8530 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 19 / Thursday, January 30, 2025 / Notices 

specific consent for using precise 

geolocation and driver behavior data 

and sell that same data to third parties, 

including consumer reporting agencies 

that compile consumer reports with the 

data for insurance purposes. As a result 

of these practices, consumers have 

experienced loss of auto insurance 

coverage, unexpected increases in 

insurance premiums, as well as the loss 

of privacy about sensitive locations they 

visit and their day-to-day movements. 

The Commission’s proposed a twocount complaint alleges that 

Respondents violated section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act by (1) unfairly using and 

disclosing precise geolocation and 

driver behavior data without taking 

reasonable steps to obtain consumers’ 

affirmative express consent prior to 

collection, and (2) deceptively failing to 

disclose Respondents’ uses and 

disclosure of that same data. With 

respect to the first count, the proposed 

complaint alleges that Respondents do 

not obtain affirmative express consent to 

sell consumers’ precise geolocation and 

driver behavior data to third parties, 

including consumer reporting agencies. 

The proposed complaint alleges that 

this practice caused, or is likely to 

cause, substantial injury to consumers 

that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition 

and is not reasonably avoidable by 

consumers themselves. With respect to 

the second count, the proposed 

complaint alleges that Respondents’ 

failure to disclose their actual use and 

sharing of drivers’ precise geolocation 

and driver behavior data was deceptive; 

Respondents did not disclose to 

consumers that it would be sharing this 

data with third parties, including 

consumer reporting agencies for 

insurance purposes, which led to 

consumers being denied auto insurance 

coverage and having their auto 

insurance premiums increased. 

Summary of Proposed Order With 

Respondents 

The Proposed Order contains 

injunctive relief designed to prevent 

Respondents from engaging in the same 

or similar acts or practices in the future. 

Provision I prohibits Respondents for 

five years from sharing certain 

geolocation and driver behavior data 

with consumer reporting agencies. 

Provision II requires Respondents to 

obtain affirmative express consent prior 

to the collection, use, and sharing of 

certain geolocation and driver behavior 

data. This provision includes carve-outs 

for, among other things, responding to 

consumer-initiated communication, 

safety-enhancing research and 

development, diagnostics and 

prognostics, and providing necessary 

information in case of an emergency. 

Provision III requires that Respondents 

provide consumers the ability to 

withhold or withdraw affirmative 

express consent to the collection, use, 

and sharing of certain geolocation and 

driver behavior data. Provision IV limits 

Respondents’ data collection to that 

which is reasonably necessary to fulfill 

the specific purpose for which it was 

collected. 

Provision V requires Respondents to 

create a retention schedule for certain 

geolocation and driver behavior data 

they collect that is tied to the purpose 

for which the data is collected, the 

business need for retaining it, and the 

timeframe for deleting it. Provision VI 

requires Respondents to delete certain 

geolocation and driver behavior data 

previously collected without 

consumers’ affirmative express consent. 

It also provides Respondents the 

opportunity to obtain consumers’ 

affirmative express consent to retain 

previously collected geolocation and 

driver behavior data. This provision 

includes exceptions for safety, 

warranties, prognostics and diagnostics, 

legal or regulatory requirements, and 

research and development. Provision 

VII requires Respondents to provide all 

consumers the ability to request a copy 

of their geolocation and driver behavior 

data and to request that such data be 

deleted. Provision VIII requires 

Respondents to request third parties 

with whom it has previously shared 

certain geolocation and driver behavior 

data to delete that data and to not 

engage in further sharing with third 

parties that fail to respond to such 

requests. Provision IX requires 

Respondents to ensure consumers can 

disable collection of precise geolocation 

data from their vehicles. The provision 

includes exceptions for emergency 

response and responding to consumerinitiated requests. Provision X provides 

consumers the ability to fully opt out of 

collection of all data with narrow 

exclusions for consumer-initiated 

communication, safety, and over-the-air 

updates. This provision is unique to the 

Proposed Order. Provision XI prohibits 

Respondents from misrepresenting 

information regarding their collection, 

use, sharing, and deletion of consumers’ 

geolocation and driver behavior data. 

Provisions XII–XV are reporting and 

compliance provisions, which include 

recordkeeping requirements and 

provisions requiring Respondents to 

provide information or documents 

necessary for the Commission to 

monitor compliance. Provision XVI 

states that the Proposed Order will 

remain in effect for 20 years, with 

certain exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Proposed Order, and it is not intended 

to constitute an official interpretation of 

the complaint or Proposed Order, or to 

modify the Proposed Order’s terms in 

any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Joel Christie, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01940 Filed 1–29–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 161 0215/Docket No. C–4604] 

Petition of Enbridge Inc. To Reopen 

and Set Aside Order 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Announcement of petition; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Enbridge Inc. (‘‘Enbridge’’ or 

‘‘the company’’) has requested that the 

Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) reopen and set aside the 

Commission’s Decision and Order 

entered on March 22, 2017 (the 

‘‘Order’’), concerning ownership 

interests in competing natural gas 

pipelines. The company wants the FTC 

to set aside the Order given changes in 

the factual conditions that led to its 

entry almost eight years ago. Publication 

of the petition from Enbridge is not 

intended to affect the legal status of the 

petition or its final disposition. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write: ‘‘Enbridge Petition 

to Reopen; Docket No. C–4604’’ on your 

comment and file your comment online 

at www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, please mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail 

Stop H–144 (Annex E), Washington, DC 

20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maribeth Petrizzi (202–326–2564), 

Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(g) of the Federal Trade 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 19 / Thursday, January 30, 2025 / Notices 8531 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(g), and 

FTC Rule 2.51, 16 CFR 2.51, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

petition has been filed with the 

Secretary of the Commission and is 

being placed on the public record for a 

period of 30 days. After the period for 

public comments has expired and no 

later than one hundred and twenty (120) 

days after the date of the filing of the 

request, the Commission shall 

determine whether to reopen the 

proceeding and modify or set aside the 

Order as requested. In making its 

determination, the Commission will 

consider, among other information, all 

timely and responsive comments 

submitted in connection with this 

notice. 

The text of petition is provided below. 

An electronic copy of the filed petition 

and the exhibits attached to it can be 

obtained from the FTC website at this 

web address: https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/c4604enbridge

petitiontoreopenmodify.pdf. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before March 3, 2025. Write ‘‘Enbridge 

Petition to Reopen; Docket No. C–4604’’ 

on your comment. Your comment— 

including your name and your State— 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the www.regulations.gov 

website. 

Because of the agency’s heightened 

security screening, postal mail 

addressed to the Commission will be 

subject to delay. We strongly encourage 

you to submit your comments online 

through the www.regulations.gov 

website. If you prefer to file your 

comment on paper, write ‘‘Enbridge 

Petition to Reopen; Docket No. C–4604’’ 

on your comment and on the envelope, 

and mail your comment to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop 

H–144 (Annex E), Washington, DC 

20580. If possible, submit your paper 

comment to the Commission by 

overnight service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

www.regulations.gov, you are solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’s Social Security number; date of 

birth; driver’s license number or other 

State identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on 

www.regulations.gov—as legally 

required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot 

redact or remove your comment from 

that website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at https://

www.ftc.gov to read this document and 

the news release describing this matter. 

The FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before March 3, 2025. For information 

on the Commission’s privacy policy, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/ 

site-information/privacy-policy. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Joel Christie, 

Acting Secretary. 

Text of Petition of Enbridge Inc. To 

Reopen and Set Aside the Decision and 

Order 

Under section 5(b) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 14 U.S.C. 45(b), 

and § 2.51 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 

2.51, Respondent Enbridge Inc. 

(‘‘Enbridge’’) respectfully requests that 

the Commission reopen and set aside 

the Commission’s Decision and Order 

entered on March 22, 2017, in Docket 

No. C–4604 (the ‘‘Order’’) because 

Enbridge no longer holds an indirect 

ownership interest in the Discovery 

Pipeline, which was the indirect 

ownership interest giving rise to the 

Order. 

The Commission entered the Order to 

address the potential that the merger of 

Enbridge and Spectra Energy Corp. 

(‘‘Spectra’’) would reduce competition 

between two natural gas pipelines in 

deep offshore gas-producing regions in 

the Gulf of Mexico: (1) the Walker Ridge 

Pipeline, which Enbridge owned and 

operated through a wholly-owned 

subsidiary, and (2) the Discovery 

Pipeline. Williams Partners, LP (which 

is now Williams Companies, Inc. and is 

referred to in both organizational forms 

herein as ‘‘Williams’’) had majority 

control of the Discovery Pipeline and 

was the operator; Spectra had an 

indirect, minority ownership interest 

through its interests in DCP Midstream, 

LLC (‘‘DCP’’). Among other things, the 

Order required Enbridge both (1) to 

prevent access to, or the disclosure or 

use of, competitively sensitive 

information that could facilitate 

coordination between the Walker Ridge 

Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline and 

(2) to restrict its ability to exercise 

contractual rights that could diminish 

the Discovery Pipeline’s ability to 

compete against the Walker Ridge 

Pipeline. 

On August 1, 2024, Williams acquired 

the entirety of DCP’s minority interest in 

the Discovery Pipeline, as reflected in 

the Assignment and Assumption 

Agreement between DCP Asset 

Holdings, LP, and Williams Field 

Services Group, LLC, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1 (and for which confidential 

treatment is requested). See also 

Williams Companies Inc., Quarterly 

Report (Form 10Q), at 36 (Aug. 5, 2024), 

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/ 

edgar/data/0000107263/

000010726324000077/wmb20240630.htm. After the acquisition by 

Williams, Enbridge no longer has an 

interest in the Discovery Pipeline that 

would provide access to competitively 

sensitive information concerning the 

Discovery Pipeline, or an ability to 

influence decisions concerning the 

Discovery Pipeline. In light of these 

changed circumstances, Enbridge 

hereby petitions the Commission to 

reopen and set aside the Order. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
8532 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 19 / Thursday, January 30, 2025 / Notices 

I. Background 

A. Initial Transaction 

On September 5, 2016, Enbridge and 

Spectra entered into a merger 

agreement. Commission staff raised 

concerns that the merger would violate 

section 7 of the Clayton Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 45. Specifically, 

Commission staff alleged that the 

merger was likely to reduce competition 

by facilitating coordination between the 

Walker Ridge Pipeline and the 

Discovery Pipeline. As a means of 

resolving those concerns, Enbridge and 

Spectra entered into a Consent 

Agreement in which they agreed to 

comply with a Decision and Order. The 

Commission approved the Decision and 

Order on March 22, 2017. 

B. The Order 

The Order imposes restrictions to 

ensure that competitively sensitive 

information related to Williams or the 

Discovery Pipeline is not made available 

to, or used by, Enbridge employees 

associated with the Walker Ridge 

Pipeline. Provision II.C restricts those 

Enbridge employees from influencing 

operational decisions pertaining to the 

Discovery Pipeline. Provision II.B of the 

Order also restricts the disclosure of 

competitively sensitive information 

concerning the Walker Ridge Pipeline to 

entities with an interest in the Discovery 

Pipeline. 

Under Provision II.D of the Order, 

Enbridge is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with the terms of the Order, 

and is directed to distribute information 

and training regarding the Order on an 

annual basis. Additionally, a monitor 

was in place for five years following the 

closing of the merger. 

C. Enbridge’s Compliance With the 

Order 

Enbridge filed compliance reports 

with the Commission on March 29, 

2017, May 23, 2017, February 15, 2018, 

February 14, 2019, February 10, 2020, 

February 11, 2021, February 8, 2022, 

February 16, 2023, and February 15, 

2024. In accordance with its 

responsibilities under the Order, 

Enbridge put in place policies and 

procedures to ensure that those 

involved in the Discovery Pipeline, as 

well as employees and contractors who 

become involved in Enbridge’s offshore 

operations, received training as part of 

a standardized onboarding process on 

the information restrictions put in place. 

Moreover, Enbridge circulated an 

annual training guidance to (i) its 

representatives involved in the 

oversight of the Discovery Pipeline as 

well as those assisting them in their 

duties, (ii) the entities through which 

Enbridge had indirect ownership of the 

Discovery Pipeline, and (iii) all 

employees and contractors involved in 

Enbridge’s offshore operations. Since 

the entry of the Order, no remedial 

actions have been necessary to address 

breaches of the information restrictions 

imposed by the Commission. 

D. Elimination of Enbridge’s Interest in 

the Discovery Pipeline 

On August 1, 2024, Williams acquired 

DCP’s interest in Discovery Producer 

Services, LLC. The acquisition 

eliminated Enbridge’s indirect interest 

in the Discovery Pipeline, and, as set 

forth in the declaration attached hereto 

as Exhibit 2, Enbridge has no current 

intention of acquiring any further 

interest in the Discovery Pipeline in the 

future, either directly or indirectly. 

II. The Commission Should Reopen and 

Set Aside the Order in View of the 

Changed Conditions of Fact and the 

Public Interest 

A. Changed Conditions of Fact 

Section 5(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

45(b), and § 2.51(b) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.51(b), 

provide that the Commission may 

reopen and modify an order if the 

respondent makes a satisfactory 

showing that changed conditions of fact 

or law require the order to be altered, 

modified, or set aside, or that the public 

interest so requires. The Commission 

has stated that a ‘‘satisfactory showing 

sufficient to require reopening is made 

when a request identified significant 

changes in circumstances and shows 

that the changes eliminate the need for 

the order or make continued application 

of it inequitable or harmful to 

competition.’’ Eli Lilly & Co., Dkt. No. 

C–3594, Order Reopening and Setting 

Aside Order, at 2 (May 13, 1999). 

In cases such as this, where the 

Respondent has no ownership interest 

in the business covered by the Order, 

the Commission has recognized that 

‘‘the factual premise underlying the 

concerns that led to entry of the Order’’ 

has substantially changed, and setting 

aside the Order is justified. Entergy 

Corp., Dkt. No. C–3998, Order 

Reopening and Setting Aside Order, at 

3 (July 1, 2005); see also Johnson & 

Johnson, Dkt. No. C–4154, Order 

Reopening and Setting Aside Order 

(May 25, 2006), at 4 (finding that ‘‘there 

is no reason to keep the Order in place’’ 

where there is no longer any reason to 

be concerned about the potential harm 

to competition that formed the ‘‘basic 

premise of the Order’’). 

The elimination of Enbridge’s indirect 

ownership interest in the Discovery 

Pipeline constitutes a changed 

condition of fact that justifies the 

Commission to set aside the Order. The 

Order was entered to ensure that, after 

its merger with Spectra, Enbridge’s 

indirect interest in the Discovery 

Pipeline would not reduce competition 

between the Discovery Pipeline and the 

Walker Ridge Pipeline. Enbridge no 

longer has an interest in the Discovery 

Pipeline. Thus, the need for an Order to 

restrict the conduct of Enbridge and its 

employees is no longer necessary to 

ensure the independent operation of, 

and competition between, the Discovery 

Pipeline and the Walker Ridge Pipeline. 

B. Public Interest 

Because changed circumstances 

warrant reopening and setting aside the 

order here, it is not necessary for the 

Commission to consider whether setting 

aside the Order would serve the public 

interest. See Entergy Corp., Order 

Reopening and Setting Aside Order, at 

3 (‘‘[W]e do not need to assess the 

sufficiency of Entergy’s and EKLP’s 

public interest showing because the 

Commission has determined that 

Entergy and EKLP have made the 

requisite satisfactory showing that 

changed conditions of fact require the 

Order to be reopened and set aside.’’). 

However, should the Commission deem 

it necessary to assess the public interest 

in setting aside the Order, it would be 

in the public interest. 

Enbridge meets the public interest 

requirement of § 2.51(b) because, among 

other reasons, ‘‘the order in whole or in 

part is no longer needed.’’ Requests to 

Reopen, 65 FR 50,636, 50,637 (Aug. 21, 

2000) (amending 16 CFR 2.51(b)). As a 

result of Williams’s acquisition, 

Enbridge no longer has an interest in the 

Discovery Pipeline, and thus, the public 

interest is no longer served by the 

Order. At the same time, setting aside 

the Order would eliminate the 

unnecessary costs and burdens to 

Enbridge and the Commission during 

the remainder of the term of the Order. 

III. Conclusion 

Enbridge respectfully requests that the 

Commission reopen and set aside the 

Order. Setting aside the Order is 

justified by changed conditions of fact 

and is consistent with the public 

interest. 

Dated: December 13, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Joseph Matelis 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 19 / Thursday, January 30, 2025 / Notices 8533 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2 90 FR 1957 and 90 FR 1962 (January 10, 2025). 

3Commissioner Rhonda Schmidtlein not 

participating. 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2 90 FR 1435 and 90 FR 1443, January 8, 2025. 

3Commissioner Johanson determined that there is 

a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is 

threatened with material injury by reason of subject 

imports. Commissioner Schmidtlein did not 

participate in the vote. 

Joseph Matelis, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 

1700 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700, 

Washington DC 20007, Attorney for 

Respondent Enbridge. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01939 Filed 1–29–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–751 and 731– 

TA–1729 (Preliminary)] 

Erythritol From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of erythritol from China, provided for in 

subheading 2905.49.40 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that are alleged to be sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) and alleged to be 

subsidized by the government of 

China.2 3

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in § 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative 

preliminary determinations in the 

investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) 

of the Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. 

Parties that filed entries of appearance 

in the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not enter a separate 

appearance for the final phase of the 

investigations. Any other party may file 

an entry of appearance for the final 

phase of the investigations after 

publication of the final phase notice of 

scheduling. Industrial users, and, if the 

merchandise under investigation is sold 

at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations have the right 

to appear as parties in Commission 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations. The Secretary will 

prepare a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. As provided in 

section 207.20 of the Commission’s 

rules, the Director of the Office of 

Investigations will circulate draft 

questionnaires for the final phase of the 

investigations to parties to the 

investigations, placing copies on the 

Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (EDIS, https://

edis.usitc.gov), for comment. 

Background 

On December 13, 2024, Cargill, 

Incorporated, Wayzata, Minnesota filed 

petitions with the Commission and 

Commerce, alleging that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

or threatened with material injury by 

reason of subsidized and LTFV imports 

of erythritol from China. Accordingly, 

effective December 13, 2024, the 

Commission instituted countervailing 

duty investigation No. 701–TA–751 and 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1729 (Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of December 19, 2024 

(89 FR 103876). The Commission 

conducted its conference on January 3, 

2025. All persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to 

participate. 

The Commission made these 

determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) 

and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed 

and filed its determinations in these 

investigations on January 27, 2025. The 

views of the Commission are contained 

in USITC Publication 5583 (February 

2025), entitled Erythritol from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–751 and 

731–TA–1729 (Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 27, 2025. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01970 Filed 1–29–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 

731–TA–1726–1727 (Preliminary)] 

Float Glass Products From China and 

Malaysia 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of float glass products from China and 

Malaysia, provided for in subheadings 

7005.10.80, 7005.21.10, 7005.21.20, 

7005.29.18, 7005.29.25, 7006.00.40, 

7007.19.00, 7007.29.00, 7008.00.00, 

7009.91.50, and 7009.92.50 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that are alleged to be sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) and imports of the 

subject merchandise from China and 

Malaysia that are alleged to be 

subsidized by the governments of China 

and Malaysia.2 3

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in § 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative 

preliminary determinations in the 

investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) 

of the Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. 

Parties that filed entries of appearance 

in the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not enter a separate 

appearance for the final phase of the 

investigations. Any other party may file 

an entry of appearance for the final 

phase of the investigations after 

publication of the final phase notice of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1