Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 6011 

1The Agreement Between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, and Canada is 

the official name of the USMCA treaty. Please be 

aware that, in other contexts, the same document 

is also referred to as the United States-MexicoCanada Agreement. 2Mexico, Canada, and the United States certified 

their preparedness to implement the USMCA on 

December 12, 2019, March 13, 2020, and April 24, 

2020, respectively. Pursuant to section 106 of the 

Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and 

Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4205) and 

section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

2191), the United States adopted the USMCA 

through the enactment of the United States— 

Mexico—Canada Agreement Implementation Act 

(USMCA Implementation Act), Public Law 116– 

113, 134 Stat. 11 (19 U.S.C. Chapter 29), on January 

29, 2020. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Protocol, 

which provides that the USMCA will take effect on 

the first day of the third month after the last 

signatory party provides written notification of the 

completion of the domestic implementation of the 

USMCA through the enactment of implementing 

legislation, the USMCA entered into force on July 

1, 2020. On December 27, 2020, subsequent to the 

USMCA’s entry into force date of July 1, 2020, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

(Appropriations Act), Public Law 116–260, was 

enacted with Title VI of the Act containing 

technical corrections to the USMCA Act. All of the 

changes contained within Title VI of the 

Appropriations Act are retroactively effective on 

July 1, 2020. 

reassemble the buckle, and reidentify the 

buckle with ‘‘MOD. A’’ by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

D.(1)(d) through (m), of SB 1111548–25–001– 

2023 Rev 001, except you are not required to 

return any parts to Parker Meggitt. If a screw 

head breaks off during disassembly, before 

further flight, replace the buckle with an 

airworthy buckle. 

Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2): SB 1111548– 

25–001–2023 Rev 001 refers to a magnifying 

glass as an ‘‘eye loupe.’’ 

(3) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install a buckle identified in paragraph 

(c) of this AD on any helicopter unless the 

buckle is marked with ‘‘MOD. A’’ or ‘‘INS. 

A’’. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, West Certification 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the West Certification 

Branch, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Additional Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact David Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712; phone: (562) 627–5274; email: 

david.kim@faa.gov. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Parker Meggitt Service Bulletin 

1111475–25–001–2023, Revision 001, dated 

December 1, 2023. 

(ii) Parker Meggitt Service Bulletin 

1111548–25–001–2023, Revision 001, dated 

December 1, 2023. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Parker Meggitt Services, 

1785 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, CA 

93063; phone: 877–666–0712; email: 

TechnicalSupport@meggitt.com; website: 

meggitt.com/services_and_support/ 

customer_experience/update-on-buckleassembly-service-bulletins. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on January 18, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Deputy Director, Compliance 

& Airworthiness Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01932 Filed 1–26–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 356 

[Docket No. 231127–0278] 

RIN 0625–AB20 

Procedures and Rules for Article 10.12 

of the United States-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) publishes this action to 

update and make final an interim final 

rule that amended its regulations 

pertaining to the procedures and rules 

related to Article 1904 of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) with appropriate references to 

the United States-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement (USMCA), which went into 

effect on July 1, 2020. Article 10.12 of 

the USMCA, like NAFTA Article 1904, 

provides a dispute settlement 

mechanism for purposes of reviewing 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

determinations issued by the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. Commerce 

is amending its regulations to replace 

references to Article 1904 of NAFTA 

with references to Article 10.12 of the 

USMCA; to update outdated crossreferences to Commerce’s antidumping 

and countervailing duty regulations; 

update outdated notice, filing, service, 

and protective order procedures; and 

adopt other minor corrections and 

updates. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 30 

days after January 31, 2024. This final 

rule does not apply to any binational 

panel review under NAFTA, or any 

extraordinary challenge arising out of 

any such review, that was commenced 

before July 1, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nikki Kalbing, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

at (202) 482–4343, Spencer Neff, 

Attorney, at (202) 482–8184, or Scott 

McBride, Associate Deputy Chief 

Counsel, at (202) 482–6292. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

USCMA Background 

As background, on November 30, 

2018, the ‘‘Protocol Replacing the North 

American Free Trade Agreement with 

the Agreement Between the United 

States of America, the United Mexican 

States, and Canada’’ (the Protocol) was 

signed to replace the North American 

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The 

Agreement Between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States 

(Mexico), and Canada (the USMCA) 1 is 

attached as an annex to the Protocol and 

was subsequently amended to reflect 

certain modifications and technical 

corrections in the ‘‘Protocol of 

Amendment to the Agreement Between 

the United States of America, the United 

Mexican States, and Canada’’ (the 

Amended Protocol), which the Office of 

the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) signed on December 10, 2019. 

The USMCA entered into force on July 

1, 2020.2

Article 10.12 of the USMCA, like 

NAFTA Article 1904, provides a dispute 

settlement mechanism for purposes of 

reviewing antidumping and 

countervailing duty determinations 

issued by the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico. The procedures and rules 

for binational panel review of 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

administrative determinations under 

Article 10.12 of the USMCA are 

virtually unchanged from Article 1904 

of NAFTA. 

Sections 421–433 and 504 of the 

USMCA Implementation Act provide 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
6012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the USMCA Implementation Act at 

26. 

4Available at: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/ 

free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexicocanada-agreement/free-trade-commissiondecisions/usmca-free-trade-commission-decisionno-2. The Secretariat of the USMCA, comprised of 

a Canadian section, a United States section and a 

Mexican section, is responsible for the 

administration of the binational panel review 

process. 

5See United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 

Implementation Act of 2020, Public Law 116–113, 

134 Stat. 74 (Jan. 29, 2020); 19 U.S.C. 4582 (2020). 

See also North American Free Trade Agreement Act 

of 1993, Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2135 (Dec. 

8, 1993) (section 402(g) of the North American Free 

Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 

3432(g)). 

6See 62 FR 27296, 27297 (May 19, 1997) (final 

rulemaking to eliminate Parts 353 and 355 and 

promulgate a single Part 351, 19 CFR 351, in their 

place); see also 61 FR 7308, 7310 (Feb. 27, 1996) 

(‘‘[I]n response to the President’s Regulatory Reform 

Initiative, to reduce the amount of duplicative 

material in the regulations, the Department has 

consolidated the antidumping and countervailing 

duty regulations into a new Part 351, and is 

removing Parts 353 and 355.’’). 

technical and conforming amendments 

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act) related to Chapter 10 of the 

USMCA on antidumping and 

countervailing duty matters. The 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the USMCA 

Implementation Act provides that, ‘‘[i]n 

substance, U.S. laws and regulations are 

already in conformity with the 

obligations assumed under [Chapter 10 

of the USMCA,]’’ and, therefore, ‘‘no 

changes in administrative regulations, 

practices, or procedures are required to 

implement the. . .antidumping and 

countervailing duty related provisions 

of Chapter 10.’’ 3

Pursuant to Article 10.12.14 of the 

USMCA, the United States, Mexico, and 

Canada trilaterally negotiated and 

agreed to rules of procedure for 

binational panel review modifying and 

updating the previous rules of 

procedure for Article 1904 of NAFTA. 

Effective May 18, 2021, Decision No. 2 

of the USMCA Free Trade Commission 

adopted the rules of procedure 

applicable to all binational panel 

reviews under the USMCA. The rules of 

procedure are contained in Annex II to 

that decision and are cited as the Article 

10.12 Binational Panel Rules.4

The Interim Final Rule 

On December 9, 2021, at 86 FR 70045, 

the Department published an interim 

final rule implementing the following 

changes and soliciting comments on 

those revisions. Commerce’s 

regulations, 19 CFR part 356 

(procedures and rules for the 

implementation of NAFTA Article 1904) 

were first promulgated in 1994 and have 

not undergone any updates since that 

time. Although not required by the 

USMCA Implementation Act, 

Commerce is amending its regulations 

pertaining to the procedures and rules 

governing the binational panel dispute 

settlement mechanism to review 

antidumping duty and countervailing 

duty determinations issued by the 

United States as set forth in the 

USMCA. Because the dispute settlement 

mechanism in USMCA Article 10.12 is 

substantively identical to that in 

NAFTA Article 1904, Commerce 

adopted non-substantive amendments to 

ensure that its rules appropriately 

reference the USMCA. Commerce also 

adopted additional non-substantive 

amendments, including updating 

outdated cross-references to 

Commerce’s antidumping and 

countervailing duty regulations (19 CFR 

part 351), updating outdated notice, 

filing, service, and protective order 

procedures, and adopting other minor 

corrections and updates. These changes 

are explained in the preamble of this 

rule and reflected in the regulatory text 

below. 

Explanation of Regulatory Updates in 

the Interim Final Rule 

1. Updates To Reflect the Enactment of 

the USMCA 

Commerce’s regulations in 19 CFR 

part 356 implement procedures for 

disputes pursuant to Article 1904 of 

NAFTA. Because NAFTA was replaced 

pursuant to the enactment of the 

USMCA, Commerce’s regulations in this 

section require updates to reflect the 

name of the new agreement and the 

relevant chapter contained in the new 

Agreement. Therefore, Commerce 

adopted several changes throughout part 

356 to replace references to NAFTA 

with references to the USMCA. 

Commerce also adopted several changes 

throughout part 356 to replace 

references to section 402(g) of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act of 1993 with 

reference to section 412(g) of the United 

States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 

Implementation Act of 2020, which 

authorized Commerce to promulgate 

such regulations as necessary or 

appropriate to implement its 

responsibilities under chapter 10 of the 

USMCA.5

These changes are reflected in the title 

of part 356 and §§ 356.1, 356.2(d), 

356.2(f), and 356.2(kk) (replacing 

references to North American Free 

Trade Agreement or NAFTA with 

United States-Mexico-Canada 

Agreement or USMCA); §§ 356.1, 

356.2(f), (o), (p), and (cc)(3), 

356.10(b)(1)(ii)(B), and 356.11(a)(1)(i) 

and (b)(2)(ii) (replacing references to 

Article 1904 of NAFTA with Article 

10.12 of USMCA); §§ 356.2, 356.3, 

356.4, 356.10(b)(4)(i), 356.11(a)(5) and 

(6) (replacing references to Article 1904 

Panel Rules with Article 10.12 

Binational Panel Rules); § 356.1 

(replacing references to section 402(g) of 

the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act of 1993 

with section 412(g) of the United StatesMexico-Canada Implementation Act of 

2020); § 356.2 (replacing the signing 

date of NAFTA, December 17, 1992 with 

the signing date of the amended 

USMCA, November 30, 2018); 

§ 356.2(h), (p), and (w) (replacing 

references to Chapter Nineteen with 

Chapter Ten); § 356.2(h) (replacing 

references to Annex 1901.2 with Annex 

10–B.1); in § 356.2(p) (replacing 

references to Annex 1904.13 with 

Annex 10–B.3); § 356.2(q) (replacing 

references to Article 1911 with Article 

10.8); § 356.2(ff) (replacing references to 

Article 2002 with Article 30.6); and 

§ 356.2(r) (replacing references to 

section 516A(f)(9) of the Act with 

section 516A(f)(10) of the Act). 

Commerce also removed several 

references to the United States-Canada 

Free Trade Agreement, which was 

superseded by NAFTA. Commerce’s 

regulations contained provisions 

governing dispute resolution pursuant 

to the United States-Canada Free Trade 

Agreement. Because there are no active 

disputes pursuant to that agreement, 

Commerce removed reference to the 

United States-Canada Free Trade 

Agreement throughout its regulations. 

These changes are reflected in the 

revised §§ 356.2(d), 356.10(c)(1)(ii), and 

356.11(c)(1)(ii). 

2. Updates To Address Obsolete 

Regulatory Cross-References 

Commerce also updated outdated 

regulatory cross-references in 19 CFR 

part 356 to 19 CFR part 353 (addressing 

antidumping duty rules and procedures) 

and 355 (addressing countervailing duty 

rules and procedures) which became 

obsolete when Commerce consolidated 

parts 353 and 355 into a single part 351 

in 1997.6 Despite the 1997 

consolidation, references to obsolete 

parts 353 and 355 remain in part 356. 

Therefore, Commerce removed obsolete 

cross-references to parts 353 and 355 

and replaced them with updated 

references to 19 CFR part 351 to reflect 

the 1997 consolidation of the AD/CVD 

regulations and any relevant subsequent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 6013 

7See, e.g., 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997); 73 FR 

3627 (Jan. 22, 2008); 76 FR 39275 (July 6, 2011); 80 

FR 36473 (June 25, 2015); and 85 FR 17007 (March 

26, 2020). 

8This language originated in the 1988 interim 

final rule for the United States-Canada Free Trade 

Agreement. See Panel Review Under Article 1904 of 

the U.S.-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, 53 FR 

53232, 53233 (Dec. 30, 1988) (interim final rule). 

9Similarly, the relevant language in USMCA 

Article 10.12.4 does not specify the method by 

which the importing Party must notify the other 

involved Party of determinations not published in 

the official journal: ‘‘In the case of final 

determinations that are not published in the official 

journal of the importing Party, the importing Party 

shall immediately notify the other involved Party of 

such final determination where it involves goods 

from the other involved Party, and the other 

involved Party may request a panel within 30 days 

of receipt of such notice.’’ Nor do the Article 10.12 

Binational Panel Rules, which state at Article 

39(2)(c) that a Request for Panel Review must 

contain ‘‘the date on which the notice of the final 

determination was received by the other Party if the 

final determination was not published in an official 

publication.’’ There are no specific requirements on 

the method of notification. 

regulatory changes Commerce made to 

part 351 thereafter.7

These changes are reflected in 

§ 356.2(u) (replacing cross-references to 

19 CFR 353.31(e)(2)(i) through (v) or 

355.31(e)(2)(i) through (v) with 19 CFR 

351.303(d)(2), which outlines 

Commerce’s current requirements for 

document submissions with respect to 

specifications and first page ‘‘letter of 

transmittal’’ markings); §§ 356.7(b) and 

356.8(d) (replacing cross-references to 

19 CFR 353.31(d) and (e)(2) and 19 CFR 

355.31(d) and (e)(2) with references to 

19 CFR 351.303(b) and (d)(2), which 

outline Commerce’s current format and 

filing requirements for document 

submissions); §§ 356.7(c) and 356.8(d) 

(replacing cross-references to 19 CFR 

353.31(g) and 19 CFR 355.31(g) with 

reference to current 19 CFR 351.303(f) 

which outlines Commerce’s current 

service requirements). 

3. Updates To Address Outdated Notice, 

Filing, Service, and Protective Order 

Procedures 

Commerce also updated its 

regulations relating to certain outdated 

notice procedures. Specifically, current 

§§ 356.6 and 356.7 provide that 

Commerce will notify governments of 

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Countries 

of scope determinations and 

contemplate that such determinations 

not be published in the Federal 

Register.8 Under current § 356.6, when 

Commerce makes a scope 

determination, notice of such scope 

determination shall be deemed received 

by the Government of an FTA country 

when a certified copy of the 

determination is delivered to the 

chancery of the Embassy of the FTA. 

Under Commerce’s current 

procedures, scope rulings under 19 CFR 

351.225 are a type of ‘‘class or kind 

determination,’’ a term that also 

encompasses circumvention 

determinations under section 781 of the 

Act. In some instances, a class or kind 

determination may be published in the 

Federal Register. Otherwise, interested 

parties will be notified of a 

determination through other means, 

including through mailing or electronic 

means. Section 516A(g)(10) of the Act, 

as amended by the USMCA 

Implementation Act, provides that 

Commerce, upon request, shall inform 

any interested person of the date on 

which the Government of the relevant 

FTA country received notice of the 

determination. However, the statute is 

silent as to the method of notice to the 

government of an FTA country, and, 

therefore, it is left to the discretion of 

Commerce.9

Accordingly, Commerce revised 

§ 356.6 to state that notice shall be 

deemed received either on the date on 

which the class or kind determination is 

published in the Federal Register, or, if 

the determination is not published, on 

the date on which Commerce conveys a 

copy of the determination by electronic 

notification to the government. Further, 

in instances in which Commerce does 

not publish the determination, these 

changes will require that Commerce: (1) 

confirm the appropriate Embassy 

electronic mail address, and (2) directly 

convey to the Embassy an electronic 

copy of the determination during the 

Embassy’s normal business hours. 

Commerce also adopted changes to 

reflect that ‘‘class or kind 

determination’’ is a more accurate term 

than ‘‘scope determination’’ for these 

types of determinations. Similar edits 

are reflected in § 356.7. In addition, for 

ease of reference, the definition for 

scope determination in § 356.2(ee) has 

been expanded to include reference to 

class or kind of merchandise 

determination. 

Commerce also amended §§ 356.10 

and 356.11 regarding the procedures for 

access to proprietary and privileged 

information during a USMCA binational 

panel dispute. Current § 356.10 requires 

a party seeking access to proprietary 

information to do so by submitting an 

application for a protective order. Such 

applications are to be filed with the U.S. 

section of the USMCA Secretariat, 

which in turn provides the applications 

to Commerce. Upon approving the 

application, Commerce will then issue 

the protective order to the Secretariat, 

which in turn will issue the protective 

order to the original applicant along 

with other participating parties to the 

dispute. The procedures in 

§ 356.10(b)(3) have been updated to 

remove the requirement for manual 

filing. 

Additionally, current § 356.10(b)(4)(ii) 

provides the method of service by 

which a protective order may be served. 

Because this provision does not 

currently account for service by 

electronic means, which is now 

permitted by the U.S. section of the 

Secretariat under the Article 10.12 

Binational Panel Rules, Commerce 

added language to § 356.10(b)(4)(ii)(B) to 

allow for electronic means as a method 

of service for protective orders. Further, 

Commerce added an additional 

provision (§ 356.10(b)(4)(ii)(D)) to reflect 

that the U.S. section of the Secretariat 

allows for the filing of documents using 

an electronic filing platform to satisfy 

service requirements under the Article 

10.12 Binational Panel Rules. Commerce 

is also adding corresponding language 

to § 356.10(b)(4)(iii) regarding the date 

of service if a document is served by 

electronic means or filed using the 

electronic filing platform. 

Commerce is also revising §§ 356.7(b); 

356.8(d)(1); 356.10(b)(3) through (5), 

(c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i) and (v), (c)(3), (c)(4)(i), 

and (d)(2), 356.11(a)(2) and (3), (a)(5)(i) 

and (ii), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2) and (3), and 

(d)(2) to remove language requiring 

originals and multiple copies, as such a 

requirement has been made obsolete. 

Moreover, Commerce is also revising 

§§ 356.10(b)(1)(ii)(C), 356.11(b)(2)(iii), 

356.12(a)(5), 356.14(d)(2) and (4), and 

356.18(c)(4) to remove language 

requiring parties to return documents 

released under protective order and to 

log the use of proprietary documents, as 

such requirements have become 

obsolete, and to instead require parties 

to destroy and certify to the destruction 

of documents released under protective 

order. 

4. Other Minor Corrections and Updates 

Commerce also adopted minor 

corrections and updates to part 356 in 

§§ 356.10(b)(1)(i) and 356.11(b)(1) 

(updating the address and the room 

number of the Central Records Unit); 

§§ 356.7(b) and 356.8(d)(1) (updating 

the address and the room number of the 

APO/Dockets Unit); §§ 356.2(ee) and 

356.27(d) (correcting punctuation); 

§ 356.2(kk) (correcting the address of the 

Commerce Department); § 356.2(bb)(2) 

(updating the name of Mexico’s 

Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento 

Industrial to the Secretariat of 

Economy); and § 356.11(c)(3) (adding a 

missing word in the title of the 

paragraph). In addition, Commerce 

updated the definition of the term 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
6014 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Administrative Protective Order 

Procedures; Procedures for Imposing Sanctions for 

Violation of a Protective Order, 85 FR 24391, 24400, 

24403 (May 4, 1998) (final rule) (revising the 

definition of the term ‘‘director’’ in 19 CFR 354.2 

to include ‘‘Senior APO Specialist’’ and to conform 

with changes in office director positions following 

an internal reorganization). 

11Agro Dutch Indus. v. United States, 589 F.3d 

1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. 

Cir. 1983)). 

12See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada, 69 FR 75917 (Dec. 20, 2004); see also 

GOC’s Comments at Attachment A. 

13See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada, 85 FR 77163 (Dec. 1, 2020) (Canadian 

Lumber 2021); see also GOC’s Comments at 

Attachment B (ACCESS barcode: 4075213–01) 

(Canadian Lumber 2021 Memo). 

14See Canadian Lumber 2021 Memo at 1. 

15The Interim Rule also revised 19 CFR 356.6 and 

356.7 to use the term ‘‘class or kind determination’’ 

instead of ‘‘scope determination.’’ Procedures and 

Rules for Article 10.12 of the United States-MexicoCanada Agreement, 86 FR 70045, 70047 (Dec. 9, 

2021) (Interim Rule). 

16Regulations To Improve Administration and 

Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Laws, 86 FR 52300, 52302 (Sep. 20, 2021). 

‘‘director’’ as specified in § 356.2(n) to 

correspond with the current definition 

in 19 CFR part 354, revised by 

Commerce in 1998.10 Finally, we are 

making a minor addition to the interim 

final rule to revise § 356.9 (g) to reflect 

modern practices and procedures in 

USCMA hearings and meetings. 

Commerce added individuals employed 

to provide audiovisual services at 

hearings, meetings or other events as 

needed to the list of persons authorized 

to receive proprietary information to 

that provision, as such persons were not 

included in the past regulation, but 

normally require access to such 

information to provide their services. 

Responses to Comments on the Interim 

Final Rule 

On January 10, 2022, Commerce 

received comments from the 

government of Canada (Canada) on the 

interim final rule. We have made some 

clarifying edits to the interim final rule 

in response to those comments. 

Suspension of Liquidation Pending 

Binational Panel Review 

Canada requests that Commerce 

amend 19 CFR 356.8 to clarify that 

Commerce will order continued 

suspension of liquidation pending 

binational panel review upon request by 

a foreign government interested party 

that satisfies the criteria set out in 19 

U.S.C 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i). Canada argues 

that in 19 U.S.C 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i) (which 

generally covers parties to a 

proceeding), Congress did not intend to 

further limit the scope of suspension 

requests by foreign government 

interested parties. Canada further argues 

that 19 U.S.C 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) (which 

lists the parties who can request 

continued suspension of liquidation) 

‘‘does not, in any way, limit the types 

of interested parties that may request 

continued suspension of liquidation 

. . . the eligibility criteria for 

suspension requests are instead set out 

in {19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i)}, which 

requires that Commerce order continued 

suspension of liquidation upon the 

request of an interested party, including 

a foreign government interested party, 

that satisfies those criteria.’’ Canada 

then argues that, because ‘‘liquidation 

moots a party’s claim pertaining to 

liquidated entries,’’ 11 a foreign 

government interested party’s right to 

review would be hollow in situations 

where parties have not requested 

suspension. Therefore, Canada requests 

that Commerce amend 19 CFR 356.8 to 

conform with its interpretation of the 

statute, and to list foreign government 

interested parties as parties that may 

request suspension. 

Canada argues that amending the 

Interim Rules would eliminate 

confusion caused by inconsistencies in 

the wording of the statute and the 

regulation. Canada identified the 2005 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada, where Commerce granted 

Canada’s request for continued 

suspension of liquidation pending 

binational review,12 and the 2021 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada, where Commerce did not grant 

Canada’s request, as inconsistent in this 

respect.13 Canada argues that the 

inconsistent treatment amplifies 

confusion caused by the wording of 19 

CFR 356.8, which does not directly 

address whether foreign government 

interested parties can request 

suspension of liquidation. 

Canada also argues that amending the 

Interim Rules would spare Commerce 

from the burden of addressing hundreds 

of unnecessary individual requests. 

Response: 

We disagree with Canada’s 

interpretation of the statute. Section 19 

U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) does not 

provide for suspension of liquidation 

requests by foreign government 

interested parties. Commerce most 

recently expressed this view in the 

context of Canadian Lumber 2021, in 

which Commerce found that there was 

‘‘no basis in U.S. law’’ for Canada to 

request suspension of liquidation.14

Specifically, because 19 U.S.C. 

1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii) does not include 

foreign government interested parties 

(as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(B)) as 

parties to whom suspension of 

liquidation may apply, the statute does 

not allow for foreign government 

interested parties to request the 

suspension of liquidation. 

We do agree, however, with Canada 

that an amendment to the Interim Rules 

would resolve confusion regarding this 

issue. Therefore, we have amended 19 

CFR 356.8(b)(2) to provide that 

‘‘{f}oreign governments are not listed as 

interested parties who may request the 

continuation of suspension under 19 

U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii).’’ 

Finally, we find that Canada’s 

comments regarding the administrative 

burden of addressing suspension 

requests from interested parties do not 

supersede the correct interpretation of 

the statute. Even if the language 

proposed by Canada were to relieve 

Commerce of an administrative burden, 

that proposed language would conflict 

with the statute, and therefore the 

change proposed by Canada should not 

be adopted by Commerce’s regulations. 

Definition of ‘‘Class or Kind 

Determinations’’ 

Canada requests that Commerce 

amend 19 CFR 356.2(ee) to clarify that 

the definition of ‘‘scope determination 

or class or kind of merchandise 

determination’’ is inclusive of 

circumvention inquiries and covered 

merchandise referral determinations, in 

addition to scope rulings.15 Canada 

argues that retaining ‘‘scope 

determination’’ as part of the term 

defined would be inconsistent with 

Commerce’s stated objective and the 

language of the Tariff Act, in a way that 

risks unnecessary confusion. Therefore, 

Canada requests that Commerce excise 

the words ‘‘scope determination or’’ 

from 19 CFR 356.2(ee), and specify in 19 

CFR 356.2(ee) that all determinations 

issued under § 351.225 (scope 

determinations), § 351.226 

(circumvention determinations), or 

§ 351.227 (covered merchandise 

determinations) fall within the 

definition of ‘‘class or kind of 

merchandise determination.’’ 

Response: 

We agree with Canada. Commerce has 

previously found that circumvention 

inquiries constitute ‘‘class or kind 

determinations.’’ 16 Moreover, we agree 

that it is appropriate to construe covered 

merchandise determinations as class or 

kind determinations as defined by 19 

U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi). Finally, we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 6015 

agree that the inclusion of the words 

‘‘scope determination or’’ in 19 CFR 

356.2(ee) is confusing and 

inappropriate, because circumvention 

and covered merchandise 

determinations are distinct from scope 

determinations, but are nonetheless 

considered class or kind determinations. 

Therefore, we adopt the amendments 

proposed by Canada with respect to 19 

CFR 356.2(ee). 

APO Application Deadlines 

Canada requests that Commerce 

amend 19 CFR 356.10(c)(2)(i) to 

conform deadlines for considering 

administrative protective order (APO) 

applications to those deadlines not 

covered by the USMCA. Canada argues 

that that § 356.10(c) of the interim rules 

provides too long a period for parties to 

object to APO applications and is 

inconsistent with Commerce’s 

procedures for APO applications 

outside of binational panel reviews. 

Specifically, interim rule § 356.10(c)(2) 

precludes Commerce from ruling on the 

person described in 19 CFR 356.9(b) 

‘‘until at least ten days after the request 

is filed, unless there is compelling need 

to rule more expeditiously.’’ This 

section further provides that any person 

may file an objection to an application 

within seven days of its filing. 

Canada urges Commerce to shorten 

the period for parties to object, noting 

that there is no comparable provision in 

Commerce’s non-USMCA regulations. 

Canada notes that 19 CFR 351.305(c) 

works well in general and would also 

work well in USMCA proceedings. 

Moreover, there is nothing in either the 

Rules of Procedure for Article 10.12, or 

the Court of International Trade 

procedures that would require this 

disparate treatment. 

Response: 

Commerce disagrees with Canada and 

is making no changes to its interim rule 

in this regard. Canada acknowledges 

that Commerce did not make 

substantive changes to 19 CFR 

356.10(c)(2), and Commerce only 

updated its APO rules in 19 CFR 

351.310(c) to remove the need for 

manual filing of APO applications. A 

change in the deadline for parties to 

object to APO applications was not 

included in Article 10.12 of the USMCA 

and was not contemplated by Commerce 

in the Interim Rule. Moreover, Canada 

does not provide a compelling reason 

for its proposed change. We disagree 

with Canada that we should conform 

our APO deadlines to the comparable 

provision in regulations outside of those 

governing binational panel reviews. The 

regulations and procedures for 

binational panel reviews, housed in 19 

CFR part 356, are distinct from 

regulations governing Commerce’s 

standard antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings, and 

therefore do not necessarily need to be 

conformed with those regulations. It has 

been Commerce’s practice since the 

promulgation of the original 19 CFR 

356.10(c)(2) to allow ten days before 

ruling on an APO application in a 

binational panel review. Therefore, the 

change proposed by Canada, pertaining 

to the length of time parties have to 

object to APO applications, is not 

necessary or appropriate here. 

Classifications 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Under section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553), agencies generally are 

required to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register that 

solicits public comment on the 

proposed regulatory amendments, 

consider public comments in deciding 

on the content of the final amendments, 

and publish the final amendments at 

least 30 days prior to their effective 

date. The APA (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) 

provides a statutory exemption to 

notice-and-comment rulemaking for 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice and when the agency finds 

for good cause that such procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Commerce’s 

amendments to the regulation, 19 CFR 

part 356, fall within this exemption. 

Nevertheless, on December 9, 2021, 

Commerce published an interim final 

rule implementing the above changes 

and soliciting comments on those 

revisions. On January 10, 2022, 

Commerce received comments from the 

government of Canada. The changes 

made in this final rule pursuant to 

Canada’s comments will be effective 30 

days after the publication of this rule in 

the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). 

Executive Order 12866 

OMB has not found this rule to be a 

significant rulemaking under Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094. 

Executive Order 13132 

This proposed rule does not contain 

policies with federalism implications as 

that term is defined in section 1(a) of 

Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 

1999 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain a collection 

of information subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 

(PRA). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended, requires 

an agency to prepare and make available 

to the public a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes whether a rule 

will have a significant effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

when the agency is required to publish 

a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Because a notice of 

proposed rulemaking is not necessary 

for this rule, Commerce is not required 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this rule, and none has been 

prepared. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 356 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antidumping, Business and 

industry, Confidential business 

information, Countervailing duties, 

Imports. 

Dated: January 22, 2024. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Commerce 

is adopting the interim rule amending 

19 CFR part 356 published December 9, 

2021, at 86 FR 70045, as final with the 

following changes: 

PART 356—PROCEDURES AND 

RULES FOR ARTICLE 10.12 OF THE 

UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA 

AGREEMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 356 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1516a and 1677f(f), 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 356.2, revise paragraph (ee) to 

read as follows: 

§ 356.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(ee) Class or kind of merchandise 

determination means a determination by 

the Department, reviewable under 

section 516A(a)(2)(B)(vi) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)), as to whether 

a particular type of merchandise is 

within the class or kind of merchandise 

described in an existing finding of 

dumping or an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order covering free 

trade area country merchandise. This 

includes Department rulings and 

determinations issued under §§ 351.225, 

351.226, and 351.227. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 356.8, revise paragraph (b)(2) to 

read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
6016 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 356.8 Continued suspension of 

liquidation. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A participant in a binational panel 

review that was a domestic party to the 

proceeding, as described in section 

771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), (F) and 

(G)), may request continued suspension 

of liquidation of entries of merchandise 

covered by the administrative 

determination under review by the 

panel and that would be affected by the 

panel review. Foreign governments are 

not listed as interested parties who may 

request the continuation of suspension 

under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(C)(iii). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 356.9, revise paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 356.9 Persons authorized to receive 

proprietary information 

* * * * * 

(g) Every court report, interpreter, and 

translator employed in a panel or 

extraordinary challenge committee 

review, as well as individuals employed 

to provide audiovisual services at 

hearings, meetings, or other events as 

needed. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01475 Filed 1–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0225; FRL–10919–02– 

OCSPP] 

O-Benzyl-P-Chlorophenol (OBPCP); 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of ortho-benzylpara-chlorophenol, potassium 2-benzyl4-chlorophenate, and sodium 2-benzyl4-chlorophenate on food contact 

surfaces when applied/used in public 

eating places, dairy processing 

equipment, and/or food processing 

equipment and utensils. These tolerance 

exemptions are established on the 

Agency’s own initiative under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), in order to implement the 

tolerance actions EPA identified during 

its review of these chemicals as part of 

the Agency’s registration review 

program under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

January 31, 2024. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before April 1, 2024, and must be 

filed in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0225, is 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room and the OPP 

docket is (202) 566–1744. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division 

(7510M), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; main telephone number: 

(202) 566–0736; email address: 

ADFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a pesticide 

manufacturer. The following list of 

North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Office of the Federal 

Register’s e-CFR site at https://

www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2023–0255 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing and must be received 

by the Hearing Clerk in the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judges on or before 

April 1, 2024. Notwithstanding the 

procedural requirements of 40 CFR 

178.25(b), the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judges has issued 

an order urging parties to file and serve 

documents with the Tribunal by 

electronic means only. See Revised 

Order Urging Electronic Filing and 

Service (dated June 22, 2023), https://

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/ 

2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised

%20order%20urging%20electronic

%20filing%20and%20service.pdf. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2023–0225, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1