures for delivery time would 

prevent BIS from fairly applying the 

same standard across all parties to the 

Section 232 exclusions process. BIS also 

stresses that seeking clarification with 

relevant parties would by necessity 

occur through private communications; 

however, it is critical that all relevant 

information, including accurate delivery 

timeframes, be provided in the public 

record for all parties to have an 

opportunity to comment on or contest 

such claims. Requesters with unique 

delivery challenges have repeated 

opportunities throughout the process to 

provide additional information in the 

public record and/or could submit a 

new exclusion request if facts of the 

case change. 

Comment (a)(5): One commentor 

suggested that BIS should verify with 

objectors that the products are available 

on a ‘‘turnkey’’ basis in a commercially 

reasonable time and noted that this 

process may include calling consumers 

or asking the objector directly about 

how quickly they can fulfill a request. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion. This information is 

provided in the record. While this 

information is subject to change, BIS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58529 

evaluates the provided information 

based on conditions at the time of 

submission. BIS also notes that the 

rebuttal process, as well as the 

surrebuttal process are intended to 

allow the parties involved, to provide 

updated information as the parties 

respond to each other in the Section 232 

exclusions process. 

Comment (a)(6): Similarly, one 

commentor stated that objectors who are 

already operating at full capacity should 

not be allowed to object. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion because market 

conditions can and do change. For 

example, an objector may be in the 

process of adding capacity, so BIS does 

not want to impose a restriction that 

would prohibit such producers from 

being able to submit objections. The 

expansion of domestic industrial 

capacity for aluminum and steel is key 

to achieve the national security 

objectives of the tariffs and the Section 

232 exclusions process, so adopting this 

type of a restriction would run counter 

to that objective. 

Certification for Objectors and 

Requesters 

Comment (b)(1): Several commentors 

suggested that objectors and requesters 

should both be required to submit 

‘‘substantive evidence regarding these 

claims [the assertions they make in 

Section 232 submissions].’’ 

BIS response: BIS agrees that claims 

made by objectors and requesters must 

be adequately supported. BIS is 

introducing additional certification 

requirements on objection forms as well 

as evidence requirements for objection 

submissions. These certifications and 

additional evidentiary requirements are 

designed to address concerns of 

objectors filing objections when they 

cannot or will not provide the requested 

product. Under the proposed 

certification of objection submitted 

requirement pursuant to paragraph 

(d)(5) in supplement no. 1 to part 705, 

the objector must certify that they 

currently manufacture the requested 

product at a facility in the United States. 

They must also certify that in response 

to a written request by the requester 

during the next year they will offer to 

sell and timely deliver to the requester 

the full quantity of the product at thenexisting market rates and terms and in 

accordance with the other terms 

specified in the objection that they are 

submitting. Ensuring that all parties 

involved in the process substantiate 

their claims facilitates achieving the 

Section 232 exclusions process 

objectives. As for the requesters, imports 

from countries with which the United 

States has an alternative means to 

address the national security threat 

already make up roughly 70% of steel 

and aluminum imports. Therefore, 

adding this certification statement not 

only better balances requirements for 

requesters and objectors, but will not 

significantly increase the regulatory 

burden on requesters. 

Comment (b)(2): At least one 

commenter requested BIS institute the 

same additional certification 

requirements for rebuttals, as is done for 

exclusion requests. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree that 

this is necessary. In addition to the 

unique certification requirements for 

requesters and objectors, parties must 

certify under the threat of criminal 

prosecution that all information 

contained in all their submissions are 

complete and correct to the best of their 

knowledge. As a result, any statement 

made in a rebuttal or surrebuttal needs 

to be consistent with the certifications 

already made by the organization in the 

exclusion request or objection— 

meaning that including any additional 

unique certification requirements in the 

rebuttal or surrebuttal forms is not 

necessary. 

Exclusion Requests 

Timeline for Requests 

Comment (c)(1): BIS received a 

comment suggesting that exclusions for 

new requests continue to be for up to 

one year, but up to two years if it is an 

existing request that has previously 

been granted, due to the current global 

supply chain issues. 

BIS response: BIS is considering this 

as market conditions are constantly 

changing. This change would not 

require a regulatory change. Under the 

existing paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to 

supplement no. 1 to part 705, BIS 

already specifies that 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. So, 

exclusion requesters already can request 

longer periods for exclusion requests 

and BIS already has the regulatory 

authority to approve longer exclusion 

requests when warranted. However, the 

circumstances under which BIS would 

approve a longer exclusion request must 

be unique to require such an action. 

Currently, the conditions are not unique 

such that they require a longer 

exclusion request. Also, exclusion 

requesters should also be aware that 

approving multiyear exclusion requests 

could run counter to the objectives of 

trying to encourage increased capacity 

utilization in the United States. BIS 

would also take that into account when 

considering a longer period for an 

exclusion request than one year. 

Comment (c)(2): BIS received a 

comment suggesting that one way to 

reduce the burden on all parties 

involved in the process would be to 

implement a limited period each year 

where exclusions can be requested for 

the following calendar year. 

BIS response: BIS is not making those 

changes at this time, given the dynamic 

nature of the markets at this time. In 

addition, BIS questions whether 

compressing all reviews into a short 

time period would improve the overall 

efficiency and burdens associated with 

administering the Section 232 

exclusions process. 

Comment (c)(3): A commenter 

suggested that BIS should collaborate 

with Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to implement a system to 

automatically register granted 

exclusions with CBP to help streamline 

the Section 232 exclusion process and 

reduce unnecessary administrative work 

for both agencies. 

BIS response: BIS already works 

closely with CBP to quickly report 

granted exclusions on a weekly basis 

and ensure they are programmed 

accurately into the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE). BIS 

and CBP continue to make 

improvements in this area within their 

existing program constraints and are 

currently considering further potential 

programmatic enhancements to the data 

transfers between BIS and CBP. CBP 

recently revised and streamlined its 

procedures for activating granted 

exclusions and parties should continue 

to confer directly with CBP about the 

procedures for utilizing a granted 

exclusion. 

Information Provided in Requests 

Comment (d)(1): A commentor 

suggested that information collected in 

the exclusion process does not allow for 

requesters to provide information 

related to objections on their products 

in previous requests. If it did, the 

commenter notes, requesters would be 

able to address those objections before 

they occur again and BIS would have 

that information at the outset, allowing 

faster decisions. 

BIS response: BIS disagrees with this 

comment. BIS already encourages 

requesters to submit this type of 

information in their exclusion requests 

or the related supplements. BIS also 

encourages requestors to submit this 

type of information as relevant when 

filing rebuttals to objections received 

against their exclusion requests. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58530 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

However, BIS maintains that all requests 

are reviewed solely based on the 

information provided in each individual 

record of exclusion requests, objections, 

rebuttals, and surrebuttals, as well as 

any associated public or CBI 

attachments. 

Comment (d)(2): One commenter 

suggested that BIS should eliminate 

redundant or superfluous parts in the 

forms. 

BIS response: BIS generally agrees 

with this, however, has concerns with 

this suggestion in practice. Obtaining 

the necessary physical, mechanical and 

chemical characteristics on the 

requested products ensures that an 

accurate description of the products is 

provided that is subject to a request. 

However, BIS acknowledges that the 

‘‘full, complete description of the 

product’’ sought in the noted up-front 

section of the questionnaire, if properly 

provided, provides the necessary 

characteristics of the product. The 

additional specific characteristics 

provide further clarification on the 

products but may not further the ability 

of parties to review the material subject 

to the request or provide further insight 

into the government’s ability to 

implement decisions on products 

subject to the requests. Also, some 

fields, such as names of ports of entry 

and number of shipments may be 

possibly reexamined. So, BIS will seek 

public comment on this matter. See the 

Request for Public Comments section for 

specific information sought. 

Other General Requester Comments 

Comment (e)(1): A commenter 

suggested that before considering any 

new product exclusion request, BIS 

should require: (1) evidence that the 

requested product cannot be sourced 

either from U.S. producers or from any 

of the countries with an alternative 

arrangement to the tariffs; (2) detailed 

documentation that the exclusion can 

only be obtained from a country subject 

to the tariffs; and (3) that a good faith 

effort was conducted to check 

availability from both domestic 

producers and from all countries not 

subject to the tariffs. Absent this 

showing, Commerce should decline to 

process and post the exclusion request. 

BIS response: BIS agrees with this 

suggested change and has added new 

certification and evidentiary 

requirements on exclusion requesters in 

this proposed rule. Requesters must 

now before filing an exclusion request, 

certify that they have first made 

reasonable efforts to source their 

product from the United States and 

then, if unsuccessful in sourcing from 

the United States, that they have made 

reasonable efforts to source their 

product from a country with which the 

United States has arrived at a 

satisfactory alternative means to address 

the threat to the national security under 

Section 232, and provide evidence of 

those sourcing attempts simultaneously 

with the request submission. The 

process is intended to treat each party 

as fairly as possible given complex 

global market conditions and 

specialized production unique to 

individual countries. 

General Approved Exclusions (GAEs) 

and General Denied Exclusions (GDEs) 

Comment (f)(1): Some commenters 

raised concerns about whether the 

adoption of GAEs made the Section 232 

exclusions process too much in favor of 

exclusion requesters and whether 

similar changes should be extended to 

objectors in the Section 232 exclusions 

process. 

BIS response: BIS is committed to 

ensuring that the Section 232 exclusions 

process is fair and efficient. That is why 

BIS established the GAEs. BIS is 

proposing the concept of the GDEs for 

the same reason. While no specific 

commenter suggested the adoption of 

GDEs, per se, some commented on 

related topics regarding creating a 

concept, such as the GDEs. The creation 

of the GDE process would ease the 

bureaucratic burden in the Section 232 

exclusions process for all parties and 

improve the overall efficiency of the 

Section 232 exclusions process. 

Additional General Approved (GAEs) 

and Denied (GDEs) Exclusions would 

further streamline the existing Section 

232 Exclusions Process. 

Comment (f)(2): Another commenter 

suggested that semi-finished steel 

should be removed from the list of 

products eligible for an exclusion. 

BIS response: BIS will consider this 

further; it is possible that this product 

could be a GDE. To reduce public 

burden and increase efficiency, and thus 

be considered as a possible GDE, it 

would need to fit the criteria established 

by BIS for GDEs. However, BIS is not 

proposing the establishment of specific 

GDEs with this proposed rule. 

Comment (f)(3): Several commenters 

suggested specific items that should be 

used as a GAE. 

BIS response: All GAEs are 

determined based on an internal 

analysis of data regarding the items and 

selection criterion to achieve the 

intended policy objectives. 

Comment (f)(4): One commenter 

suggested that when a GAE is activated 

or deactivated, there should be 

notification period before change is 

implemented to allow exclusion 

requesters and objectors to adapt to the 

change. 

BIS response: BIS agrees with this 

suggestion. BIS intends to adopt fifteenday delayed effective date before 

implementing such changes to give the 

public an opportunity to adjust as 

needed. BIS welcomes further 

comments on whether more time is 

required as a notification period before 

implementing changes to GAEs. 

Comment (f)(5): A commenter 

suggested that BIS allow for objections 

to GAEs. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion. The public is already 

permitted to provide specific 

information regarding the inclusion or 

deletion of GAEs to Section 232-related 

rules and notices for public comment. 

This will inform BIS going forward on 

the changing availability of domestic 

production. Additionally, BIS will 

conduct regular analysis of existing 

GAEs. The purpose of the GAEs is to 

ensure that the Section 232 exclusions 

process is as efficient as possible, while 

also ensuring that BIS does not 

discourage the domestic production of 

any item subject to the process. 

Comment (f)(6): Several commenters 

suggested that because there is not a 

review process, the GAEs essentially 

cede entire product segments to foreign 

competitors. 

BIS response: BIS disagrees with this 

suggestion. BIS plans to more routinely 

issue periodic requests for public 

comments on proposed changes to 

GAEs, and when appropriate can 

remove GAE eligibility in a subsequent 

regulatory action. GAEs are issued based 

on sustained lack of successful 

objections in the Section 232 exclusions 

process, which indicates that U.S. 

industry does not produce the products 

or subproducts in question in a 

sufficient and reasonably available 

amount or of a satisfactory quality. 

GAEs are based on the record of filings 

in the Section 232 exclusions process, 

which provides ample opportunity for 

domestic industry to contest such 

exclusions prior to their identification 

as GAEs. Thus, GAEs are meant to cover 

product segments for which there is 

insufficient domestic availability. 

Comment (f)(7): A commentor noted 

that there should be more transparency 

in the process by which BIS determines 

the products to remove from the GAE 

list. 

BIS response: BIS provides a rationale 

for the decision to remove or add a GAE 

in the preamble of the proposed rule 

announcing any change. In addition, 

and as described above, the opportunity 

for public participation and clarification 

of the criteria for the addition or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58531 

removal of certain GAEs provides 

transparency and would be further 

improved if the changes in this 

proposed rule are adopted in final form. 

Comment (f)(8): One comment 

suggested that BIS should incorporate 

the use of ranges for dimensions of 

material across HTS codes when 

necessary to simplify the process for 

BIS. while also providing GAEs for 

these commonly used imports. 

BIS response: The Section 232 

Exclusions Process is based on unique 

products within HTSUS codes. 

However, BIS is open to exploring the 

possibility of further incorporating or 

changing the use of ranges for 

dimensions of material in a single 

exclusion request. BIS will seek public 

comment on this matter. See the 

Request for Public Comments section for 

specific information sought. 

Section 232 Exclusions Portal 

Portal and Form Functionality 

Comment (g)(1): BIS received several 

comments regarding the functionality of 

the Section 232 Exclusions Portal. These 

included the use of an auto-fill feature 

for information and the ability for 

requesters to save drafts. 

BIS response: BIS agrees that these are 

useful suggestions. The cloning feature 

addresses the auto-fill request. BIS has 

now implemented a draft saving feature. 

Comment (g)(2): Several comments 

suggested that BIS release more detailed 

analyses of exclusion requests, 

particularly in the event of a denial, and 

any relevant internal analysis or 

communication related to such requests. 

BIS response: BIS assesses the 

currently available public information 

regarding decisions as adequate, 

however, BIS is looking at further ways 

that additional information can be 

procured for public consumption. BIS is 

committed to transparency in the 

Section 232 exclusion process 

decisions. 

Comment (g)(3): At least one comment 

requested the introduction of an appeals 

process to prevent requesters from 

having to file a new exclusion and 

repeat the protracted Section 232 

exclusion process. 

BIS response: BIS disagrees with this 

suggestion. BIS already provides 

opportunities for requestors and 

objectors to expand upon their claims 

through rebuttals and surrebuttals. 

Ultimately, BIS must enforce a point at 

which new collection of information 

ends and a final decision is rendered by 

BIS. Requesters who believe they have 

new and relevant information can refile 

without prejudice in the Section 232 

Exclusions Portal. 

Processing Times 

Comment (h)(1): One commentor 

suggested that BIS should allow 

domestic industry to file requests based 

on a 6-digit HTSUS classification 

number. They noted that BIS previously 

started allowing domestic industry to 

file requests for products that cover a 

range of dimensions within a 10-digit 

HTSUS statistical reporting number. 

They assert that this requirement should 

be loosened to allow requests for a range 

of products within a 6-digit HTSUS 

classification number. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion. The current Section 232 

exclusions process is product based and 

uses the 10-digit HTSUS statistical 

reporting number because that level of 

specificity is needed to administer the 

granted exclusions and analyze the 

submissions to the Section 232 

exclusions process. It would likely be 

difficult to implement and monitor 

exclusions based on the 6-digit HTSUS 

classification number without 

undergoing a fundamental change to the 

Section 232 exclusions process. 

However, BIS has allowed Requesters to 

bundle different products, so long as 

their technical specifications fall within 

a single 10-digit HTSUS statistical 

reporting number. The more-general 6- 

digit HTSUS classification number 

encompasses so many products that it 

would be too prohibitive to administer 

and not targeted enough for use under 

the Section 232 exclusions process. 

Comment (h)(2): Several commentors 

suggested that if objections including all 

necessary public information regarding 

capacity, lead time, and quality and a 

rebuttal is not filed within the sevenday rebuttal window, BIS should 

consider the relevant product to be 

domestically available and promptly 

deny the exclusion request. Put more 

simply, an objection that does not 

receive a rebuttal should see the original 

exclusion request be automatically 

denied. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion. BIS is required to 

analyze all the information in relation to 

claims made by both the requester and 

objector. 

Comment (h)(3): A commenter 

suggested that BIS should allow 

requesters and those submitting a 

rebuttal to present a full and factual 

account of their efforts to source 

domestically, including providing 

evidence of lack of responsiveness for 

repeated request for quotes from 

domestic producers who continue to file 

objections. 

BIS response: BIS agrees with this 

suggestion and encourages companies to 

submit such information as part of their 

exclusion request or subsequent rebuttal 

filings whenever they deem such 

information relevant. The additional 

certification for objectors proposed in 

this rule also addresses the substance of 

this comment (described further below). 

Comment (h)(4): A commenter 

suggested that BIS should deny 

exclusion requests for material that are 

already available through a tariff-rate 

quota (TRQ) or country with an existing 

agreement in place. 

BIS response: While BIS does not 

agree with this suggestion, the addition 

of new certification language in this 

proposed rule would require that, before 

filing an exclusion request, requesters 

would need to certify that they have 

first made reasonable efforts to source 

their product from the United States and 

then, if unsuccessful in sourcing from 

the United States, that they have made 

reasonable efforts to source their 

product from a country with which the 

United States has arrived at a 

satisfactory alternative means to address 

the threat to the national security under 

Section 232. 

Comment (h)(5): BIS received several 

additional comments regarding 

streamlining of the forms or otherwise 

reducing the administrative burden 

associated with the Section 232 

exclusions process, such as including 

notifications emails from the Section 

232 Exclusions Portal as Section 232 

submissions are working their way 

through the process. Some of these 

offered suggestions to alleviate the 

issue, while others did not. 

BIS response: BIS is working to 

reduce the administrative burden where 

possible. This feature is already in 

development. BIS seeks to have 

notification emails operational in the 

coming months and is continuing to 

review other ideas for reducing the 

administrative burden associated with 

the Section 232 process. 

Comment (h)(6): One commenter 

suggested updating several fields in the 

portal. 

BIS response: BIS intends to make 

further changes to the portal, such as 

automated notification emails for filing 

status changes, fields to input additional 

importers of record, and internal 

process improvements to expedite the 

administration of decisions. Some of the 

requested changes would require 

resources beyond the Department’s 

staffing, time, and budget constraints. 

BIS is currently working to implement 

changes in the portal that can be made 

without costly programming changes 

and will roll those out as soon as they 

are available. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58532 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Comment (h)(7): A commenter said 

that BIS should split the Section 232 

portal into separate portals for steel and 

aluminum. 

BIS response: BIS does not agree with 

this suggestion. Companies can already 

filter between steel and aluminum 

requests with ease. The BIS website also 

includes guidance on how to use the 

portal that helps provide guidance on 

these types of questions. 

Comment (h)(8): One commenter 

stated that BIS should add an option in 

the exclusion request form to include 

multiple residents and non-resident 

importers of record to reduce the need 

for, and volume of, importer of record 

change requests. 

BIS response: BIS is currently 

developing the ability to do this. BIS 

anticipates this new feature should be 

available in the next few months. 

Regulatory Changes 

As detailed above, BIS has outlined 

the proposed changes as well as the 

comments responsible for their 

proposal. In this section, BIS will 

describe the specific changes to the 

regulatory text, as proposed in this rule. 

Under paragraphs (c) and (d) to 

supplement no. 1 to part 705, BIS is 

proposing additional certification text. 

Under paragraph (c)(5)(ii), certification 

for volume requested by requesters, BIS 

is proposing to revise the introductory 

paragraph. This proposed change would 

reduce the (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

paragraph to just two sentences with the 

substance of the text removed to be 

added to paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) through 

(E), as needed. Under paragraph 

(c)(5)(ii)(A), BIS is proposing additional 

certification text that requesters have 

first attempted in good faith in the past 

calendar year to ‘‘source the requested 

product from the United States and 

then, if unsuccessful in sourcing from 

the United States, made reasonable 

efforts to source the requested product 

from a country with which the United 

States has arrived at a satisfactory 

alternative means to address the threat 

to the national security under Section 

232.’’ Also, under paragraph 

(c)(5)(ii)(A), BIS proposes text for 

requesters to certify that they will 

provide all documentation justifying the 

above quoted text simultaneously with 

the request submission. This 

requirement will enable BIS to conduct 

more timely and accurate certification 

reviews and enhance fairness, 

transparency, and efficiency in the 

Section 232 exclusions process for all 

parties. Similarly, BIS proposes creating 

a paragraph (d)(5), certification of 

objections submitted. This new 

paragraph (d)(5) would add an 

introductory paragraph to (d)(5), as well 

as paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii). These 

two proposed paragraphs, similar to the 

requester certification process review 

mechanism, would establish a BIS 

review mechanism in (d)(5)(ii), like that 

proposed in (c)(5)(ii)(A). 

This rule also proposes modifying 

paragraph (d)(4) to specify as noted 

above that delivery times are not 

considered CBI and must be included in 

the objection form. The revisions to 

paragraph (d)(4) also specify that 

objections that do not include delivery 

times in the public version will be 

rejected by BIS. 

Much like supplements no. 2 and 3 to 

part 705 that created GAE tables for 

steel and aluminum articles, 

respectively, this rule proposes the 

creation of new supplements no. 4 and 

5 to part 705. Supplement no. 4 would 

list General Denied Exclusions (GDEs) 

for steel articles under the Section 232 

exclusions process and supplement no. 

5 would list GDEs for aluminum articles 

under the Section 232 exclusions 

process. 

This rule proposes adding a new 

supplement no. 4 to part 705—General 

Denied Exclusions (GDEs) For Steel 

Articles Under The Section 232 

Exclusions Process. This rule also 

proposes adding a new supplement no. 

5 to part 705—General Denied 

Exclusions (GDEs) For Aluminum 

Articles Under The Section 232 

Exclusions Process. Both supplements 

would have the same format. Each of the 

two supplements would include 

introductory text to explain the 

selection process and the role of the 

GDEs in the Section 232 exclusions 

process. Any steel or aluminum articles 

identified as a GDE in one of these two 

supplements must not be included and 

would not be considered by BIS in an 

exclusion request. Like the GAEs, the 

steel and aluminum GDEs will be 

identified in a table under the respective 

supplement. Also, like the two GAE 

supplements, these two GDE 

supplements would permit BIS, on 

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, to 

periodically publish notices of inquiry 

in the Federal Register soliciting public 

comments on potential removals, 

revisions or additions to this 

supplement. 

BIS encourages the public to 

participate and request changes to GAEs 

and GDEs when notices are published 

seeking comments on GAEs or GDEs. In 

other times when a member of the 

Department of Commerce receives 

comments from a party, either verbally 

or in writing, regarding requested 

changes to GAEs or GDEs, it is the 

practice of the Department of Commerce 

to document those interactions publicly 

so there is a public record of such 

interactions. The public record of such 

interactions will include a log of the 

person(s) that petitioned the Department 

of Commerce, the date on which the 

interaction occurred, the names and title 

of all persons that were met with at the 

Department of Commerce, the mode of 

communication used (e.g., by email, 

phone, video conference, or in person), 

a copy of any written documents 

submitted as part of the interaction, and 

for verbal communications done over 

the phone, internet, or in person, a 

summary transcript of the interaction 

will be included as part of the public 

record. The public record for such 

interactions will be made available to 

the public. 

At this time, BIS is proposing the 

framework for identifying GDEs, but not 

proposing any specific articles that 

would qualify for GDE status. 

BIS is also proposing technical 

regulatory changes with this proposed 

rule. BIS proposes the deletion of 

examples found in paragraph (c) of 

supplement no. 1 to part 705. Given 

how long the Section 232 exclusions 

process has been effective, these 

examples are likely no longer necessary 

or useful to the public. As a conforming 

proposed change to supplement no. 1, 

BIS proposes adding a paragraph (h)(v) 

for regulations regarding the standard 

and scope of review for supplement no. 

1 to part 705. The proposed text for 

paragraph (h)(v) is mostly made up of 

text removed from paragraph (c)(6). BIS 

proposes this change because they apply 

to all Section 232 submissions, not just 

exclusions requests, as they did under 

paragraph (c)(6). 

With the proposed addition of 

supplements nos. 4 and 5, BIS is 

proposing changes to the introductory 

text to supplements nos. 2 and 3. These 

proposed changes are to align the 

introductory text of supplements nos. 2, 

3, 4, and 5 more closely, such that they 

are more easily understood by the 

public. BIS is also proposing revisions 

throughout part 705. These revisions 

make the regulations easier to 

understand. These revisions are in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) in supplement 

no. 1 to part 705. Specifically, BIS 

proposes: (1) adding references to 

aluminum products in paragraph (c)(1) 

and (d)(1), which had been 

inadvertently left out; (2) removing 

‘‘either’’ from (c)(5)(ii)(D), making it 

easier to read; (3) adding citations to 

supplements nos. 2 through 5, a 

reference to the case-by-case basis of 

review of exclusions requests and a 

sentence noting that the burden is on 

the requester to show that the requests 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58533 

article is ‘‘not produced in the United 

States in a sufficient and reasonably 

available amount or of a satisfactory 

quality’’ to paragraph (c)(6); (4) in 

paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii), the term 

‘‘end user’’ is being changed to ‘‘user 

requesting the exclusion,’’ a change BIS 

deems is a needed clarification, not a 

policy change; (5) adding more 

expansive language to account for single 

and multiple exclusion requests, as well 

as possible approvals and denials of 

requests to paragraph (c)(6)(iii); and (6) 

removing superfluous language and 

adding additional specific language to 

paragraph (d)(4), making it easier to 

understand, and by adding a sentence 

stating that delivery times are not 

considered confidential business 

information and that objections that do 

not include delivery times in the public 

version will be rejected. These revisions 

do not alter 232 exclusions policy. 

Request for Public Comment 

BIS is seeking public comments on 

the following issues: 

• Changing the Requester 

Certification Text; 

• Requiring Objector Certification; 

• Additional evidence requirements 

for new requester and objector 

certifications (i.e., what form should 

this evidence take and how should the 

evidence be defined as sufficient); 

• Change in methodology that 

requires the consolidation of multiple 

sizes of a specific product within a 

specific HTS number and providing 

relief for sizes with no objection 

(comments on this issue should be 

specific to the merits and issues 

associated with this, as well as how it 

could be administered); 

• Eliminating redundancies in the 

request and objection forms by 

removing the charts and tables on 

product characteristics and chemical 

composition and require a ‘‘full, 

complete description of the product’’ be 

provided by the requestor in the noted 

section of the questionnaire; 

• Clarifying the criteria used for 

identifying GAEs; 

• Whether specific products (e.g., 

aluminum extrusions; boxed aluminum 

foil; flat-rolled stainless steel of a width 

of less than 600 millimeters, not further 

worked than hot-rolled, of a thickness of 

less than 4.75 millimeters; and flat wire 

plated or coated in zinc) should 

continue to qualify for a GAE; 

• Creating a GDE process; 

• The process and frequency with 

which reviews of the GAE and GDE 

processes will undergo, including 

comments on how often these reviews 

should be conducted and the types of 

information that should be requested 

when the reviews are being conducted. 

See the DATES and ADDRESSES of this 

proposed rule for guidance on 

submitting comments. 

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 

proposed 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 Federal Register. 

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 three 

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). 

This proposed rule is expected to 

reduce the overall burden hours and 

cost associated with the following 

collections: OMB control numbers 

0694–0139, 0694–0138, and 0694–0141. 

This reduction is expected because of 

the revised General Approved 

Exclusions (GAEs) criteria and the 

addition of General Denied Exclusions 

GDEs for steel and aluminum, which are 

expected to result in a decrease of 5,946 

exclusion requests under 0694–0139, 

2,806 objection requests under 0694– 

0138, and 1,946 rebuttals, and 

surrebuttals under 0694–0141 per year 

for a total burden hour savings of 36,954 

and 1,367,298 dollars to the public. 

BIS is making a change to the 

collection for OMB control number 

0694–0139 to account for a revised 

certification under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) 

introductory text and one new 

certification that needs to be made in 

the Section 232 Exclusions Portal under 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii). These certification 

changes are expected to be an increase 

of 4,460 burden hours and an increase 

of $165,020 dollars to the public. Lastly, 

BIS is making a change to the collection 

for OMB control number 0694–0138 to 

account for two new certifications that 

need to be made in the Section 232 

Exclusions Portal for certifications for 

objections under paragraph (d)(5)(i) and 

(ii). These certification changes are 

expected to be an increase of 2,806 

burden hours and an increase of 

$155,733 to the public. This increase in 

the burden under OMB control numbers 

0694–0139 and 0694–0138 considers the 

decreases described above in the total 

overall numbers. 

3. This proposed 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.’’ BIS 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 this 

proposed rule. The revisions to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58534 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

exclusion request process are informed 

by the comments received in response 

to the March 19 rule and BIS’s 

experience with managing the Section 

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 for 

it to achieve the intended purpose. The 

commenters identified several areas 

where transparency, effectiveness, and 

fairness of the process could be 

improved. BIS 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 to 

protect critical U.S. national security 

interests. The publication of this 

rulemaking should make further 

improvements in all three respects, but 

because of the scope of this new 

process, BIS is publishing this rule as a 

proposed rule with a request for 

comments. 

Consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.), BIS has prepared the 

following initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) of the impact that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would have 

on small businesses. 

Description of the Reasons Why Action 

Is Being Considered 

The policy reasons for issuing this 

proposed rule are discussed in the 

background section of the preamble of 

this document and, consequently, are 

not repeated here. 

Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule; 

Identification of All Relevant Federal 

Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

The objective of this proposed rule, 

and all other Section 232-related rules 

published by BIS, are discussed in the 

background section of the preamble of 

this document and, consequently, are 

not repeated here. The legal basis for 

this proposed rule is as follows: 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). 

No other Federal rules duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this proposed 

rule. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Proposed 

Action 

This proposed rule would apply to all 

persons engaged in the Section 232 

exclusions process. BIS does not collect 

or maintain the data necessary to 

determine exactly how many of the 

affected persons are small entities as 

that term is used by the Small Business 

Administration. However, BIS does ask 

requestors of the Section 232 exclusions 

process to self-identify if they are a 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration. From this 

data, BIS has estimated the total number 

of requestors and objectors who are 

likely to be small businesses that would 

be impacted by changes identified in 

this proposed rule. 

Roughly 380 requestors self-identified 

as small businesses, filing roughly 

27,000 exclusion requests in the Section 

232 exclusions portal since March 2022, 

when we began including the option for 

requestors to self-identify as a small 

business. BIS does not have the same 

self-identification option for objectors. 

However, over the same period, roughly 

100 objectors filed objections in the 

Section 232 exclusions portal; many of 

these are easily identifiable as being 

large corporations, not small businesses. 

Therefore, somewhere between 380 and 

500 small businesses could be impacted 

by these proposed changes. Specific 

burden estimates for OMB under control 

numbers 0694–0139 (Exclusions from 

the Section 232 National Security 

Adjustments of Imports of Steel and 

Aluminum), 0694–0138 (Objections 

from the Section 232 National Security 

Adjustments of Imports of Steel and 

Aluminum), and 0694–0141 (Procedures 

for Submitting Rebuttals and 

Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions 

from and Objections to the Section 232 

Adjustments for Steel and Aluminum) 

are detailed in paragraph 2 of the 

Rulemaking Requirements section 

above. 

Based on the analysis provided above, 

the amendments proposed in this rule 

would not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Proposed Rule 

The changes proposed in this rule and 

the corresponding reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements are discussed in the 

background section of the preamble of 

this document and, consequently, are 

not repeated here. To the extent that 

compliance with the changes proposed 

in this rule would impose a burden on 

persons, including small businesses, BIS 

believes the burden would be minimal. 

Significant Alternatives and Underlying 

Analysis 

As noted above, BIS does not believe 

that the amendments proposed in this 

rule, if published in a final rule, would 

have a significant economic impact on 

small businesses. Nevertheless, 

consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603(c), BIS 

considered significant alternatives to 

these proposed amendments to assess 

whether the alternatives would: (1) 

accomplish the stated objectives of this 

proposed rule (consistent with the 

objectives of the Section 232 exclusions 

process); and (2) minimize any 

significant economic impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities. BIS has 

determined that proposals detailed 

above are the least disruptive alternative 

for implementing changes to the Section 

232 exclusions process. 

Lastly, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 

603(c), BIS assessed the use of 

performance standards rather than 

design standards and considered 

whether an exemption for small 

businesses was practical under the 

circumstances (i.e., within the context 

of the changes proposed in this rule). 

This proposed rule does not contain 

an exemption for small businesses from 

the proposed Section 232 exclusions 

process changes because these controls 

are essential to U.S. national security 

and BIS’ regulations apply to all parties. 

An exemption for small businesses 

would undermine the effectiveness of 

these proposed changes. 

Conclusion 

BIS has identified proposed changes 

to the Section 232 exclusions process. 

Consequently, consistent with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, BIS has 

prepared this IRFA addressing the 

impact that this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

BIS’s assessment indicates that the 

amendments proposed in this rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Please submit any comments 

concerning this IRFA in accordance 

with the instructions provided in the 

ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58535 

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. Section 705.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 705.1 Definitions. 

Applicant means the person or entity 

submitting a request or application for 

an investigation pursuant to this part. 

Department means the United States 

Department of Commerce and includes 

the Secretary of Commerce and the 

Secretary’s designees. 

Secretary means the Secretary of 

Commerce or the Secretary’s designees. 

■ 3. Supplement no. 1 to part 705 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs I and (d); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h) introductory 

text; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (h)(2)(v). 

The revisions and addition 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 

* * * * * 

(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 

aluminum or steel in business activities 

(e.g., construction, manufacturing, or 

supplying aluminum or 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 tendigit HTSUS statistical reporting 

number. BIS 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 BIS approves 

a broader application of the productbased 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 BIS 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 Section 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 and 

reasonably available amount, or of a 

satisfactory quality, or based upon 

specific national security 

considerations. 

(ii) Certification for volume requested. 

Effective for all Exclusion Requests, the 

undersigned certifies in the Section 232 

Exclusions Portal that the information 

herein supplied in response to this 

questionnaire 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) I have personal knowledge or a 

well-informed basis to state that my 

organization has in good faith, within 

the past 12 months from submission of 

this request, first made reasonable 

efforts to source the requested product 

from the United States and then, if 

unsuccessful in sourcing from the 

United States, made reasonable efforts 

to source the requested product from a 

country with which the United States 

has arrived at a satisfactory alternative 

means to address the threat to the 

national security under Section 232. 

Simultaneously with this submission, 

my organization is providing evidence 

of these sourcing attempts. 

(C) 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; 

(D) My organization expects to 

consume, sell, or otherwise use the total 

volume of product across all my active 

exclusions and pending exclusion 

requests during my organization’s 

business activities within the next 

calendar year; 

(E) If my organization is submitting an 

exclusion request for a product for 

which we previously received an 

exclusion, I certify that my organization 

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 

(F) I certify that the exclusion amount 

requested this year is the amount that 

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 and projected imports of steel or 

aluminum articles related to the past 

and current calendar year exclusion 

requests. 

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

exclusion request that does not include 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58536 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

a certification made in accordance with 

paraIph (c)(5)(ii) or fully respond to a 

request for verification will be treated as 

an incomplete submission and will 

therefore be rejected. 

(6) Criteria used to review exclusion 

requests. Except as provided for under 

supplements nos. 2 through 5 to this 

part, the U.S. Department of Commerce 

will review each exclusion request on a 

case-by-case basis 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 that 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 burden is on the 

requester to show that the article is not 

produced in the United States in a 

sufficient and reasonably available 

amount or of a satisfactory quality. To 

provide additional context on the 

meaning and application of the criteria, 

paIraphs (c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this 

supplement define keys terms used in 

the review criteria. The U.S. Department 

of Commerce will use the same criteria 

identified inIragraphs (c)(6)(i) through 

(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 

Section 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 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 

produced and delivered by a U.S. 

producer ‘‘within eight weeks’’ from the 

receipt of a binding purchase order, 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 requesting 

the exclusion 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 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’’ Ie 

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

the quality, regulatory, or testing 

standards for the U.S.-produced steel to 

be used in the business activity in the 

United States of the user requesting the 

exclusion. 

(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 

or class of exclusion requests should be 

approved or denied based on specific 

national security considerations. 

(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 or aluminum 

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 Section 232 Exclusions 

Portal. Once the relevant exclusion 

request has 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 Section 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 Section 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. The objector must be 

able to specifically identify from where 

and in what timeframe it can produce 

and deliver the requested product or a 

suitable substitute in the quantity 

requested and whether it can produce 

and deliver such product 

‘‘immediately’’ with reference to the 

time required for the requester to obtain 

the product from its foreign suppliers. 

The objector must specifically identify 

from where and in what timeframe it 

will be able to produce and deliver to 

the requester the quantity of steel or 

aluminum requested. It is incumbent on 

both the exclusion requester, and the 

objecting producers, to accurately set 

forth the time needed for themselves or 

their supplier to produce and deliver 

the product or a suitable substitute 

product, from the receipt of a binding 

purchase order to ultimate delivery of 

the material to the domestic facility of 

the requester, and to provide 

supplemental evidence supporting these 

claimed timeframes. If the objector does 

not currently produce the requested 

steel or aluminum product, but 

anticipates starting or restarting 

production of the product or its 

substitute in the future, the objector 

must provide as part of the objection a 

summary timeline that specifies the 

steps that will occur over the time 

needed to produce that steel or 

aluminum product. This information 

will assist not only the Department of 

Commerce in its review of the objection, 

but also the requester of the exclusion 

in determining whether to file a rebuttal 

to the objection. The above-specified 

timeframes are not considered CBI and 

must be reported where requested in the 

public objection form. Objections that 

do not include these timeframes in the 

public version will be rejected by BIS. 

(5) Certification of objection 

submitted. Effective for all Objections, 

the undersigned certifies in the Section 

232 Exclusions Portal that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58537 

information herein supplied in response 

to this questionnaire is complete and 

correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 

By signing the certification below, I 

attest that: 

(i) My organization currently 

manufactures the requested product at a 

facility in the United States and, in 

response to a written request by the 

requester occurring within the year, will 

offer to sell and make ‘immediately 

available’ to the requester the full 

quantity of the product at then-existing 

market rates and terms and in 

accordance with the other terms in this 

Objection. 

(ii) Simultaneously with this 

objection, my organization is submitting 

evidence that it has commercially sold 

the same product as that which is being 

requested within the last 12 months, or 

evidence that it has engaged in sales 

discussions with this requesting 

company or company requesting the 

same product within the last 12 months. 

* * * * * 

(h) Disposition of Section 232 

submissions— 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Standard and scope of review. The 

review of individual exclusion requests 

for products not covered by the 

categorical authorizations under 

supplements nos. 2 or 3, by exclusions 

denials under supplements nos. 4 and 5, 

or decided for national security 

considerations, will be made on a caseby-case basis to determine whether, 

consistent with these regulations, the 

requester has shown that the subject 

article should be excluded from the 

tariffs imposed by Section 232. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Supplement No. 4 to part 705 is 

added to read as follows: 

Supplement No. 4 to Part 705—General 

Denied Exclusions (GDEs) for Steel 

Articles Under the Section 232 

Exclusions Process 

This supplement identifies certain 

steel articles for import for which no 

request for exclusion from the Section 

232 tariffs will be granted or considered 

by Commerce because requests to 

exclude these articles are covered by a 

General Denied Exclusion (GDE). 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 

excluded from the Section 232 

exclusions process under a GDE 

consistent with the objectives of the 

Section 232 Exclusions Process as 

outlined in supplement no. 1 to this 

part. The GDEs described in this 

supplement apply to any exclusion 

requester. GDEs do not include quantity 

limits. Each GDE identifier will be 

effective fifteen calendar days after 

publication of a Federal Register notice 

either adding or revising a specific GDE 

identifier. For exclusion requests 

already in the portal at the time a 

Federal Register notice is published 

identifying a new GDE and up until the 

effective date of the new GDE, the 

Section 232 Exclusions Portal will still 

allow for the submission of objections 

for these steel articles. The Commerce 

review of such exclusion requests will 

be informed by the fact that these steel 

articles will soon be identified as GDEs. 

Once a GDE becomes effective, the 

Section 232 Exclusion Portal will 

prohibit persons from being able to 

submit exclusion requests for these 

identified GDEs. These GDEs 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 GDE in 

this supplement as warranted to align 

with the objectives of the Section 232 

exclusions process as described in 

supplement no. 1 to this part. GDEs are 

limited to steel articles that have 

consistently not been approved for 

exclusions under the Section 232 

exclusions. 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. 

GDE Identifier. Description of Steel That May Not Be Requested in an 

Exclusion Request (at 10-digit Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical 

reporting number or more narrowly defined at product level). 

Other Limitations. Federal Register Citation. 

■ 4. Supplement No. 5 to part 705 is 

added to read as follows: 

Supplement No. 5 to Part 705—General 

Denied Exclusions (GDEs) for 

Aluminum Articles Under the Section 

232 Exclusions Process 

This supplement identifies aluminum 

articles that may not be included in the 

Section 232 exclusion requests because 

these articles have been denied from 

import under a General Denied 

Exclusion (GDE). 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 are 

excluded from the Section 232 

exclusions process by being identified 

under a GDE consistent with the 

objectives of the Section 232 exclusions 

process as outlined in supplement no. 1 

to this part. GDEs are limited to 

aluminum articles that have 

consistently not been approved for 

exclusions under the Section 232 

exclusions. Because these aluminum 

articles have consistently not been 

approved, it has been determined by the 

relevant agencies to be warranted to 

exclude these identified articles from 

the Section 232 exclusions process. 

Inclusion of these articles as GDEs will 

ease the burden on objectors from 

having to review exclusions requesters 

where it has already been demonstrated 

consistently that such articles should 

not be approved in exclusion requests. 

The GDEs described in this supplement 

apply to any exclusion requester. GDEs 

do not include quantity limits. Each 

GDE identifier will be effective fifteen 

calendar days after publication of a 

Federal Register notice either adding or 

revising a specific GDE identifier. For 

exclusion requests already in process at 

the time a Federal Register notice is 

published identifying a new GDE and 

up until the effective date of the new 

GDE, the Section 232 Exclusions Portal 

will still allow for the submission of 

exclusion requests for these aluminum 

articles. The Commerce review of such 

exclusion requests will be informed by 

the fact that these aluminum articles 

will soon be identified as GDEs. Once a 

GDE becomes effective, the Section 232 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58538 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Exclusion Portal will prohibit persons 

from being able to submit exclusion 

requests for these identified GDEs. 

These GDEs 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 GDE in this supplement as 

warranted to align with the objectives of 

the Section 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. 

GDE Identifier. Description of Aluminum That May Not Be Requested 

in an Exclusion Request (at 10-digit Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting number or more narrowly defined at 

product level). 

Other Limitations. Federal Register Citation. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18328 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0925; FRL–10943– 

01–R9] 

Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

California; Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this 

action, we are proposing to approve one 

rule governing the issuance of permits 

for new and modified major sources in 

nonattainment areas under part D of 

title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the 

Act’’) in the District. We are also 

proposing to find that PM10 precursors 

are not significant contributors to PM10

levels in the Mono Basin, as the 

majority of direct PM emissions come 

from dry lake beds. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and a final 

action will follow. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 27, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0925 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI and multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3968, or by 

email at trejo.nidia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Is there another version of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. What is the background for this 

proposal? 

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal including the date it was 

adopted by the District and the date on 

which it was submitted to the EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB or ‘‘the State’’). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

Rule 222 ..................................................... NSR Requirements for New and Modified Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.01/06/22 07/05/22 

On January 5, 2023, the submittal for 

District Rule 222 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Is there another version of this rule? 

There is no previous version of Rule 

222 in the California SIP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1